Andrew Klavan’s Woke Evil Comes for the Children dissects the left’s push to normalize child gender transitions, citing Ryland’s case—a five-year-old transitioned without scientific backing—and Biden’s executive order expanding gender-affirming care as state-sanctioned "castration." He frames this as moral decay, comparing it to historical abuses like slavery and abortion, while Yoram Hazony argues conservatism must revive Christianity and local federalism to counter "woke neo-Marxist" ideology. The episode ties cultural shifts to liberalism’s post-WWII abandonment of tradition, urging personal and communal resistance over federal policy. Listener Q&A contrasts biblical modesty with media hypocrisy, ending with a call for conservative revival rooted in faith and family. [Automatically generated summary]
As the midterms approach, Democrats find themselves facing two daunting obstacles to success.
One, everything they touch turns to crap, and two, they touch everything.
Many Democrats are also worried that Joe Biden will not be up to doing the job of president after 2024, by which of course they mean not the year, but military time.
Biden, meanwhile, insists that he is fulfilling his campaign promises, which is true given that his campaign promised he'd be a venal incompetent who hides in the basement and blames other people for the nation's problems, sometimes screaming nonsense at American voters like the old man in The Simpsons who yells at clouds, and other times hissing nonsense in an eerie whisper as if he were possessed by one of the lesser demons like Pazuzu or Nancy Pelosi.
Despite these promises made and kept, Biden's approval ratings have continued to decline until his only remaining bastions of support are immaterial forces of demonic evil and Nancy Pelosi.
As for Democrats, senators and congressmen, they have turned their attention to what they should try to accomplish after the midterms are over.
Some suggestions include learn to play the banjo, take long meditative walks to try and figure out why everything you touch turns to crap, sell off your crypto investments and use the profits to buy a lottery ticket in the hope you can hit the big win and get yourself a full tank of gas, or change your name and run for office again disguised in a wig and fake mustache so you can finish the important work of ruining every aspect of American life.
Some Democrats, however, have not given up hope of securing victory and are developing strategies to win back the trust of Americans by locating those Americans who are gullible idiots.
Democrats feel they can identify these perennial dimwits by targeting voters who make such statements as, I believe inflation is transitory, I believe climate change is an existential threat, or I believe that trans women are women.
And if they're not, I should probably pretend I don't remember what happened last Saturday night.
Different Democrats are choosing different approaches to win over these intractable morons.
For instance, California congressman and proven liar Adam the proven liar Schiff has had his district redrawn to only include journalists and other perfidious buffoons who believe his proven lies.
Liar Schiff is planning a major campaign rally for these lowlifes during which he will set his hair on fire and run down the street screaming, Donald Trump is coming, everyone panic, while Bill Crystal limps behind him, muttering, yes, master, and eating flies like Renfield and Dracula.
Senator Chuck Schumer, who has drifted to the far left for fear of a challenge from Alexandria Ecasio-Cortez, has decided he will try to appeal directly to AOC's voters by wearing tight dresses and saying, look at me, I'm an ignoramus.
Eric Swalwell says he will run on his record of banging a Chinese spy, farting on television, and having a last name that sounds like something that needs to be surgically removed.
Swalwell's 2019 bid for the presidency failed after he used the campaign slogan, I am you, and then turned out to be someone else who was banging a Chinese spy.
In his current reelection campaign, Swalwell will instead use the slogan, I am not you, so you no longer have to feel so ashamed.
While Democrat prospects currently look dim if current trends continue and there's a God in heaven, the left could get a surprise lift from angry Donald Trump supporters who say they'll refuse to vote unless the results of the last election are overturned and Trump becomes president for the past two years.
These determined Trump loyalists consider this part of a long-term strategy in which the Democrat majority is allowed to remain in office until they totally destroy the country, whereupon Trump will be able to hold a massive rally and declare, see, I told you the Democrats would totally destroy the country.
As one fierce Trump supporter put it, quote, if that's not victory, I don't know what victory is.
No, really, I have no idea what victory is.
Ring Alarm Pro Revealed00:03:13
Unquote.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey, life is tickety boom.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunky-donkey.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bibby-zing.
It's a wonderful day, hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing!
Ho hurra, hooray!
Oh, hooray, hoorah!
Hooray, hurrah!
We are back laughing our way through the dust and rubble.
That's all that remains of our once-beloved republic.
Today we'll talk about the evil assault on our children that is turning Pride Month into shame month.
We'll have Joram Hazzoni on to talk about the future of conservatism, really interesting book he's written.
And Megan Basham will be here to do her monthly cultural segment.
We're going to talk about possible changes in the news business.
This would be an excellent time to subscribe to Daily Wire so you can support all the terrific stuff we're doing.
Go on Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast, and give us a five-star review and subscribe to the podcast.
That also helps us a lot.
Go on to YouTube and subscribe to the Andrew Clavin channel.
That's my personal channel.
You get exclusive content there that you won't get on the show.
If you ring that little bell, you'll have tintinitis.
But also leave a comment.
And if the comment is sufficiently grotesque and hateful and phobic and all the various isss like sexist and guitarist or whatever, we will read it on the show because it fits right in with the rest of our content.
Today's comment is from Rachel M. who said, I daily wired and chilled once.
Rock auto was said.
Now we have a seven-month-old.
Rachel, I tried to warn you, this is actually the way it works.
So finally, I made vacation plans.
I'm so happy.
I told the Daily Wire, all emails that begin, I know you're on vacation, but will not be read.
I will stop the minute I see that.
I actually turn off everything.
But, but not the Ring Alarm system because you've got to have an alarm system to protect your house while you're away.
And you know that Ring makes the wonderful doorbells that let you talk to anyone who comes to the door no matter where you are.
But Ring Alarm is also an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
You can easily install it yourself.
Ring didn't stop there.
They changed the home security game with Ring Alarm Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro is a next-level security system.
CNET calls Ring Alarm Pro a giant leap for home security with a Ring Protect Pro subscription.
It's an amazing deal.
You get professional monitoring for the ultimate peace of mind.
If anything happens, professional monitoring will call and can request emergency services.
You may not know it, but it's true.
Ring has an award-winning alarm.
And this busy summer season to protect your home, you should GoPro with Ring Alarm Pro.
To learn more, go to ring.com forward slash clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash clavin.
Ask anyone who comes to your door on your app, on your Ring app, say, do you know how to spell Claven?
If he says yes, you set off the alarm.
Kids and Culture Clash00:12:39
All right.
You know, today I'm going to take a close look at the concept of the slippery slope because if there is such a thing as a slippery slope, we are now at the bottom of it.
As I was leaving last week, after I did the show last week, I met up with my son, Spencer Clavin, no relation, and we were going to have a cigar.
We thought we'd drag Knowles out.
And we walked by Knowles' office, and Jeremy, the God-King, was in there with Knowles, and they waved us in.
They said, you have to look at this.
And they showed me this thing.
You've probably heard about it.
I know Knowles was talking about it earlier.
I think this will be a different take, but it's still the same starting point.
This was this report on Fox News, a series called America Together LGBTQ Plus Pride Month.
And Brian Lenis, a Fox news correspondent, was talking about a little girl named Ryland, who they translated, they transstantiated into a boy before he could even speak.
That's what he somehow managed to tell his parents that he wanted to be a boy.
And as I was sitting watching this with my son, I perhaps expostulated several words that we don't like to use on the air.
I don't remember it clearly, but I think I didn't.
Every time I would do that, either Jeremy or Knowles would turn to me and say, it gets worse.
And by the end, I was saying, how can this be?
Here's just a clip of the story.
Before Rylan could even speak, he managed to tell his parents that he is a boy.
I could just see it.
It wasn't him trying to be a brat.
It was like painful.
It was truly painful for him to have to wear feminine clothing and for us constantly telling him that you're a girl.
And unlike some trans kids, when Ryland came out at age five, a few years later, he had the full support of his parents.
Initially, there was some pushback from us in trying to understand this.
We were confused like most people are.
We thought that gender and sexuality were the same thing.
It took us a while to figure out that those two things are different and that children actually do recognize their gender identity very young.
Some of them, not all.
But they listened to Rylan and to Hillary's conservative faith.
For me, it's just a deep spiritual belief that you believe in God and he, you know, created us the way he wanted us.
Well, then yes, he created Ryland just the way he is.
So as I said, I kept expostulating, exclaiming obscene words, and Jeremy and Michael kept saying, wait, wait, it gets worse.
And finally, I said to him, how could it possibly get worse?
And then they waited till they got to the end.
And this is at the end, cut two.
They listened to families.
They met in support groups.
There was a father who was sitting across the table.
He says, you have no idea how lucky you are to be here, which kind of took me back.
I didn't at that point consider myself lucky to be there.
And he said, you know, our child had displayed this gender dysphoria or this gender misalignment at the same age that Rylan has.
And we didn't listen and we pushed back.
That pushback led that child to turn to self-harm as a teenager, which 60% of trans and non-binary kids engage in, according to the Trevor Project.
More than 50% consider suicide.
That for me was the turning point.
I didn't want to see Ryland go through that.
I'd rather have a living son than a dead daughter.
I want to thank the Whittington family for speaking to us.
It's not easy, particularly at a time when transgender issues have been politicized.
People are afraid of what they do not understand, Dana.
This family hopes their story will lead to more understanding, more acceptance, and ultimately more love.
So people are afraid of what they don't understand.
And I just want to tell you how I see this and how I think about this and what I don't understand.
There's no science to this.
There is no science to this.
No gene has been discovered.
No chemical imbalance has been discovered.
There's no science whatsoever.
There's only a theory.
There's only an idea.
This kid, they say, first expressed this when he couldn't talk.
Now, I have raised two kids.
I've got two grandchildren.
I know when kids are before kids can talk, because a lot of my kids could, the kids that I associate with, could talk when other kids couldn't.
And they would express their ideas, but they didn't have anything to say because kids like that are just swimming in a sea of nouns.
You know, they say, oh, mommy, daddy, you know, grass, trees.
That's what they're saying.
So now he's five, old enough to still believe in Santa Claus, and he believes that he is a boy.
Again, no science to this.
And not only that, at five, you know, like I said, you can believe in Santa Claus.
When he's 20, he'll be an atheist because his mind still won't be developed enough.
You have to get to 25 before your brain is fully developed.
So really, his mom and dad took over a power to alter his life and his mind forever in a way that could be tremendously destructive.
Those statistics they put forward were very deceptive because they say, well, 50% of trans kids consider suicide, but that remains true even after they have transitioned and had surgery.
So that doesn't really mean anything except that they have a real difficulty.
And believe me, I have nothing but compassion for people who feel misplaced in their own bodies.
But still, still, to change a child irrevocably before he has reached the age of reason on the things that he is saying, some huge number of kids who think that the other sex end up being gay.
It's over 90%, 95%.
It is a huge number of kids who think that they're trans, turn out just to be gay.
You know, so these parents impose something on him.
Now, after this came out, Knowles and Ben and Walsh all were tweeting about it.
Ben wrote a piece about it that I retweeted because I basically read his piece attacking this report.
And he said everything that I would have said, so I just retweeted his report.
And I want to explain something, and this is important because I know there's a strain of conservatism that says, oh, everyone is trying to fool me, but I'm just too smart.
You know, this is the thing where you say, oh, Clavin, you know, he's not convinced that the election was stolen, but I know he's in the pay of people trying to damage.
Every time I say that I don't believe the last election was stolen, I lose listeners.
I'm saying it to you because it's what I believe.
I would change my mind if I were convinced that we're untrue.
But these guys, they always think they're smarter than everybody.
And they look at Ben all that, they're always saying it about Ben.
You know, that Shapiro, he's into this, and he's getting paid by this, and he's just doing this for the money.
Fox News is important to us.
It is an important ally and an important supporter.
They're extremely powerful in the conservative world, or they were until this report came out.
But, you know, Matt relies on them to make his books bestsellers and his, you know, What is a Woman documentary bestseller?
Ben goes on there.
Knowles goes on less because they've sort of pushed him out.
I don't go on because I'm too much of a loose cannon.
They won't invite me on.
And we like these people.
Greg Gutfeld is a wonderful person.
Dana Perino, who is hosting this show, is one of the nicest people I've ever met, Tucker Carlson.
We respect him and like him.
And so, you know, these are not people we want to offend in any way.
So Ben and Walsh and Knowles were being brave.
I mean, it's not like rushing into the Taliban stronghold, but it's being sticking to your values.
Allie Beth Stuckey, who hosts the Blaze Media Podcast, Relatable, she's a Christian commentator, really nice lady.
She tweeted, I'm stunned that Fox News ran a segment celebrating a girl whose parents transitioned her into a boy when she was five because she apparently told them she was a boy before she could talk.
Absolutely maddening.
So Twitter locked her out of her account.
And people complain, they put them back, but still they put forward, you know, they've got the message across that if you say this stuff, you're going to be banned.
So no science, a child's body in iradicably altered, a mind disturbed, probably not helped.
But if you oppose it, Twitter said that Ali violated their rules against hateful conduct.
So you're hateful if you oppose it.
Now, I think this is evil.
I don't even think it's close.
It's not even a debate.
You know, you alter a child's body so that it can't be altered again on this idea that it has no science behind it.
I'm not even saying it's false.
I'm saying there's no science behind it.
We know that people have transitioned and said they're happier.
Some people have said this is inevitable.
Very few, but some have.
We do know that this exists.
These symptoms exist.
These feelings exist.
And sometimes people are glad that they go through the transition when they're adults.
To do this to a child with what we know now, and then to say it's hateful if you oppose this.
It's hateful to not, you know, you only hate it because you're afraid of it.
You're afraid of what you don't understand.
It's nonsense.
That's nonsense.
And so what you have is nice people at Fox News, and these are good people doing stuff that's evil.
And that is the way things work, right?
This is why I keep hammering on about the culture, the culture, the culture, because the culture creates our sense of what is good and bad.
And when the culture goes bad and when the culture accepts these ideas without really thinking them through, then the culture has evil in it and good people start to do evil things.
George Washington, one of the best men who ever lived in both actions and his mind, held slaves and held slaves in ways that I think we look at now and we think, yeah, that was evil.
He didn't see it.
He literally didn't see it because he was surrounded by culture like a fog, and that culture inculcated in him the idea that this was somehow acceptable.
Wonderful, lovely women have abortions, something that I think is just inarguably wrong.
It's inarguably wrong to kill a baby in the womb.
That baby has the same right to life that you have.
It has done nothing to anybody to abort that child is a terrible thing to do.
Wonderful women do it because they're like George Washington.
They're surrounded by this cloud in which it's acceptable.
It's an acceptable thing to do.
Perfectly nice people, people that you would like, people that you would sit and have a drink with, meal with, befriend, sat and did nothing while the chimneys at Auschwitz spewed out the ash and smoke of the bodies of people being murdered en masse because the culture, the culture, the story of the culture said it was okay.
Maybe it was a little extreme, you know, maybe Hitler was being a little extreme.
And now we have this.
And I'm sorry, but to do this to children, to think that it's all right to do this to children when we know nothing except these stupid leftist ideas that haven't been parsed, they haven't been judged.
I mean, this is going to come back and bite us because people always wake up from these nightmares.
They always come around and say, oh, you know, maybe holding slaves, not such a good idea.
Maybe having an abortion, not such a good idea.
People wake up from these nightmarish dreams.
But while we're in it, while we're in it, if we don't attend to our culture, if we don't look at it, you have good people, good people supporting ideas that simply are insupportable.
You might not believe this, but I actually love kids.
A little salt, some ketchup.
They're absolutely great.
No, I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
I love them and you've got to protect them.
You've got to protect your family.
You can do it with Fabric.
You get your term life insurance from Fabric.
It's surprisingly affordable.
Fabric was built specifically for parents to help parents manage their family's financial future, like a parenting pro, stress-free.
Fabric's new lower prices mean significant savings over other providers.
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 you just personalize your quote to fit your family's need.
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.
Planning for the future has never been easier and there's no risk to apply today.
They have a 30-day money-back guarantee and you can cancel anytime.
Protect your family with term life insurance now in just 10 minutes.
Apply today at meetfabric.com/slash clavin.
That's meetfabric.com/slash clavin to start protecting your family today.
M-E-E-T fabric.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.
You spell Klavan, K-L-A-V-A-N.
Why We Avoid Evil00:14:11
So I've talked about before the fact that I really don't like to use the word evil.
I think we in America are spoiled and we don't really know.
A lot of us don't know what evil is and we use it in politics way, way too often.
And I think on the right we use it way too often.
You know, Barack Obama is evil and Donald Trump is evil.
Whoever you don't like is evil.
And, you know, as I've said before, you know, if Jeffrey Dahmer raped, murdered, and ate his lovers, I think we need a different word, you know, when we're describing Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
But that doesn't mean that people don't do evil.
Joe Biden is not an evil man.
You know, I think he's, I do think he's venal.
I think he's unprincipled, but he's just not.
But now he's just issued this executive order that will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to expand access to gender-affirming care, as they say it.
This is basically selling Pride Month and trying to make some political hay out of it.
It will strengthen efforts to ban conversion therapy and increase access to sex change treatment for transgender Americans, including for children.
And I'm sorry, but this is wicked.
This is evil.
And again, I think the culture has got this evil thread going through it.
Part of this executive order is basically really suspicious language in which they're going to investigate what the effects on children are of parents who don't agree to give them surgery.
So in other words, they're going to try and set a standard by which the government can take your child away and castrate them.
I mean, basically, that's what they're saying.
You know, oh, daddy, I'm a girl.
Knock, knock, it's the FBI.
That's essentially what they're kind of paving the way for.
You know, and if you don't think this is wicked, if you don't think there's something evil about this, you only have to look at what's happening.
I mean, they call this Pride Month.
I said this Pride Month has become shame month.
And it really is true because you think about the fact that a gay couple comes to you and says, hey, we want to live in peace and have our lives and all this.
And most Americans think, fine, I don't really care.
But now you've got these guys in the streets.
I mean, here is a drag show for children, basically.
This is, yeah, 33.
So, I mean, that's not even the worst clip we have.
We have clips of people, you know, so-called men with breasts working in front of children.
Just Christine Aguilera dressed up as the Hulk pretending to masturbate.
You know, I don't want to play them all.
They're just too disturbing.
All of this in front of children.
And what's interesting about drag is that drag used to be kind of a poignant comedy.
It used to be men who were attracted to things that women did, like, you know, Judy Garland or something, and were able to dress up and do a sort of Judy Garland imitation.
And you could sense, I actually saw a drag show once.
It's a long story, which I'm not going to tell.
But, you know, it was poignant and sort of funny in this sad way of a guy kind of reaching for something that he loved but couldn't be.
And because of that, it always had an element of the grotesque, and it still does.
And if you're a woman and this is their idea of what a woman is like, this hypersexualized, you know, kind of weird-looking creature who dresses like this.
I mean, it's very offensive to women and it's very disturbing to children.
I think it shouldn't be done.
And here is Nancy Pelosi, who was at a cross-dressing show, and here's what she said.
This is cut four.
Give a warm drag race welcome to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Welcome back.
My honor to be here to say to all of you how proud we all are of you.
Thank you for the joy and beauty you bring to the world.
Your freedom of expression of yourselves in drag is what America is all about.
I say that all the time to my friends in drag.
So, you know, you can see that.
You know, I've was visiting Mount Vernon and George Washington's tomb is above ground.
And I said to my wife, that's so we can see him rolling over.
Because when you say that this is essentially what America is all about, this is what patriots died for, this is what people stormed Normandy Beach for, this is what, you know, the founding fathers signed away their lives for.
No, it's not.
It has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with, but it is now.
It is now.
And what's terrible about this, again, Nancy Pelosi is a very, very disturbing character.
She's a very smart politician, very unprincipled, really a woman who will cut your throat, symbolically speaking.
And just seeing her kind of put this in kind of these patriotic terms actually is telling us something about what America is becoming on this slippery slope.
So when I retweeted Ben, when I retweeted Ben talking about Fox News and excoriating Fox for running a piece sympathetic to the transitioning of children, I got attacks from the right.
And they were attacking Ben, but they were also attacking me, saying, well, you accept homosexuality.
You accept gay marriage.
Some of you conservatives went to Guy Benson's wedding.
Guy Benson, a very intelligent, decent fellow who's a gay guy, got married.
He said, and they would say, once you accept that, then the transgendered children will follow.
It's a slippery slope.
This is what happens.
And it's like that line in no country for old men, where the old man says, once they stop saying sir and ma'am, the rest will surely follow.
And that's what they're saying.
So, you know, you say, well, Clavin, you know, you have this son who's gay and you accept that and you're going to his wedding.
It's worse than that.
I'm delighted to welcome his fiancée into our family.
So it's a slippery slope.
And I think about this, because I actually think given what's happening now, that attitude deserves serious consideration.
I do not laugh at people who say that.
I'm not mocking anyone who says it.
I can see why you look at this and think, yeah, once you accept one thing, you accept all of it.
So I ran it through my mind.
I thought, let me take that criticism seriously because I'm certainly disappointed in our elites.
I'm disappointed in our culture.
I'm disappointed in these people.
I'm disappointed that more gay people aren't coming out and saying, hey, this doesn't represent us.
This is not what we wanted.
Because a lot of gay people did say that.
When AIDS hit, a lot of it came from these bathhouses where people were going and sleeping with 10 people a night, having sex with 10 people a night, 10, 15 people a night.
What did you think was going to happen?
Of course it's unhealthy.
And a lot of gay people saying, that's not why I wanted to come out.
I wanted to come out so I could have an open relationship and live in love and just be left alone.
So I wish more gay people would talk about this because it really is, it's just despicable.
And the thing about the slippery slope is you can put it anywhere, right?
Couldn't a Muslim person who dresses his wife so you can't see anything but her eyes, right?
Just her eyes peering out of the kind of ghost of Christmas yet to come costume, couldn't he say, well, you know, America, you got what you deserved.
You let your women dress like hookers, you let them go around in bikinis.
What did you think was going to happen?
Once you start saying, sir and ma'am, the rest will follow, you know?
And then let's take it from another point of view.
I mean, that's the thing.
Where does the slippery slope begin, right?
Why doesn't it begin with letting women walk around outside of their burqas, right?
With having women who dress immodestly according to ancient ideas, right?
Why doesn't it begin there?
Maybe you think it does, but I can't see us living like that.
We've never lived like that.
We've always been a culture that allowed women more rights than any other for all the complaining about it.
And let's take it from another point of view.
What do you actually want?
What does anybody actually want?
Because I was alive when gay people could be arrested for being gay, when guys like Turing were castrated, chemically castrated for being gay.
Turing, the guy who cracked the Nazi code and then was punished for being gay in this horrifying way.
Ultimately, I believe he killed himself.
I believe I've got that right.
Do you want, should Guy Benson be arrested?
Should my son be arrested?
Should they be forced to live in such a way that the only romantic life they have is done in the shadows, is brief and hidden and persecuted?
Because it is persecution to go in.
Cops used to go into bars and wait for a guy to hit on them and then arrest him because he was breaking the law.
Most of the people I know, most of the people I know, even the most conservative people I know, could not care less what you do in your private life.
They could not care less with you sleep with as long as it's obviously adults and people consent and all of those things, but they don't care if you want to dress up and call yourself Clara.
They just want their children left alone and they'd like a little decorum in the streets.
Like the British used to say, don't frighten the horses.
That's what most of the people I know, most of the Americans I know.
And I talk to Americans all over the place, all kinds of different Americans, and almost all of them begin by saying, you know, I don't care what you do.
I don't care what you do in your home.
And they don't want the police listening in at your bedroom door, kicking down your door to find out what kind of relationship you're having.
And most of them don't even want their, you know, their uncle or their nephew who turns out to be gay to have to live alone and to not have the compensation for this tragic life, which is romantic love.
I mean, that is one of the compensations for this tragic life.
So the two questions we're facing, the two questions we're facing, there's two of them, I think, not just one.
One is, how do you have sex?
How do we have sex?
Is there some limitation we want to put on the way that people have sex besides the ones that we have now, which is consent and abuse of power?
Most of the things that we see as sexual sins are really abuse of power.
Rape is an abuse of power.
Having it transgendering, transitioning your child is an abuse of your parental power.
That's the whole problem with it.
It is an abuse.
It is using your parental power in a way that is not acceptable because there's no science to back it up.
And the person who is making the decision, the child, is not ready to make that decision.
That's why it's an abuse.
That's why it's evil.
That's why it's wicked.
It's an abuse of power.
So do we want that?
Now, so what do we disapprove of so much in sexuality that we are willing to disallow it?
And that's the second question, is do we want the government to have the power to control people's lives?
Because what I think we're all looking for, see, all of these, politics makes us stupid by putting all these issues in black and white.
Yes or no?
It's just too, it's this binary idea that if the left is saying one thing, we have to say the exact opposite.
But I think what most people want, I think what most people, both conservatives and center-left people want, is we would like a moral, a moral society that is accepting of difference and different people who do different things and who are in that position.
We want to know how to look at that so that we are not oppressing them, but we're not being overwhelmed by this corruption.
This is what this is.
This is corruption.
Doing this to children, you know, pretending to masturbate in front of children, twerking in front of children, dressing up in drag in front of children and telling them that this is what a woman looks like.
This is what you could be, this is what a man looks like.
That's corruption.
It is corrupting to them and it must come from somewhere.
So we want to ask ourselves, basically, what we want to do with sex.
And I think it's a more complicated question than anybody would like to admit.
I think the left obviously saying, well, it's hateful for you not to want children to be butchered.
That's hateful of you.
Obviously, that's stupid.
But I think it's also a little bit too self-certain and simplistic to say that we want to go back to the good old days when things were restricted, we could arrest people for doing things that we don't believe in.
Insider Intelligence estimates that by the end of 2022, the number of U.S. adults who own at least one cryptocurrency will climb 19% to 33.7 million.
Some surveys show that as many as 85% of millennial millionaires own crypto.
How about you?
Do you own any Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, or other cryptocurrency?
If you don't and you're not sure where to start, check out Alto IRA.
Alto offers alternative investment opportunities like private companies, crypto funds, real estate, venture capital, and more.
Alto Crypto IRA in particular is a great way to start investing and trading in crypto with a tax advantage retirement account.
Create an account in just a few minutes and invest with as little as 10 bucks, no setup charges.
Through Aalto's integration with Coinbase, you get secure trading 24-7 and 150-plus available coins on their interface, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cardano.
Alto offers industry-leading security and alternative investment opportunities through some of the world's most recognized platforms and fund partners.
Plus, there are multiple ways to fund your account.
Open an Aalto Crypto IRA account with as little as 10 bucks.
Just go to altoira.com slash Andrew.
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A.com slash Andrew.
Start investing in cryptocurrency today.
Go to altoira.com slash Andrew.
Sensations and Representations00:07:51
So as we know, we're not a, we are a Christian country in the sense that most of the ideas that form this country, I would say all of the ideas that form this country, grow out of a merging of Christianity and classical culture.
I mean, we've talked about this a million times.
We would not be, there would be no America without Christianity.
The ideas, the way of looking at things that we have, that we all have, all of us are Christians in some way, all comes out of Christianity.
But we're not a theocracy.
And so we have to kind of rethink this stuff and say, what is it that we can all accept?
And I think that it all comes down to the body.
It all comes down to what our bodies are and what they're for.
And to me, there are only two scenarios that make sense about the body.
I mean, the body is not a machine with a ghost inside.
I know that the atheists always love to say, oh, the stupid idea.
No one has ever thought that since really since St. Paul.
I mean, that is not the idea of Christianity.
In fact, it was deemed a heresy that there were these two separate things.
That's not the way Christians look at the body.
However, the body is either this piece of meat, a meat puppet with a chemistry set inside, or it's a representation of something beyond itself, yourself.
It's the representation of yourself, the spiritual entity we call a person.
Now, the meat puppet idea, you know, the best description of this comes to my mind from Yuval Harari in a book called Homo Deus.
I feel certain that Yuval Harari has some kind of mental condition.
I do.
You know, I think he's on the spectrum somewhere.
Like, maybe he's off the spectrum.
He really doesn't understand human life.
But this is what he believes.
And he says, this is how he describes people's joys and sorrows, okay?
He says, we never react to events in the outside world, but only to sensations in our own bodies.
Nobody suffers because she lost her job, because she got divorced, or because the government went to war.
The only thing that makes people miserable is unpleasant sensations in their own bodies.
Conversely, people are made happy by one thing and one thing only, pleasant sensations in their bodies.
If science is right and our happiness is determined by our biochemical system, then the only way to ensure lasting contentment is by rigging the system.
Forget economic growth, social reforms, political revolutions.
In order to raise global happiness levels, we need to manipulate human biochemistry.
So that's an interesting view of life, and I think it holds together.
I obviously don't think it's right.
I think it holds together logically.
But it has consequences.
If the body is meat and chemicals, it can't have rights.
That makes no sense.
And that's what rights are a fiction.
That's what Yuval Harari says.
They're just made up.
What possible rights could a body, you know, a meat puppet with a chemistry set inside have?
And Harari said that rights are just a fiction.
And the question of who has rights becomes meaningless.
The question of right and wrong becomes meaningless.
What would that mean?
By what moral order, what moral order would we be referring to if we're just a bunch of machines with chemistry sets inside?
And we just have to manipulate the chemicals.
And one of the best ways to manipulate our chemicals for pleasant sensations, by the way, is sex.
It's right easily to hand, as it were.
And you can do it easily, so why not do it?
But obviously, like common sense tells you that this idea is ridiculous, right?
Do these bodily sensations just happen to occur when you win a game or when you lose a job?
That just happens to be, you know, you just happen to get depressed when you lose your job, when you get divorced.
It's just, the sensations are not connected to that.
Of course they're connected to it.
They're caused by the event in the person.
The person experiences the event, right?
And then it's communicated to his brain and to his body by means of chemicals.
It's not the chemicals don't come first.
The chemicals don't cause the sensations.
The chemical causes the sensations, but it's the event, the experience of life that causes the chemicals to go into operation.
The chemicals are the language of the spirit being spoken.
To me, this is so obvious.
I don't know how Yuval Harari gets his stuff published.
He's a wonderful writer, terribly entertaining, very educated, well-informed, but he makes no sense.
This makes no sense to me.
The body has to be a representation of something.
You know, I mean, you just have to look at life.
The difference between a rock and an ant is so incredible, so vast, so infinite.
Nobody can turn a rock into an ant.
It can't be done.
We have no idea what life is.
We have no idea.
We know how life represents itself, but we have no idea how it is made, where it comes from, where it originated.
None, zero.
There is something mysterious about it.
And this is not God of the gaps because we don't know, therefore we'll come to God.
What I'm saying is the difference in kind is so intense that I don't think we'll ever know what that difference in kind is.
So if in fact these bodies that we have represent something else, if my body represents a clavin and your body represents whoever you are, it matters that what they're created, male and female.
If they are a language that speaks ourselves, then it matters what words we use.
Just like the other day I was talking about the difference between saying September 21st or saying the dawn of autumn, right?
Those are words that express the same thing, but they express them in very different ways.
So it matters whether you are expressed as a male or a female, because that comes, that is not something you decide.
That comes from the beginning.
You know, just to show you how it matters, if I live my whole life without ever giving birth to a child, that's not a story.
That's not even interesting.
It's like saying I lived my whole life without flapping my arms and flying, right?
It just doesn't matter because I am born a man, because I'm born a man.
If a woman lives her whole life without giving birth to a child, it is a story.
It means something.
It might be a happy story for her.
She might think, gee, the one thing I don't want is a child, or it might be a sad story because she was born without the capacity to give birth to a child.
She's a woman, but she was born handicapped without that capacity that is natural to women because that's what we're talking about.
And so, you know, what the left always says is, well, how can you say that a woman has a womb?
I know of a woman who was born without a womb.
She was handicapped.
That is an anomaly.
It's a sad story that is being told.
It's not a sad story that I was born without a womb, right?
Because that would have been weird because I'm a man.
So it matters how we are expressed.
When we look at a woman's body and when we look at a man's body, we know that they are meant for one another.
I mean, this is just common sense.
You know, even if I plug a lamp into a wall, they say, oh, he put the male part of the plug into the female part of the socket.
It permeates our idea of life.
This is our whole idea of life.
It is where life comes from.
And we understand that something essential happens when a man and woman come together in sex that doesn't happen any other place on earth because it is the creation, the possible creation of a new human being.
And if sex has a purpose, and this is the purpose, if life is sacred, then sex is sacred.
If life is sacred, then that baby is sacred, right?
So all of these things, we have a model for how we're supposed to be, how we're supposed to treat these things.
We know we have marriage, we have systems in order to express the sacredness and sacralize the things that we do naturally, right?
However, however, having said that, the word that has been used to express our person is an animal body and it is out of control.
It is nuts.
Our animal body is hilarious.
I mean, we are a joke of what we're supposed to be.
I always say that humor comes from the fact that we're fallen.
Humor is one of the best proofs of fallen humanity because it's as if we were born to be angels, but instead we're jesters and buffoons.
It's as if we're wearing a tuxedo and we slipped and fell into a mud puddle.
The Humor of Fallen Humanity00:10:03
You know, I mean, the things that go through our minds that we, most of us don't express, but I do, you know, and I'm always getting these letters, angry letters from Christian women saying, stop doing that.
But, you know, I was watching Walsh's film, What is a Woman?
And they had that butcher who cuts children up.
And she's saying that she, oh yeah, they have the science where they can create a vagina.
And my first thought was, gee, I ought to have somebody do that for me.
Not to me, but like just to my pillows or something.
Because that's the way guys think.
You know, whenever you read those stories, whenever you read those stories of some guy who's trying to have sex with like an air conditioner and he got stuck and had to be taken to the emergency room, you know, guys will always say, ah, that's ridiculous.
What kind of thing?
But what they're thinking is, huh, yeah, an air conditioner is kind of cute.
Our bodies are out of control, right?
And so we know, we know that there is this force of Eros flying through us that is going to be expressed somewhere.
And we try to control it, but we never, ever do.
We never do.
And this is one of the things, this is one of the big lies, right?
One of the big lies is it used to be better.
You know, there's this book, a really entertaining book by a guy named Stefan Zweig, who used to be a famous writer and isn't anymore.
The one book everybody reads by him is called The World of Yesterday.
And I have it on my device here, my iPad.
And he grew up during the heyday of Victorian Europe.
It was really Europe at its height when they all thought this is going to be paradise.
This is going to go on for 100 years.
And he then saw World War I destroy the Austrian Empire, which is where he lived.
And then he saw World War II come in.
And ultimately, he escaped, I think, to South America and killed himself because the whole world that he had lived in was washed away.
But before he did, he wrote this book, Remembering This, and he talks about sex.
And he talks about how awful it was to never, that a woman could live her whole life without ever seeing her own body.
That men, that prostitutes lined the streets.
There were so many of them because women were shut away and so they weren't going to be touched.
And so the men had to satisfy themselves with prostitutes and then would come down with horrifying diseases for which there was no cure.
And he says we should not permit ourselves to be misled by sentimental novels or stories of that epoch.
It was a bad time for youth.
The young girls were hermetically locked up under the control of the family, hindered in their free bodily as well as intellectual development.
The young men were forced to secrecy and reticence by a morality which fundamentally no one believed or obeyed.
Unhampered, honest relationships.
In other words, all that could have made youth happy and joyous according to the laws of nature were permitted only to the very few.
And anyone of that generation who wishes to look back honestly upon his first meetings with women will recall but few episodes that he can think about with unmixed pleasure.
For in addition to the social pressure, which constantly enforced precaution and secrecy, there was at that time another element that overshadowed the happiest moments, the fear of infection, because the men would go to prostitutes, they'd get sick, and then they'd give the illness to the women.
And this was everywhere.
And it was, he talks about the tension of it and the just unnatural restrictions of it.
So you say, okay, well, that wasn't any good, but maybe we'll move it up in the 50s.
Then we had, that was great.
Remember when we had Donna Reed and people were cleaning the house and, you know, in their pearls and high heels and all this stuff.
But of course, not, not, or people would not have said, you know, we're unhappy with this.
And I was there, and I know a lot of women especially were unhappy with it, but a lot of men were too.
A lot of men felt it was constraining.
What I'm saying is, sex is not a system that works.
Sex is not a system that works.
So in order to control things, we need two things in order to have a moral society.
Is one, we need to know what the spirit wants.
Let's put it that way.
I hate to put it in religious terms because I'm trying to keep it away from that.
But still, what this person wants.
What is this person that the body represents?
What does he want?
And what does the body want?
And what's the best way to find that balance?
Now, the thing is, we know there's a person because we know there's someone who can say to the body, no.
There's somebody who can say, the body wants to commit adultery.
The body wants to drink all the time.
The body wants to eat and eat and eat until it's 400 pounds.
But the person is saying no.
That's not what I want.
That is not what I want.
And so we know these two things.
And how do we keep those clear?
And everybody says, oh, it's religion, it's religion.
But we've been through religious times.
And believe me, again, again, the evil has to go somewhere, the eros has to go somewhere, and it always, always does.
And obviously, this is a terrible time.
So the question that I started out with is what's the bad idea that has led us to this moment?
And I think the bad idea is materialism.
And I think the bad idea is the idea that there is no spirit, that that person saying no, that person saying, I have more dignity than this, the person saying that my wife has to be treated in an elevated way in order for her to do the things that she does in my life, that the person who says, you know, I'm not going to go out and twerk in front of children because those children deserve to develop on their own in a natural way that has nothing to do with my problems and the trauma that I went through as a child to become who I am.
That person essentially no longer exists in our society.
It is Yuval Harari all the way that, oh, we're just chemicals, we're just a matter, and that's the bad idea.
See, when we talk about a slippery slope, I think that's the start of the slope.
I don't think it's allowing gay people to live their lives without being interfered with.
I don't think it's even transgender people.
Again, a transgender person has the right to do whatever he wants as far as I'm concerned.
He does not have the right to tell me what he is.
He has the right to ask me politely if I will be kind enough to call him a woman, but he has no right to demand that I call him a woman.
This is the bad idea, and it all starts in my mind with abortion.
Once you say, once you say that sex has no telos, has no point, and if it has a point, we'll kill it.
Then you've reduced us to nothing.
You have reduced us to flesh.
And that's the idea I think we're looking at.
I think we're looking at the wages of abortion.
I don't think it is gay rights.
And I don't think that's the slippery slope we started in.
I don't think being nice to one another, even when, you know, I think that, for instance, gay marriage, in a way, and other people have said this, is an expression of the fact that this marriage that we have created, this idea of marriage that we have created to express the wholeness of ourselves, the wholeness of our personhood and sex, is being imitated by people who can't participate in it.
People who can't have a male-female relationship because they're gay, are saying, well, yes, but we accept the morality of this and we are going to imitate that.
I think that even transgenderism is an expression of how important gender is.
They want so much to be something that they're not that they're willing to really hurt themselves to become that thing.
So I think that if we go back to this idea that, okay, there is a center, and that center is a man and a woman creating a baby.
And that baby is a full new life that has to be respected because, because the body is a word that speaks a person.
I think a lot of this stuff turns back.
And I just want to end with this.
I'm running a little bit over, so I just want to end quickly.
In Texas, there was an election.
And the woman who won was named Myra Flores, and the Democrats are going nuts about this.
Again, Democrats are going nuts because she is Latino in a district, in a congressional district that has been Democrat since the 19th century, some people say.
And she won, and she won as a conservative.
And the point that I want to make is that her campaign slogan was God, family, country.
I think I have that in the right order.
God, family, country.
And I saw that, and I'm a cynical guy, and I thought, ah, it's like Barack Obama saying hope.
But people voted for Barack Obama because they were looking for hope.
This is a small election, but it's a watershed election.
And it's caused thunder to rumble through the Democrat Party.
And they ought to be looking at that slogan, God, family, country.
Because people voted for Barack Obama because they wanted hope and they voted for this lady because they want God, family, and country.
Because, because those things are the basis of the natural order of life, the natural order of human life, we have sold that order away.
We have thrown that order away on the basis of this scientific delusion that we are nothing but meat and chemicals.
We are more.
We are more.
We represent something of spirit.
We represent that in our gender.
We represent it when the genders come together.
We represent that when the genders create new life, which is also something more than a body.
It starts with abortion.
It starts with saying, I have the right to stop that life to kill that child because it's nothing.
And that's the slippery slope that's led us to the wickedness we're seeing today.
If you're sitting in your car and you're writing to the mailbag asking why you can't get a date, it may be because your car is not running.
And maybe your car is not running because you don't go to rockauto.com.
When you say rockauto.com, it solves both problems at once.
First of all, women just love it.
They love the sound of that.
Rockauto.com.
They just swoon for that.
They'll be pounding on your door and saying, get your car fixed so we can go on a date.
And you'll get your car fixed easily by going to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique.
It's really easy to navigate.
You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer.
If you can just get, you got to push the women out of the way so you can see the screen.
Rockauto.com has always reliably low prices and they're the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
So if you become a professional at saying rockauto.com, your life will be golden.
Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Clavin in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know I sent you.
How do you spell Klavan?
Conserving the American Constitution00:15:39
One of the things that drives conservatives crazy is that even when we win, we lose.
Even when we get majorities, the culture keeps going in the direction we've been talking about today, this direction really, which is now bordering on genuine wickedness.
Yoram Hazzoni has written this incredibly exciting book called Conservatism a Rediscovery.
He is the chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation, the president of the Herzl Institute, the leading proponent of the national conservative movement, which is reinvigorating the American and European right.
Yoram, thank you so much for coming on.
It's a pleasure to have you.
Thank you, Andrew.
Really a pleasure to be here.
So you start in this book with a historical thesis, basically, that things changed after the world wars.
Can you explain how that happened?
Sure.
It used to be that if you go back as many centuries as you want almost in English and American history, Anglo-American history, it used to be that there were two clear positions.
People knew who the liberals were and people knew who the conservatives were.
And some thought that that was a healthy tension, some thought it was a terrible tension.
But the liberals were people who were primarily about individual liberties and equality.
And the conservatives were people who thought differently about the world.
What was principally of interest to them, not that they didn't care about liberty, but was principally of interest to conservatives, was the question of conservation and transmission.
What do you need to do?
How do you need to build your society?
How do you need to build your country if you want anything, ideas, institutions, behaviors to be transmitted over many generations?
And those are two different philosophies with two different positions.
In America, the fight between liberals and conservatives kind of comes to an end after the Second World War.
The two world wars are a big trauma.
We could discuss exactly why.
But people came, many Americans came and Europeans came out of the two world wars saying, never again.
We've just got to once and for all defeat the injustice that characterized mankind up until now, and we're just going to do it.
And by the 1960s, they had imposed a new regime which was eventually called liberal democracy, where instead of having these two parties, liberal and conservative, competing with one another, both sides came out being different kinds of liberals.
And that hasn't worked so well.
I mean, it worked in solving certain particular crying injustices, like the persecution of blacks in America.
But overall, it brought us to the cultural revolution that we're watching today.
So, I mean, one of the things that you say that my heart sank a little bit, because I frequently say I'm a conservative because I'm a liberal, because at least American, I mean, I think there's a difference between British and American conservatism, that Americans have that written constitution that we're defending.
We kind of know what we're trying to conserve, the ideas that went into that.
Edmund Burke, I'm a huge fan of Burke, but there's a certain kind of feel of tradition, hierarchy, the things that, as you say, want to be passed on.
Why am I wrong to say that I'm a conservative because I'm a liberal?
What is the problem there?
Well, the problem is that during the 1940s and 1950s, American intellectuals and politicians and Brits too worked really hard to sort of erase the history of conservatism.
So, you know, Burke is mentioned occasionally as though he invented it, which is ridiculous because how can he be the inventor of a tradition that's 700 years old at the time that he was defending?
But there are all these prominent people who, after World War II, said, look, America has always been liberal since the founding.
And the same thing happened in Britain.
People started saying, ever since the Glorious Revolution, Britain has been liberal.
And both of those things are false.
And basically what's happening is that the universities and people who study in universities are perpetuating a myth.
It's really propaganda claiming that there never was a conservative tradition in America.
Now, if I go some in the book, I go into this in some detail.
If you look at the extremely deep and bitter divide between the American Federalist Party, that was basically the nationalist conservatives of those days.
We're talking about Washington, Hamilton, Adams, John Jay, Governor Morris.
These are the people who wrote the American Constitution.
And the claim that that whole party of nationalist conservatives was not important, and actually everybody in the founding were just liberals.
Basically what it does is it replaces George Washington as the father of America, replaces him with Jefferson, who really was a liberal.
And look, I don't blame anybody for thinking these things because this is what you're taught at university.
But if you look this stuff up, it's not so hard to see that there was a real contest between liberals and conservatives at the American founding and that the Constitution is actually a conservative document, going back to the English Constitution, imitating it rather than what the liberals wanted.
Okay.
You know, Roger Scruton wrote this book about conservatism where he ended up saying basically conservatism is always just a reaction to things and really it has no content except to fight back.
What is it about the Constitution that is a conservative, that makes it a conservative document?
Well, look, I have tremendous respect for Sir Roger.
We were friends, and I learned a tremendous amount from him.
But we didn't agree about absolutely everything.
I'm a big fan of his, too, by the way.
I'm a tremendous fan.
I mean, the man is simply a hero and a true conservative, but not a historian, an excellent philosopher.
But I think that he gets some of the history a little bit wrong.
And the thing to be looking at is here, I think the best way to think about it is this.
Most of the things that many, many of the things that are good about the American Constitution, as John Adams and Hamilton and others said, are imitations.
They're directly inherited from the English Constitution.
And the way you can tell this is true is if you go back a few centuries earlier, go back to like John Fortescue, the great common lawyer, he's already writing in the 1470s.
Now, this sounds ridiculous, but just read the book.
It's really easy to read.
There's a new edition out.
It's really, really easy.
The English is easy.
1470s, John Fortis, Sir John Fortescue is saying, What's great about England?
It's the freest nation on earth.
Why?
Because of our traditional constitution.
He's saying this in the 1470s.
And there, he already is explicitly talking about what we call the separation of powers, the balance between competing branches of government, the foundational place of property.
You know, he writes about how in Britain, unlike in France or Germany, the king has no right to enter the home of even the poorest farmer and to take anything from him.
He can't even step into the house without the permission of the farmer.
All of these things, and the jury trial and the role of the legislature in terms of, I'm sorry, of the parliament in terms of passing legislation and approving taxation.
Every one of these things and many others are described in the 1470s by Fortescue in his book In Praise of the Laws of England.
Now, those things are not explicitly discussed in the American Declaration of Independence.
They're not explicitly discussed in the first American Constitution of 1777.
The articles, today we call it the Articles of the Confederation, but it was basically the liberal constitution.
And Americans tried that for 10 years and they almost lost the Revolutionary War because of it.
They didn't have the power to tax.
They didn't have the power to raise money for soldiers.
They didn't have the power to conscript.
They didn't even have the power to make peace and enforce it.
Washington and his officers and his supporters began already during the war saying this is impossible.
We need to go back to something like the English Constitution.
So that the Constitution of 1787 is a restoration of much of what John Fortescue says 300 years earlier is the great tradition of the English Constitution.
Now, there are other things that they're conserving.
They're conserving Christian religion.
They're conserving the common law tradition.
They're conserving the English language and its great work.
There's all sorts of things being conserved.
But the important thing to understand is that just because you support separation of a balance of competing powers within the Constitution or property rights or the jury trial, these things don't make you a liberal.
Those things make you an Anglo-American conservative.
To be a liberal is to say, we now, we don't need tradition anymore.
We don't need the Christian religion.
We don't need the common law.
We don't need the English language.
What we can do is we can just purify a few of these key points we got from the conservatives and claim that they're not English.
They're universal.
They apply to everybody and they're a dictate of pure human reason.
So then you're a liberal because you've thrown religion aside, you've thrown national tradition aside.
And that happened after World War II.
It lasted exactly two generations.
And now we're on the brink of just watching the entire American experiment collapse because the liberals took over this, took this propaganda line and essentially said, look, we don't need conservatism.
So now, all right, so the content of conservatism, the content of conservatism includes Christianity, includes the English language.
In what world can we restore that sort of idea to a country as far down the road as this one?
Your book is quite hopeful, really.
I mean, you are very honest about the fix we're in, but you actually say that there's a possibility of restoration.
Now, I've seen restoration happen before, but this is a big leap.
Yeah, it is.
Look, I don't tell people I'm hopeful, but I'm also not a pessimist.
No, seriously, I'm a religious person, and it gives me a very particular perspective.
I think we're terrible about, terrible, terrible at seeing the future.
I mean, we're good.
We can plot the trajectory.
If we plot the trajectory, we can all, I mean, you and I can see that, you know, America is finished and it's going to take the democratic world with it.
But luckily, we're terrible at seeing the future.
And no, seriously.
And what that means is that if you think about like, you know, nobody saw, almost nobody foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union or the bursting of the housing bubble, the rise of nationalism in American Britain in 2016, the collapse of liberalism in 2020.
Almost no one saw these things coming, certainly didn't know how they were going to happen.
We're all surprised.
So what that means is this, that, look, we have to restore conservatism personally in our own lives, in our families, in our congregations.
We have to return to a life of conservation and transmission that's going to mean repentance, whether Christian or Jewish.
It's going to mean repentance and a return to scripture.
And at the national level, I agree.
I think it's at this point absurd to hope that a real conservative coalition is simply going to take power in Washington and then is going to completely change the life of the country.
I think that's too much to hope for.
But what I think is possible is there are still many places in America, in Europe, elsewhere.
There are still many states, many places where there is a Christian majority or at least a pro-Christian majority, people who look at what's coming.
They can see what's happening.
And they say, you know what?
We can't fight this with just let everybody do whatever they feel like.
We need to fight this woke neo-Marxist revolutionary vision.
We need to fight it with a competing vision.
And that competing vision is going to have to be some kind of biblical democracy, Christian democracy, conservative democracy.
It's going to have to be some kind of restoration.
In those states where that's still possible, it's got to be done.
And what I am hoping is that all of the people are always saying, oh, look, it'll be like Iran of the Ayatollahs if the Christians ever take power.
Now, I think that's, I just don't think that's true.
I think it's false.
So what we got to do is we got to do it.
Let's actually try to place a Christian public vision back in place in some of the states where it's still possible in some countries in Europe.
Let's build a coalition to do it and make sure that minorities don't feel abused by it and that it's reasonable.
And If Christian democracy deserves to replace the woke neo-Marxism that's coming, then we'll get to see it.
And if it doesn't, then we'll know that too.
What would a Christian democracy look like specifically?
I mean, I know that the founders of America said we need this, our constitution will only serve a religious people, but they didn't actually put the machinery forward for making a Christian government.
Well, yes, and no.
They were definitely very concerned that the federal government should not interfere in the diverse, the very diverse practices of church and state relations in the different states, in the 13 states.
And various states still had established churches, and all of them had some kind of preference for Christianity and biblical values.
By the way, in the United Kingdom, I mean, this federalism was kind of sort of an imitation of Britain, where the British had the Church of England in England, which Anglican, obviously.
And in Scotland, they had the Church of Scotland, which was Presbyterian, which was completely different.
United Kingdom's Federalism00:05:29
And in Ireland, the Church of Ireland.
So the American founders kind of imitated this.
They said each state is going to have its own arrangements in terms of church and state, which are appropriate to it.
And that continued in the United States, that thought, that theory, up until 1947, after World War II again, when the liberal Supreme Court for the first time declared separation of church and state to be a fundamental American constitutional principle and imposed it on all of the 48 American states from Washington by fiat.
That, as far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong turn.
And it's not, I mean, I didn't make this up.
In the 1980s, Justice William Rehnquist wrote a very, very famous dissent, I think in 1985, tracing the wrong turn beginning in 1947 in the Everson case.
And he wrote then that the entire line of decisions has been wrongly decided and has to be overturned.
I think that's basically where we are right now, that Americans simply have to return to the pre-1947 church-state circumstances where the states get to experiment with different kind of public religion, public philosophy, and let's see what works.
I think that's the way.
You know, when I visit England, the churches are virtually empty.
I had an English friend write me the other day who actually goes to church and is an officer in his church, and he was outraged because he finally read the gospels and found out that salvation was through Jesus Christ.
Classic English.
You know, the churches here are flying Black Lives Matter banners.
I feel like the church itself has lost its way.
And yet you say in your book, you think this is actually a good time, a time that it's not a good time, but it's a good time for restoration.
Why do you feel that way?
Well, because everything's in motion.
I mean, it's not, look, it's obviously not, it's not a good time because we're watching the countries and the traditions that we love and believe in disintegrating before our eyes.
So it's not a good time.
But as of 2020, I mean, we have to understand what happened in 2020.
Between World War II and 2020, Liberal political theory, liberal philosophy was kind of the official religion of the United States and of Europe.
It was a consensus.
Both major parties had different versions of it.
And like I said, that lasted for two generations.
Now, in 2020, we're seeing the collapse of liberal hegemony.
I mean, it's not, I mean, it's already happened.
I mean, there's still plenty of, you still see anti-Marxist liberals, you know, like some good loyal old school liberals who are fighting the fight, the rearguard action against the neo-Marxist takeover of all the major institutions in the United States, or most of them.
But that's a small minority.
I mean, what's actually happened is that conservatives have, since 2016, have turned in a direction that is a lot more nationalist and in some ways more traditionalist.
And the left has gone full cultural revolution.
And the liberal consensus is now down to like, you know, a small number of very prominent, very intelligent people at the center of the map.
But they can't restore, there's not going to be any going back to the post-1960s liberalism.
So there's a contest taking place on the right to try to develop and get in position to be the main thing that is leading the charge against woke neo-Marxism.
And as you mentioned, my colleagues and I in the national conservative movement, we have our own views about how that's supposed to go, but there are all sorts of other groups.
And I think we represent by far the largest voting bloc and the intuitions of the great mass of Americans and others.
But what we have now is an opportunity to rethink conservatism, to put it on foundations that are appropriate for these years as opposed to for the 1960s.
And if we can do that, I think we still have a good chance of being able to rally a very large number of Americans and people in other countries, forge an alliance with the remaining anti-communist liberals, if they can stand us, and with some others on the right, and be able to turn this around.
Cnn's Future Uncertain00:14:18
It's possible.
But we're going to have to work really hard to do it, both in our personal lives and nationally.
The book is called Conservatism, a Rediscovery.
The author is Yoram Hazoni, H-A-Z-O-N-Y.
Yoram, you know, I wish we could continue this for another 20 minutes.
I'm out of time, but I hope next time you're in the country, you'll let us know so we can have you back.
I would love to hear more.
Okay, sure, we'll do.
Thanks so much.
Thank you very much.
Thanks a lot.
Yeah, bye.
You know, I got here this morning about 10 a.m. and it was already 90 degrees.
The country is going through a heat wave, but nothing is hotter than the Daily Wire.
How was that for a segue?
Yes, The Daily Wire is hot because we are producing some of the best content in America.
We've got Matt Walsh's terrific documentary, What is a Woman?
The book is out now too.
We've got the summer blockbuster, Terror on the Prairie.
They tried to cancel Gina Carano.
We wouldn't let it happen.
You know, the writing on the Daily Wire, no kidding, is getting better and better.
The reporting is getting better and better.
The news is getting better and better.
All of that is a reason for you to subscribe, not just to support it, but to become part of this fight to change the culture and change the way content is delivered and the kind of content that is delivered.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Join us today.
We need you.
We live off what you give us.
So come on and join us and we will give you the content you love.
This is the time to do it.
dailywire.com slash subscribe.
One of the many, many ways in which The Daily Wire has upped its game is by bringing on Megan Basham as its cultural correspondent.
I think she's one of the best cultural reporters in the country.
And we love to have her on once a month to talk about what's going on.
Megan, it's good to see you.
Always good to see you, Andrew.
I hear, you know, I never get invited to anything, but I hear you've been working very hard at all these premieres for Terror on the Prairie.
Yeah, I have.
It's been a really fun week, but it's definitely been a really busy week.
I did get the pleasure of meeting your son, Spencer Clavin, no relation.
Yes.
So that was a treat to get to spend a few minutes chatting with Spencer face to face.
We've corresponded a lot, but we had never met face to face.
So that was wonderful.
He was very proud to tell me that he answered the question, how do you spell prairie accurately?
That's a tough one.
It actually is.
Anyway, the story I want to talk to you about is the shakeup that's going on at CNN.
And I really want to talk to you about it because I'm not quite sure.
I keep hearing, oh, this is going to be a real change back to CNN's roots.
Tell me, give me what's happening here.
There's new ownership at CNN.
Is that right?
Right.
So CNN is owned by Discovery and Discovery merged with Warner Brothers.
And all of this allowed a man named John Malone to sort of take charge of what's happening with CNN.
Now, if you're not familiar with John Malone, he is a billionaire.
He's kind of a Rupert Murdoch type figure, but a lot of people don't know him as well.
And they've kind of jokingly been referred to as frenemies in the media because they have a kind of competitive thing happening.
And he was one of the early forces in bringing about the cable news revolution.
So John Malone is, I won't say he's conservative, but he's a libertarian and he is a Trump donor.
So all of this is some pretty interesting background.
He took charge of CNN just a couple of months ago and he really let it be known that there is a new sheriff in Towner and things are going to be done differently.
And one of the first things he did was fire Jeff Zucker.
Well, that's not openly out there, but everybody behind the scenes kind of says he fired Jeff Zucker.
Because he was kind of chased out because of this affair he'd been having for like 20 years, but that's a ruse.
Right.
That's kind of what, that's what I've heard is that it was a pretext, that they used that as the opportunity he wanted to reset things at CNN.
And he gave this notorious interview to CNBC where he essentially said, wouldn't it be great to see CNN do news again with real journalists again?
So you can imagine, yeah, at that point, Zucker was still there.
So that went off like a bomb in the building.
And from there, you know, some of the more out and proud far left anchors at CNN, like Jim Acosta, like Brian Stelter, took some umbrage to that.
In fact, before Zucker was fired, Stelter wrote in his newsletter that he was very offended by this, that the people who work at CNN are very diligent journalists.
And he called out John Malone by name and said, John Malone must not watch CNN.
And Jeff Zucker is also very upset about this.
Well, you know, so John Malone handled that problem.
There anymore.
So a lot of people are saying, look, the implication is probably that Brian Stelter won't be there much longer either.
One of the things that John Malone quickly did was hire a guy named Chris Licht.
Now, Chris Licht has a somewhat, you might think he's a little bit liberal.
He's not really, he's not really on the map as far as where he is ideologically, but he did work as an executive producer at the Stephen Colbert show.
So a lot of conservatives said, how conservative is this guy going to be?
Or even just forget conservative.
We're not looking for that.
Just how straight down the middle is this guy going to be as far as shaping journalism at CNN?
And so far, pretty down the middle.
He's made a few early moves.
One, getting rid of those very annoying breaking news Chiron banners that you see with every other story.
He said, we're not going to do that anymore.
We're not here to alarm viewers.
We're here to inform them.
And the next thing he did was say that they may not use phrases like the big lie, referring to Trump's claims to have won the election, because that sounds like a Democrat talking point and people will not trust our news if we use Democrat talking points.
So some changes like that, he's let it be known that they're going to be evaluating all of the on-air staff, all of the bookers, all of the producers, and they're going to be looking for bias and they want that to change.
So that's really where CNN is right now.
That's pretty impressive.
I mean, Brian Stelter, if they ever make a remake of the movie Gaslight, I think Brian Stelter should be in it because I've never seen a guy so biased, so insistent that there's no bias at CNN.
And it has been absurd.
I mean, they're perfectly welcome to be the other MSNBC, but it's not working for them, right?
I mean, they have no ratings at this point, do they?
Well, you know, that actually is a little bit complicated of a question to me because MSNBC and CNN kind of go like this.
They're both way behind Fox.
So, you know, of course, I think Jeff Zucker's idea was that, and it worked, it worked really well for a time, that we will be the anti-Fox and we will get numbers.
And that worked during the Trump presidency.
But after Trump left office, it's just been a ratings freefall.
So in this last book, CNN was behind, I mean, they were in dead last behind MSNBC and Fox.
But in the demo, that very important advertiser demo of 25 to 54, they were actually a little bit ahead of MSNBC.
So there's a part of me that, of course, cheers the return of actual journalism.
And I want that to actually succeed.
But there's also a cynical part of me that does understand this could end up being possibly simply a bad business decision for CNN going into election season, going into a presidential election season.
Of course, it's possible that people may not tune in for smart, intelligent news.
And if that's even what they offer us.
So yeah, I'm really hoping that my fellow citizens, I'm going to try to have more faith in them maybe than my face or instinct.
I like your idealism.
You know, I think the thing is there's this kind of death spiral that the New York Times is in where you only report one side of the news.
So all your readers are now on that one side of the news.
A conservative idea in the New York Times would not only die of loneliness, it would kill a large segment of its readers because all of Park Slope would just sink into New York Harbor if they had to read this.
So now they're in the situation where they literally can't be more fair because they'd lose this audience.
But CNN is so far down, it seems to me, especially after Trump, that they could actually reinvent themselves and be especially, you know, listen, Fox News is a conservative outlet.
has the best news program, the Brett Baer Evening News.
But that's basically their one straight up news program.
If CNN imitated that, you don't know.
I don't know.
They might be able to do it.
You know, I was hearing the other day that there's a new guy at New York Times, at the New York Times, running the New York Times, but they're having these debates whether they should use the kind of language that you're talking about, like whether you should just be able to say this man is a racist, racist candidate, you know, whoever they don't like, I guess, and whether they can call him that.
The Wall Street Journal is now using terms like gender-affirming care to mean gender-destroying care.
You know, this kind of language is permeating the news business.
It would be revolutionary.
It would be genuinely revolutionary for CNN to stand athwart that movement.
I don't know.
I think it could work.
Is this, am I a fool to think that this is actually part of a movement in the media to shrug off the shroud of wokeism?
I mean, what's happening at Disney now?
We talked about Disney before.
They're having kind of a shakeup after their run-in with DeSantis.
How is that looking?
Well, right.
And I think part of what you're seeing in all of that is you're realizing that some of the adults in the room, the older, cooler, wiser heads are realizing we have let some young people who, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they don't understand the long-term ramifications of some of these things.
It may feel good in the moment, but it is credibility destroying.
And I think we have seen that certainly with Disney.
And part of why you're encouraged with Disney is they have realized that the backlash was so strong and they were reacting to the moment and they weren't reacting to, let's take a deliberate, long view of how this impacts our business and our industry.
And I also do think you're seeing a guy like John Malone, who knows the business inside it out.
He has been there for decades, who is saying, look, we have to take a longer view on this.
And I see, look, to talk a little bit about internal politics, we have those conversations on the news side at Daily Wire because it is separate from our opinion product.
And we want to be a news outlet that doesn't just feed you red meat, that you can trust, that we're not using incendiary language.
And so we've had a lot of meetings lately about how do we give you the most credible journalism you're going to find anywhere.
So hopefully that is what's happening.
And I hope they stay the course because even if you do see a little bit of a drawback in the short term, if you look at that Disney situation, they did feel a little media pain.
In the long term, they have a lot of rebuilding to do.
And I think that's where CNN is now.
So to me, I'm encouraging them, stay the course.
In the long run, smart people will return to you if you give them a reason.
Yeah, and I mean, there always is a reason to turn on the news if you're getting the facts.
I mean, that actually is a good thing.
Did you happen to see this Fox piece on the transgender child?
You did.
So now, I was appalled.
I mean, I was actually shocked that they did that and did it in this kind of cheerful, feature-y way and say that anybody who didn't disapprove of this was just fearful of what they didn't understand.
You have any idea what on earth they're thinking?
You know, a couple of things.
One, my husband actually pointed out to me, there was a similar piece by the same reporter, and his name escapes me right now, Brian Yennis.
Brian Yennis did a very similar piece last year during Pride Month, and it kind of flew under the radar.
So this year, for whatever reason, people really took notice of it.
And what I sense is that Fox is sort of floating trial balloons, going, how will people react?
And this is my speculation, so I don't have reporting on this.
Let me be clear on that.
But my speculation is that you have a guy like Lachlan Murdoch who has taken over for his dad in running Fox.
And he is a creature of New York City.
He's a creature of the elite.
He has a wife who seems to me someone who very much wants to be in those circles.
And I think it's embarrassing to them.
I think that, and again, all my opinion.
No, but a lot of people are saying this.
Yeah, that they run in those circles.
And there's a sense at which they go, yeah, we can be the sort of conservatives who are for the, you know, the fiscal policies that are conservative and the foreign policies that are conservative, but it's always those social issues that they tend to find a little embarrassing.
And so, I don't know, I sense an influence of wives and friends there.
Yeah, yeah, a lot of, I've heard that a lot.
Megan Bashmel, it's always good talking to you.
You've always got really good insights and good reporting.
If you're not reading Megan at the Daily Wire, you are missing out really on some terrific cultural reporting.
We'll talk to you again next month.
Thanks so much, Andrew.
I really always enjoy being here.
It's great seeing you.
Thanks.
All right.
I know some of you are sitting at home thinking, you know what I love?
I love having problems.
Well, I'm sorry.
Those days are over because we're about to solve all your problems with the mailbag.
LGBTQL.
Plus.
Yeah.
They make fun of him for messing that up, but who can remember all those letters?
All right.
From Carmen.
I have been dating a man whom I really love.
He's conservative, says he's Christian, but is struggling with his faith.
Serious Conversations Matter00:09:22
He's constantly doubting us as a couple because he wants to try something sexual before marriage, even if it's not full sex.
I'm waiting for marriage, and I have been clear about this with him since the beginning.
Many years ago, I was pressured to go beyond kissing.
I felt strongly this is not God's design, and I really don't want to make the same mistake with this man.
He says he feels very anxious thinking about marrying without being able to test out our chemistry.
I feel we can communicate and improve, even if it's not initially perfect, but he believes that that is naive and that there are certain aspects of chemistry that cannot change.
Can you provide some advice for us?
Are there any words or perspectives that could ease his anxieties?
I do not want to dismiss his fears.
Is there any way for us to stay together without one of us feeling they're compromising?
I love him, and the idea of separating over this is devastating.
Yeah, I mean, I can't solve that problem because you want different things, and that's going to continue until you either marry or break up.
But yeah, I think maybe I can at least ease this stress.
What he is worried about, I believe, despite this term, this vague term chemistry, is he's worried, how can I put this?
You know, I can't put it politely, but I mean, he's worried that you might be a bit of a prig, not because you won't have sex before marriage, but because that might indicate that you are withholding, you will be withholding even after marriage.
You might be one of these women who says, oh, you know, not tonight, dear.
I have a headache.
It's been such a long day and I'm not in the mood and all that.
And that when he says that I enjoy this or I would like this or I would like to do this, you will be repelled or say, that's against my religion or, you know, I don't want to do that.
And that is the drawback, especially, I think, for men, but I think it is the drawback.
Because the other side, it's also for women too, because he may want things that you may not want to do.
You know, like he may have some weird fetish where he has to strangle you into unconsciousness or something.
It might be a good idea to sit down and have that very, very difficult conversation.
That's a difficult conversation to have.
It's difficult.
People don't like to talk about sex.
They don't like to talk about it in detail.
But it might ease his fears to know that if indeed you do, you believe that when you're married, you become one flesh and that you are not going to be disgusted by various things.
You're not going to be a prig.
You're not going to be withholding, but you're going to be generous.
I mean, guys, speaking generally, you always have to speak generally about these things.
I like a lot more sex than women do.
And wise wives that I know are always talking about, they use the, what is the phrase, maintenance sex.
Talk about maintenance sex.
Just keep, you know, maybe a quickie, you know, like even you're not in the mood, but maybe just something to keep the guy going until you are in the mood and can do something more elaborate.
So maybe he wants to know about that.
And maybe that's something that would ease his fears.
And if you can find out if there's things that he likes that he's afraid that you will be afraid of or disgusted by, you could find out about that now.
Because you're absolutely right about chemistry.
Sex is not rocket science.
Sex is not rocket science.
It is not hard to learn how to be a good lover.
I mean, it's just not.
You know, it's not like the movies.
It's not going to be in slow motion.
There's not going to be music.
You know, there's not that many moving parts.
You can learn how to have sex well.
And the question is, are you willing?
Will you do it?
Will you show up?
And those are the things that he, I think, is worried about.
And you might want to talk to him about it and find out things for your own sake.
It's hard.
It's embarrassing to have these conversations for everybody.
But still, it might be well worth it because you actually are at a standoff and it would be a shame if you lost the man you love.
From Troy, I have been watching you and all the others at the Daily Wire for the past couple of years.
I've come to really enjoy your show.
I'm a 47-year-old professional engineer, also a husband and father.
Lived most of my life as an atheist.
Little by little over the past year, I've learned about Christianity through reading the Gospels.
I'm editing this at very long.
And listening to the Daily Wire.
In March, I decided I would take Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
On Easter this year, I was baptized.
Since my baptism, my wife has become hostile toward me anytime I leave to go to Bible study or even if she sees me reading Christian books.
He says that I've been stolen by the body snatchers.
She asked me not to pray for her.
She makes comments about me having drunk the Kool-Aid.
She says she doesn't understand why I need religion and the people of the church are not your friends.
They just want money.
She insists on going to church with me and then whispers mocking comments during the service.
That's very hostile.
And I've just ignored her.
One of the pastors at my Bible study recommended that I keep Peter 3:12 in my mind and just reverse the genders.
That is where a woman submits to her husband, I believe, so that he will be convinced, if he's not a believer, he will be convinced by her good behavior to become a believer.
So just reverse the genders.
That is what I'm doing.
I know she loves me and I love her.
Do you have any advice on how I could better handle this situation?
Yeah, this is bad.
You know, this is not respectful of her.
And it's possible that if you're telling her you're praying for her, that maybe you're being a little aggressive on your side.
I don't like your pastor's advice if I'm right about the verse.
I don't think that's the right thing to do.
I think the right thing to do here is sit down and have a serious, loving, friendly conversation with her about the situation that you're in, that this is important to you, that this matters a lot to you, that you understand that she doesn't believe, and you're not asking her to believe.
You're asking her to allow you the space in which to communicate with your God.
That you will not be preaching to her, that you don't have to tell, you know, you can pray for her all you want, but you don't have to come home and say, I'm praying for you, honey.
If she doesn't like it, you know, don't tell her about it.
It's none of her business to begin with.
And that, you know, you can be the loving husband, father, and the competent working person that you have been all this time, but also have your faith.
And that she should not come with you to church if she doesn't like it.
She should not make monkey comments.
This is wrong.
It's wrong.
It's the wrong thing for her to be doing.
And so that's a conversation that you have to have with her.
And you might want to think about laying down the law on that.
She should not come with you to church.
You should not allow her to come with you to church.
You should basically say, you know, it's fine for you not to like this.
It's fine for you not to believe.
But you do have to respect my beliefs as I respect yours.
And I think that that's a serious, kindly, loving conversation that you have to have with her because she's in the wrong.
It's not a question of whether she's in the wrong about God.
She is, but that's none of your business.
The question is, is she in the wrong to leave you alone to worship your God?
And she definitely is.
And so you should have that conversation with her.
From Sawney, what a great name.
I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you can comment on a woman's appearance as a Christian, seemingly lustful comments.
Maybe I'm taking the comments in the wrong way.
For example, when you said Amber Heard's Cleavage got you through the first Aquaman movie, I, too, am a Christian and enjoy hearing your take on faith.
Side note, recently you said being a homemaker was a religious task.
Thank you.
It came at a time when I was struggling and I've changed my thinking.
I have been a stay-at-home mom now for one year.
Woohoo came for Ben, stayed for Clavin.
Sawney, it's just a really lovely name.
I've never, I don't think I've ever heard that name before.
But what I said about Amber Heard's Cleavage was that it was the only thing I remembered about Aquaman, which is literally the case about 10 minutes.
I just thought the movie, I didn't even understand the movie.
And I was kind of watching it like that, but she wore that green skin-tight thing that was open at the front.
And I walked out and, you know, my wife said, what was it about?
And I said, as far as I'm concerned, it's about Amber Heard's cleavage.
And, you know, I say these things because they're actually true, you know, and because they're funny.
You know, that is what I thought while I was watching it.
If I were not to comment on that, I would just be not telling the truth about what my reaction was.
Women's appearance is very important.
Women's beauty is one of the main motivators of the world.
A woman's beauty is one of the main motivators of the world.
And when we are said, told not to be lustful, that is not to not appreciate.
In my opinion, other people write to me and say I'm wrong, but I know I'm right because of what the Greek means.
The word that Jesus uses when he says, when you lust after a woman, he says, when you covet a woman, it's not even really a sexual term.
He says, when you covet a woman in your heart, you have committed adultery.
So when you want a woman, believe me, I do not want Amber Heard.
But to look at a woman and to feel the sexual allure of a woman and the beauty and sexual beauty of a woman, I do not believe is lustful per se.
You know, women are beautiful.
They are sexually alluring.
That's why Amber Heard was in the movies.
But I don't feel that I'm coveting her when I see that.
I'm enjoying that aspect of her, you know, and I do enjoy it, and I enjoy the beauty of women all the time.
And, you know, I haven't lusted for anyone since earlier this morning.
So I do also lust for women, but that is a different thing than what I'm doing.
And this notion that I shouldn't be talking, I get this a lot.
Why are you always talking about how actresses look?
Actresses are on screen because of how they look, whether they're attractive or not.
And the beauty of women, the attractiveness of women, is just a central fact of human life and of men's life and of our everyday life.
And to not talk about it is just to lie to you and be pious and sort of say I'm holier than I actually am.
Although, gosh, I am crazy holy.
All right, I got to stop there.
Why Andrew Talks About Beauty00:01:31
The Clavenless Week is upon you.
That darkness, look out the window, yep, that inky darkness that's closing in with this kind of horrible things, tentacles coming out and all that.
That is the Clavenless Week coming for you.
It will consume you.
It will shroud your life.
And you probably won't survive till next Friday.
But if you do, I will be here.
And this will be The Andrew Klavan Show, and I will still be Andrew Klavan.
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.
The EPA warns of two toxic chemicals in drinking water.
USA Today deletes 23 fake news articles, and Rand Paul wrecks Dr. Fauci at a COVID hearing.