Ep. 1100 – Sexual Imperialism frames Putin’s anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric as a weaponized critique of Western "gender ideology," while mocking Biden’s late-term abortion expansion and Ukraine funding via Hunter’s alleged corruption. The episode pits traditional "mom-and-dad" families against Disney’s Lightyear lesbian kiss, Colorado’s gay wedding cake laws, and Hollywood’s "woke" dominance—arguing conservative voices abandoned arts criticism, leaving leftists to dictate culture. Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution blames pornography for eroding consent norms, while a mother’s fight to censor LGBTQ+ content in Buzz Lightyear exposes Disney’s ideological push. The takeaway: cultural wars now hinge on reclaiming parental rights and traditional ethics—or risking societal collapse under progressive "desire over duty." [Automatically generated summary]
Murderous dictatorial imperialist Vladimir Putin has accused the West of Satanism, infuriating Western leaders by interrupting their child sacrifices to the bullheaded demon god Molik.
The Russian president took time off from poisoning and imprisoning his critics to condemn America as an evil colonialist power during a celebration of his annexation of the occupied regions of Ukraine after a majority of Ukrainians in those regions freely voted to hand their land over to Russia rather than being shot and tossed into a mass grave.
Speaking either in Russian or a series of nonsense noises that sounded vaguely Russianistic, how would I know, Putin said, quote, we here in Russia reject the West because we do not want our children taught that there are more than two genders and that they should undergo sex change operations.
The leaders of the West have gone insane, unquote.
The response from America was harsh and immediate.
Public health admiral and walking Monty Python sketch Rachel, oh look, I'm a girl because I wear cardigans, Richard Levine, was quick to strike back against Putin's accusations of insanity.
At a ceremony celebrating a new California law allowing sexual perverts to perform amateur surgery on children until they're whatever gender the pervert wishes to molest, Levine said, quote, how dare Putin question the sanity and morality of Western leaders who are following the science as quickly as I can make it up?
After all, in this festive and demonic Halloween season, if a boy wants to trick-or-treat as a girl, why shouldn't we castrate him and let him wear a dress?
What's the matter?
Don't Russians like candy corn?
Unquote.
Levine then put on his admiral's outfit and sang the entire libretto to pirates of Penzance in falsetto while chasing a 16-year-old girl around the room with a scalpel and denouncing the invasion of Ukraine.
Russian leaders, on the other hand, supported Putin's speech and said that listening to it was far preferable to being hung upside down naked and sprayed with a fire hose.
They especially praised Putin's threat to unleash his nuclear arsenal and lay the entire planet waste if he was not immediately allowed to take over all the countries of which he was already czar in his imagination.
Putin said, quote, this is not the raving of a power-hungry lunatic.
All right, maybe it is the raving of a power-hungry lunatic, but by sending arms to Ukraine, America is simply fighting a proxy war through a country that would really be part of Russia if it weren't another country altogether, unquote.
President and venal houseplant Joe Biden responded to Putin's threat by denouncing the Russian leader as authoritarian.
Putin doesn't even allow free speech, Biden told a room that had been full of journalists until they were dragged out by armed security.
Biden then continued signing an executive order allowing women to abort their children up to the third year of gestation if the child threatened the life of the mother or caused her to miss an episode of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills or if the child's death was required by the dark rituals of worship for the winged goat demon Baphomet.
Biden went on to say, quote, it's absurd to say we are supplying Ukraine with weapons simply as part of a proxy war.
Those weapons were bought and paid for by the millions of dollars in salary Ukraine gave my son Hunter for his obviously phony job as a so-called energy consultant with 10% for the big guy if you get my drift, wink wink.
I'll be damned if I sit here and let a thug propped up by corrupt Russian oligarchs condemn the actions of a duly elected American president propped up by corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.
And if Putin dares to use his nuclear arsenal, there will be catastrophic consequences for everyone, except of course myself, who will be in an underground bunker celebrating abortion and other rituals of my Catholic faith, unquote.
But while it may seem to some that the world is careening toward nuclear devastation because both the East and the West are being led by godless degenerates who have descended into madness and evil, we can all take inspiration from the brave, freedom-loving women who have banded together to protest a misogynistic regime that threatens their status and their very lives in California.
In Iran, women are protesting the oppressive morality restrictions of radical Islam so that they can be more like Western women and get raped in ladies' room by men in skirts or have their breasts cut off when they're 16 by insane so-called doctors.
Come to think of it, maybe nuclear devastation is our best option.
ExpressVPN Exclusivity00:03:59
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety boo.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-doo.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
We are back laughing our way through the cultural apocalypse.
We're going to talk today about the movie Bros and about nuclear war and what they have in common, beside the fact that they both use bombs.
Also, Louise Perry will be here on the case against the sexual revolution.
When I'm talking about the film Bros a little later on the show, I'm going to be talking about how Hollywood now thinks that you are somehow obligated to consume their crappy works of art that you don't care about.
And every week, you know, I've been asking you to please pre-order a strange habit of mine.
This is Cameron Winter, the guy from When Christmas Comes, the sequel to When Christmas Comes.
He is taking on a social media billionaire whose enemies have a habit of being canceled for good.
And, you know, I just want to say that I don't expect you to feel obligated to buy my book.
I feel obligated to you.
I want to entertain.
I think you're going to love the book.
I wouldn't ask you to buy it if I didn't think you were going to love it.
And I think you're going to love the series.
So I ask you to pre-order it, please, and encourage the publisher.
And of course, there's also the fact that if you don't do that, you go to hell.
But we won't talk about it.
This is a different thing.
Also, you want to subscribe to my YouTube channel, the Andrew Clavin YouTube channel.
You will get exclusive content there.
If you ring that little bell, someone you don't know will die, but you will get exclusive content also.
And if you leave a comment and the comment is enough to get you thrown out of the best society, we will welcome you in here because you'll fit right in with all of us doing this show.
Today's comment is from Paul Connolly.
He says, my Friday isn't complete till I watch the Clavin Open.
There are no E's in Clavin, and there is nothing on the internet that is better than the Clavin Open.
We had this fact-checked and this is absolutely true.
It's for George Washington's.
That's the absolute truth.
When I'm researching my crime novels, I sometimes have to research some pretty unsavory things, and I don't want people seeing what I'm looking at.
And I know most of you are probably thinking, well, just use incognito mode.
I'll tell you something, incognito mode does not hide your activity.
It doesn't matter what mode you use or how many times you clear your browsing history, your internet service provider can still see every single website you've ever visited.
And that's why, even when I'm at home, I never go online without using ExpressVPN.
It doesn't matter who your internet service provider is.
ISPs in the U.S. can legally sell your information to ad companies.
ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes your internet connection through their secure servers so your ISP can't see the sites you visit.
ExpressVPN also keeps all of your information secure by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available.
Most of the time, I don't even realize I have ExpressVPN on.
It's always on.
It runs seamlessly in the background and is so easy to use.
All you have to do is tap one button and you're protected.
ExpressVPN is available on all your devices, phones, computers, even your smart TV, so there's no excuse for you to not use it.
Protect your online activity today with the VPN rated number one by Business Insider.
Visit my exclusive link, expressvpn.com/slash clavin, and you can get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's expsvpn.com slash clavin, expressvpn.com slash clavin, to learn more.
I know what you're thinking.
I know how to spell express, but how do you spell Klavan?
Zulu Warriors' Charge00:03:47
One of my favorite films is a film called Zulu.
I love it.
I love this film.
I must have seen it about five times.
It is a 1964, it's a battle epic starring Stanley Baker, a terrific actor who died very young, and a very young Michael Caine is in it.
And it's a true story.
If you ever want to hear the real story about this, the Zulu Wars, the English Zulu Wars that took place in the 19th century in 1879, there's a wonderful book called The Washing of the Spears by Donald Morris.
And it's really worth reading.
It's just very, very entertaining.
The description of the battle is entertaining.
Now, the politics here are complicated.
The British had no business invading Zululand and they were completely in the wrong.
And they marched bravely into a place called Izandwana, were surrounded by the Zulus who were mighty warriors.
They had been trained by the great chief Shaka, who was by then dead, but they were mighty warriors and they wiped the British out.
Now, I have to say, the British actually deserved it.
They should not have been invading Zululand.
But this movie is about the next battle, which what happens was after Izandwanda, the 4,000 Zulu warriors, and like I said, these were tough cats, they charged over the hill and they found a little outpost called Rourke's Drift that was defended by a hundred soldiers.
So it was 4,000 Zulus against 100 soldiers.
And it was one of the greatest battles in British history.
They held them off.
The British soldiers held off these 4,000 Zulus.
It was kind of their alamo, except the outcome was better.
And here is the moment in this film.
It's just one of my favorite moments in movies when the Zulus, they have this trick of singing to drive their opponents nuts to basically undermine their morale.
And Stanley Baker, as the leader of the British 100 people, realizes they're just completely in despair.
They hear these 4,000 Zulu warriors chanting and they're losing heart.
And so he goes to one of his subordinates and asks them to fight back.
Here it is.
It's going to do better than that, Owen.
Well, they've got a very good bass section, mine.
But no top tenors, that's for sure.
Can't you see their spear points gleaming?
See their warrior balance streaming to this battlefield.
Shrink the ball, let's start ye steady.
Come on, shake the ever steady.
That's a great, great moment where they cheer themselves on and bring their morale back by singing, Men of Harlock, stop your dreaming.
Can't you see their spear points gleaming?
These are the Welsh troops that are going to fight back in one of the greatest battles, true life story in British history.
Now, leaving aside the morality and the politics and all the complexity of it, and certainly leaving aside race, I know people call me racist for what I'm about to say, but I don't care because I'm not even thinking about the people's races.
I love this battle because it is a battle between primitivism, between a savage, broken country, and civilization.
And I am in favor of civilization, and I'm rooting always for civilization.
Battle Between Civilization and Primitivism00:05:15
It is better for people.
The people who talk about being on the wrong side of history should try living in a mud hut without electricity for a couple of years, and they'll find out what the wrong side of history really looks like.
Civilization, in great civilization, is the right side of history.
And right this minute, I feel the civilization is standing in a rock's drift of its own.
And the anti-civilized forces are not the Zulus.
They are the people who want to destroy national governance by the representative of the people and replace it by global governance, by unelected elites, but also those who want to destroy the empire of the family and replace it with the empire of disaster.
That old pagan idea that the flesh is primary, that what you want is who you are.
It's an idea that always and everywhere ultimately translates to the powerful taking their pleasure at the expense of the less powerful, where desire rules.
Men use women, women kill unborn babies, and children become the playthings of adults.
That is the way it has always been.
In the pagan world, it was the Christian world that changed it.
The Rourke's drift is the American family, the redoubt of sexual sanity in our country right now and in the West right now, is the mom and dad family with women at its core, homemakers, mothers and wives, and the men who support and defend them and respect them and give them the honor and respect they will not get from a feminist leftist society.
I remain, I've always have been, and I still am, a supporter of individual sexual freedom.
I don't want a government that listens at the bedroom door, and I don't want to hate people who have different desires and different lives than I am.
But as Aristotle pointed out, the state is constituted by households, and our household is the patriarch-led, matriarch-upheld, Christian-formed family household that built this country, this culture, the best culture of the world, which was the culture of Europe.
This is the core of the civilization that sent people to the moon, that defeated the Nazis and the communists and created the freest and richest country in the world.
That is the center of our country, which is the mom and dad Christian-based family.
Now, I'm an artist.
I've worked with all kinds of eccentrics and gay people and all kinds of crazy people.
I've befriended them.
I love them, you know, and I love musical comedy.
But, but gay people asked to be welcomed into that civilization that the family was the core of.
The family was the core on which that civilization was built, and gay people asked to become part of it, and we said yes in all tolerance.
And I think that was the right thing to do.
I think it's right to tolerate people who live on the margins.
But now, those very people have turned it around, and it's not the same people.
We're not talking about the gays.
We're talking about some gays.
We're talking about gay activists, and really we're talking about leftists who are now telling us, oh, we're going to queer your family.
We're going to destroy your children.
If you don't let your child transition, we're going to ship your child to another family, and we're going to make sure that they're castrated or they have their healthy breasts cut off.
We're going to make sure that our movies are filled with gay iconography so your children can learn to be like us.
This is ridiculous.
This is imperialism.
This is sexual imperialism.
Is one thing for people to say we want to be included in the culture that you built, and it's another thing to say we want to transform that culture into our culture.
Those are two different things, and again, these are two different people.
I know, because I'm an artist, I know so many gay people, so many of them are basically conservatives, so many just want to live their lives, do their work, love the people they love, and be left alone.
It is this small group of activists and leftists who have infiltrated a political party, the Democrat Party, and have taken it over.
And they are practicing sexual cultural imperialism on the rest of us.
The family, the family, this family in which the father makes sure that the mother has time and space in which to raise children and build homes for both him and the children, that family has a track record.
It has a track record.
It has proved what it can do.
The old savage empire of desire, which the left is trying to bring back, also has a track record.
It's a track record of destruction.
I want, I still believe, I still grasp at the idea that we can tolerate difference in this country.
We have to do that, or else we're not the Americans we're supposed to be.
But that once let into the house, they should take it over.
Once let into the house, the people at the extremes, the people who are deviant from the norm, should take it over, is simply wrong.
It's the same thing as America saying to other countries, this is who we are, and this is who we will remain.
And anyone who tries to change us will meet with our force and our power, and saying we're going to conquer your country and force you to live like Americans.
Those are two different things.
And what I feel now is that the left is practicing cultural sexual imperialism and it's weakening us.
And I'll show you what I mean.
I'm so happy it's autumn finally.
Summer was so hot.
It feels so good for the weather to cool off.
Books and Bans00:14:08
I'm going to be traveling a lot this autumn.
And if you are going to be traveling, I know you also want the protection of Ring Alarm so you can rest easy.
You know Ring, they're the video doorbell company that lets you talk to anyone at your door no matter where you are, but they also make an alarm, an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
And it's incredibly easy to install.
I have done it myself.
But Ring has also changed the home security game with Ring Alarm Pro.
You want to go pro with Ring Alarm Pro.
It's a whole home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe to Ring Protect Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro combines a security system with a fast Wi-Fi router for home security and network security in one device.
Plus, with a Ring Protect Pro subscription, you get professional monitoring for the ultimate peace of mind.
If anything happens, professional monitoring will call you and can request emergency services.
This fall, whether you're across the country or across town, you can rest easy and know everything at home is protected and connected and will stay this way.
To protect your home, go pro with Ring Alarm Pro.
Learn more at ring.com forward slash Clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash Clavin.
If you need to know, and you do how to spell Clavin, just wait till somebody comes to your doorbell, ask them on the Ring Gap app, you know, just say, how do you spell Clavin?
if they know, then you set off the alarm.
You know, we got so many good letters in the mailbag this week that I'm probably going to have to deal with some of them in the members block, because there's just a lot of them that I wanted to talk about.
But one that I want to mention here, and I will get to it more in the mailbag section.
I'm not going to answer it here, but I just want to mention it's from a lady named, I believe it's pronounced Jenny G J E N A E, but I'm going to call her Jen because I don't want to keep mispronouncing her name.
And she describes herself, I love this, she describes herself as just a mom of five trying to do her best.
I love that just.
She's just a mom of five trying to do her best.
And Jen has a son who's autistic, and he's 13, but he has the emotional age of about three or four, which is really a tough situation.
It is really tough to deal with a child like that.
And so Jen is not just doing the work of a hero raising five children, which is already heroic work.
She's got even more heroism.
She's displaying even more heroism by dealing with this difficult kid, who she says is a delight.
And the kid loves Buzz Lightyear, and she wants to show him the new movie, Lightyear, right?
And if you're a parent, you know what this is like.
You know what it's like to have your kid delight something.
I remember scouring little shops in New York trying to find my daughter just something about Pinocchio because she loved Pinocchio.
You know, you really wanted your kids to have the things that delight them.
But in this film, Lightyear, you know, they keep saying, oh, there's one chaste lesbian kiss.
It lasts for a second.
It lasts for a second.
They're lying.
They always lie.
They lie because they know they're doing the wrong thing and they want to hide it.
But first they say we're not doing it.
And then they say, oh, and if we are doing it, you're a terrible person for pointing it out.
What happens, and I haven't seen the film, this is what I've been told and what I've read about and what I see in this clip that I'll show you, is that Buzz Lightyear keeps coming back and his best friend is a woman.
She gets married to a woman.
They have a child together in their lesbian marriage.
And then there is a chaste kiss.
Here's what's in the film.
Oh, I got engaged.
Oh, wow.
That's great.
What's her name?
Kiko.
She's one of the science crew.
You got engaged to someone you just met?
Buzz.
I met her three years ago.
All right.
I want to make it absolutely clear, once again, this is not about whether I accept lesbian couples, which, as it happens, I do.
It's not about whether Jen does.
It's not about whether Jen does.
The question is, who speaks to her children about sex and whether or not there is a norm and a core culture that they should maybe find out about first or that she wants to support and stand against, you know, lesbian marriage, whatever she wants to do, it's who is going to teach her children about sex?
The mom and dad family, the person who has given her life to raising these children, to doing the heroic work that she's doing.
Who is going to make this decision?
Or is it going to be the people who brought you Harvey Weinstein, the people who brought you the casting couch, the people who trade off child actors at pool parties with their gay mafia and pass them around and ruin their lives and never get caught and never pay a price?
The people who've been divorced five times and have children out of wedlock, who end up in rehab writing memoirs about their famous family who destroyed their lives.
These are these skunks who believe that their sexuality should be imposed on you or preached to you when you are acting by the highest level of human sexuality, which is in a devoted marriage in service to the children it produces.
You have the authority.
This lady Jen has the authority and the wisdom that she gets from doing the job she does.
And these people have nothing except talent.
Talent is blind.
Talent goes to all kinds of people.
There are wonderful, talented people, and there are talented people who are absolute skunks.
And all of them seem to be working at the Disney Corporation.
You know, I just have to quote this because I really caught my eye.
Megan Basham, our friend that we love, she tweeted this week a source message.
He'd taken his family to Disney, to Disneyland, I guess, where he counted no fewer than six male-to-female trans cast members.
I happened to read the note as my kids and I were waiting online at Silver Dollar City in Branson, a gorgeous park with fun rides and Christian music pointing everywhere.
So I'll say more about this letter in the mailbag section.
But if you don't think this is cultural slash sexual imperialism, then listen to this.
If it's not, why does the state of Colorado keep hounding Jack Phillips, the cupcake guy, the baker, the guy who won't make a cake for a gay wedding because he doesn't believe in that?
Are there no other bakers in Colorado?
Is Colorado actually divorced?
Is it a bakery desert?
They keep coming back at him, and that's not the message he wants to deliver in his arts.
But they can't have anybody say that.
They cannot have anybody say, no, I'm not going to do that.
This push to put explicit gay sexual material into schools, especially at the youngest level.
And when you stop it, they say, well, that's book banning.
That's censorship.
But no, it's not.
That's not book banning.
It's not censorship.
It is not book banning or censorship to keep explicit material out of the hands of children.
And it's not even book banning to keep material that's not explicit, but you don't like it out of the hands of children.
You are in charge of your children.
Know why?
Because you do the work that has to be done.
They've been trying to take that work away from you.
Every time they say we have to support women, what they say is, well, we need more daycare.
And we need free preschool.
You got to have free preschool because otherwise you might teach your children things that we, the state, don't want them to learn.
And by destroying, of course, the family, the state gets ever and ever stronger.
Listen to the way CBS covers the movement by parents, parents trying to keep these books out of the hands of their children because they want to be in control of what their children learn about this basic relationship in human life.
Here's CBS News.
Well, we want to turn now to the sharp rise in book bans in America's schools and libraries.
A recent study found hundreds of books, mostly focused on LGBTQ themes or racial issues, have now been forbidden across the country.
CBS's Elaine Cahano goes in depth.
A small Michigan town is locked in a war over words.
The battle is over these five books with LGBTQ themes.
These books and lifestyle choices are destructive and wrong.
Last month, a group called the Jamestown Conservatives led a successful drive to essentially defund the library.
They want those books removed from the shelves.
I feel like we've kind of stepped back in time talking about book banning.
Library Board President Larry Walton opposes moving or removing the books, calling it censorship.
It's heartbreaking to be associated with this situation.
Oh, it's heartbreaking that he can't show his gayness to these children, that he can't show gay material to these children.
It's all a question of who decides.
This is basic Thomas Soule.
It's not what's right or wrong.
It's who decides.
The parents.
Completely, completely.
It's 100% in the parents' hands.
And the fact that they want these books out of the school, just get them out.
It shouldn't even be a discussion.
Just take them out.
You know, I don't even care if it's something where we all agree that they're wrong.
They still have the right to do this.
But this is different.
This is an attack on the family.
And again, it is not gay people attacking the family.
It's these leftist activists.
It's the leftism that infiltrates these, that takes over people's identities, first saying, if this is your identity, then you're with us.
And then, of course, throws you out if you're not that.
If you're a black guy who says, I'm not supporting the Democrat Party, then you ain't black.
And if you're a gay guy who says, I'm not supporting this, you ain't gay.
You're not part of it.
All they mean is that you're leftists.
That's all they want.
And if you disagree, they will destroy you.
You know, the thing is, because the left owns all of the communication vehicles, except this one, no, except a few, but I mean, they own the mainstream ones, they set the norms.
So the questions that are asked of candidates as we approach the midterms, they're all going to be about abortion, trying to make people who oppose the killing of babies in the womb, trying to make them sound like the extremists, right?
That's what they're going to do.
And they never ask what the other people believe.
Here is, you know, this is a woman who really, this is one of these Trump candidates that everyone's doubtful about.
She's running for governor in Arizona, Carrie Lake.
She has been really kicking button taking names.
She's been doing a great job at handling the press because she understands every time they ask a question, they're not asking a question.
They're setting the norm of the conversation.
And here she is fighting back.
Tell me, abortion is effectively banned in the state right now.
Tell me, do you, is that something that you support?
I support saving as many lives as possible.
And what I really want to know, and I've been waiting, I tune into you guys all the time.
I want to know where Katie Hobbs stands.
But I never hear you guys ask for that.
I'm pro-life.
My plan would be that every woman who walks into an abortion clinic know that there are options out there.
They don't have to choose that.
There's families who would love to adopt a baby.
And right now, the way it's been going, they go in and they only have one option.
That's it.
Nobody tells them that there's other options.
We want to help our women.
If they're afraid, we want to help them.
We want to give women health care.
And I want to help people.
But I really challenge you.
And I'm happy to get back to you on this when you find out where Katie Hobbs stands.
Because let me tell you where she stands.
She supports abortion right up until birth and after birth.
That's right.
She supports if a baby survives a botched abortion, that that baby die on a cold metal tray.
That's the way you handle that.
Because they're setting the norm.
Where do you stand?
How extreme are you on this question?
You know, when they say to people, when they say to Republican candidates, you know, do you believe in abortion in the case of rape or incest?
The answer to that is, well, does my opponent believe in it in the case of wanting a girl instead of a boy?
Does my opponent believe in it if the child happens to be red-headed instead of black-haired?
Does my opponent believe in aborting a child because it happens to be Sagittarius instead of Leo?
When do you say no?
When do you say no?
Why let them set the norm, right?
The norm should be life, right?
The norm, of course, should be letting a child live.
This is why, you know, when they come off after Herschel Walker, the Senate candidate in Georgia, ex-football player, obviously has had a hard time in his life.
Now they're accusing him plausibly, I think, that he paid a woman to have, paid for a woman's abortion.
And they're saying, oh, Republicans, look how disgusting they are.
They'll stoop to supporting this man who did this terrible thing just to defeat Warnock, just to defeat somebody who wants abortion all the time for everybody at any stage.
So he believes in infanticide.
Yeah, I too would vote for this guy.
I'm sorry he did a bad thing.
I'm sorry he's had a hard life.
He apparently had mental problems.
I'm sorry about all that stuff.
But what's the idea?
The idea is I'm not supposed to vote for a guy who did a bad thing so you can legalize doing this bad thing.
You know, the only thing they're getting him on is hypocrisy if they got him on that.
And if they get him on hypocrisy, well, at least he has standards that he's violating.
This personal destruction.
If you don't think this is cultural imperialism, then look at the way they personally want to destroy anyone who stands against them, which includes, by the way, the people here at the Daily Wire.
They went after Matt Walsh, who's doing, as I've said a million times, he's doing God's work going after this transgender butchery of children.
Now they unearthed some stuff he did on a radio show when he was in his early 20s.
And my feeling was Walsh should get out there and say, I want to apologize to each and every killer of babies and mutilator of young people for not adopting their satanic morality as my own.
I'm really sorry I didn't do that.
And they're going after Candace too.
And Candace, you got to love Candace.
Candace is in a Paris culture show, a fashion show with Kanye West.
And they're wearing a shirt that says White Lives Matter, which is as, for me, as true and as ridiculous as Black Lives Matter.
And the New York Times, they're writing articles going, this is going to cause violence after the Black Lives Matter burnt cities to the ground all across this country.
Now they're afraid that White Lives Matter is going to cause violence, but we know it's not, right?
You know, you got to say, Candace is great.
She's one of the first people to go after Black Lives Matter.
I should tell you that she's got her film, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.
That's coming out Wednesday, 10, 12.
It's only on Daily Wire Plus.
Greatest Lie Ever Sold00:02:57
You want to go to greatestlie.com.
You want to see this film because I know some of the stuff, I haven't seen it, but I know some of the stuff she's got.
But listen, they expect us to run away.
They expect us to say, to apologize.
They expect us to cancel Matt and Candace.
That's not going to happen.
And you know why it's not going to happen?
Because we know, not because, see, we're not the fight.
You're the fight.
Your family is the fight.
The people who support your family is the fight.
The people who believe in your family, in the mother, the work of motherhood, in the work of fatherhood, the people who believe in that.
That is the fight.
That's Rourke's Drift.
That is Rourke's Drift.
All we're doing is giving you the ammunition.
We are pumping in the ammunition so you have the means with which to fight.
So you don't think you're alone.
So you don't think the norm that the people are selling you is the norm because it's not.
That's our job here.
Our job is to support you because the culture, the culture, you know, the culture, of course, it's the arts.
Of course, it's the kind of thing we do.
But it's only that if it strengthens you because you are Rourke's drift.
You are the ones who are, they're trying to sing their song until you lose your morale and you've got to sing back at them.
Men of Harleck, stop your dreaming.
Can't you see their spearports gleaming?
They're coming for you.
We are not going to leave you alone.
We're going to supply the ammunition.
You've got to make a stand.
You know, the holiday season is actually coming very, very quickly.
And I know during the holidays, I am so busy watching my wife make all the preparations.
It's just exhausting.
And if you're a small business owner, you know how important it is to be ready for when the insane holiday season arrives.
If you haven't started preparing for the chaos of holiday mailing and shipping, you're already falling behind.
But luckily, stamps.com has everything you need to make your life a whole lot easier.
It's the 24-7 post office that you can access from anywhere.
No lines, no traffic, no hassle.
Stamps.com is your one-stop shop for all your shipping and mailing needs.
For more than 20 years, stamps.com has been indispensable for over 1 million businesses.
Get access to the U.S. post office and UPS services that you need to run your business right from your computer.
With inflation on the rise, every dollar counts.
Protect your margins with major discounts on USBS and UPS rates up to 86% off.
Use stamps.com to print postage wherever you do business.
All you need is a computer and printer.
And if you need a package pickup, you can easily schedule it through your stamps.com dashboard.
Get ahead of the holiday chaos this year.
Get started with stamps.com today.
Sign up with promo code Clavin for a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a free digital scale.
No long-term commitments or contracts.
Just go to stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page and enter code Clavin.
And I know you're thinking, but how do you spell Clavin?
There are no E's in Clavin.
Sexual And Cultural Imperialism00:14:42
Now, when I say this sexual imperialism is hurting us, when I say this cultural imperialism of the left is hurting us, it's because there is imperialism abroad in the world, right, in the case of Russia, for instance.
but China too.
And it's weakening our profile in the world.
You know, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play where he said, hell is other people, hell is other people.
Well, the reason hell is other people is because other people force you to confront reality.
Other people don't do what you want them to do.
They don't react the way you want them to react.
And so you have to adjust to other people, and that helps you become more realistic.
So this is kind of the thing I was joking about in the opening is that Putin, you know, I hate these guys on the right who say, oh, Putin's not so bad.
You know, we just, we think he's bad.
They say he's killed people.
Putin's a murderer, a killer, a conqueror, an imperialist.
He is an oppressor.
He is a bad guy.
And Ukraine may not be paradise.
It's not.
It's a corrupt nation.
but they have a right to set their own goals and have their own history and live in their own country.
So even as they're pushing the Russian invaders with the help of American and Western arms, they're pushing the Russian invaders out.
Putin stages this fake annexation vote and announces that parts of Ukraine are now part of Russia forever.
So anybody who goes in there is invading.
This is wild.
Not only are the Russian soldiers retreating from these areas, but Russian men are leaving Russia so they don't get drafted.
Everybody's running away.
So he has this big thing.
They're very good at this, the Russians.
They do these things in Red Square in Moscow.
They have a big parade party to celebrate the annexation of parts of Ukraine.
And Putin gives a speech.
Now, I'm going to read you portions of the speech, right?
And Putin, you know, he's a complete fraud, this guy.
He's a dictator, but he knows the notes to hit.
And so sometimes people say, well, he supports religion.
He ain't supporting anything but him.
He's supporting him and his power and the Russia that he wants, which is an imperial Russia.
So this is what he says.
I'm going to read you a translation.
The West, that's us, is ready to step over everything in order to preserve the neo-colonial system that allows it to make parasites to plunder the world at the expense of the power of the dollar and technological dictates to collect real tribute from humanity to extract the main source of unearned prosperity, the rent of the hegemon.
So here's a guy literally annexing areas from another country, calling us colonialist, but he also has a point, right?
Because we did try to get Ukraine to join NATO right on his border.
Maybe that was a tactical, I think that was kind of a tactical error.
I'm not saying it was a moral error, but it was a tactical error.
But here's what he says.
He says he's talking about the West.
He says they do not wish us freedom, but they want to see us as a colony.
They do not want equal cooperation, but robbery.
They want to see us not as a free society, but as a crowd of soulless slaves.
All we hear from all sides is that the West stands for order based on rules.
Where did these rules come from?
Who even saw these rules?
Who agreed?
Western countries have been repeating for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other peoples.
Everything is exactly the opposite.
Instead of democracy, suppression and exploitation, instead of freedom, enslavement and violence, the United States is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons twice.
This is a threat, destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By the way, they set a precedent.
So he's threatening nuclear war.
He says, let's answer some very simple questions for ourselves.
I now want to return to what I said.
I want to address all the citizens of the country.
He says, not only to those colleagues who are in the hall, to all the citizens of Russia, do we want to have here in our country, in Russia, parent number one, number two, number three, instead of mom and dad?
Have they gone mad out there?
Do we really want perversions that lead to degradation and extinction to be imposed on children in our schools from the primary grades, to be drummed into them, that there are various supposed genders besides women and men, and to be offered a sex change operation?
Do we want all this for our country and our children?
Such a complete denial of man, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, the suppression of freedom, acquiring the features of a reverse religion, the opposite of what the religion is.
It's outright Satanism.
Now, my problem with this is that he's got a point.
He's a horrible monster, and he's got a point about us.
When we put a rainbow flag up on our embassy in Afghanistan, a place we're occupying with our troops, we're not being enlightened to go into this very Muslim country and say, not only are we bringing our troops in here, we're bringing our rainbow flag, we're practicing cultural imperialism on you.
America has always been very proud of the fact that we have sometimes fought for other countries, like we fought for Britain and France and all of Europe against the Nazis, but we didn't take over those countries.
We didn't say this country now has to live the way we want them to live.
It's one thing to use our influence.
It's another thing to impose these things.
When we are fighting, when we're fighting with Putin, a nuclear power, with Russia, a nuclear power in Ukraine on his border, right, and you can be for that war or against it, whatever you want.
You know, we have to have something that's worth having.
We have to have something that's worth having.
This culture, as I said before, was built around the Christian family.
It doesn't have to be the Christian-formed family.
Our family, the idea of our family that, you know, in the Bible, it says a woman should submit to her husband, but the husband should submit to God, and they become one flesh.
That sounds, the feminists always push that as if the man has all the power and the woman is powerless.
That's not true.
I know this from experience and from observation, that when you live that way, right, not just the woman submits to the husband, but the husband submits to God and the husband and wife become one flesh.
That's not the kind of power imbalance that you think it is.
That is actually an organism that moves forward to higher levels of both faith and culture.
When you want to say, hey, you know, you built this wonderful culture of the West, we'd like to be part of that and you're excluding us.
It's one thing for us to say, yeah, you're right, we've been excluding you, be part of this culture.
It's another thing to say, oh yeah, now we're going to turn you into us.
They don't have the track record to do that.
And they make us, you know, who in Russia, who in Afghanistan looks at our country now, looks at our teenagers being butchered by these madmen, looks at these people who want to have abortion seconds before birth, which is infanticide.
It's just infanticide.
It's to say it's abortion is to complement it.
To say it's the sin of abortion is to complement it.
It's the sin of infanticide.
You know, who wants to be us?
Who wants to be us?
That was our power.
That was our power when this country rose to power.
It was the fact that we were admirable, that we were morally admirable.
Did we have flaws?
Yeah, we didn't include people who should have been included.
But now that we've included them, they want to turn the country into something it never was.
And it is painful to me, it is painful to me to watch a bad guy like Putin call us the bad guys and have a point.
That is really, really tough.
See, the thing is, you know, I say this to people on the right all the time.
The left, and I'm not talking about liberals, I'm talking about the left.
The left are bad people.
They are promoting something that they know causes poverty and slavery and the rule of the elites, and they don't care, and they want that, okay?
That's bad.
That is a bad thing to do.
When we oppose them, we can't be as bad as they are.
We have to fight fair.
We have to at least fight well.
We have to make sure that we are people that other people want to be because that, if only for practical and strategic reasons, that's our power.
The power is when you look at a mom and dad family, you want to be like that family.
That's why some gay people who are not activists, who are not, that's why they want to get married.
You know, gay life may be different than straight life, but they say, yeah, that's a good model.
That really works.
Look how happy they are.
We want to be like that.
People used to say that about America.
They used to watch our movies, which were pro-America, and want to be like that.
Do you think they want to be like us now?
Do you think they want to be like this now?
I mean, it's just when they see, you know, Rachel Levine and his cardigans and his pearls walking around talking in that floody voice, which he thinks makes him a woman.
You know, do you think that's what most countries want to be like?
Do you think that's what most people want to be like?
Do you not think that they think exactly what I do alone?
You know, I don't want to hurt him.
I don't want to arrest him.
I don't want anything bad to happen to him.
We just don't want his fantasy to become, it to be enforced on the rest of us.
You know, if you had a girl who had anorexia and she looked in the mirror and saw a fat girl, even though she was starving like a concentration camp victim, you wouldn't say, well, we'll give you surgery to make you look fat and then you'll feel better about yourself because she'd die, right?
When you want to cut kids up because they momentarily are sexually confused, it's a sin.
Do you think anybody wants to be like that?
So here you have this guy.
He's invaded another country.
He has done the wrong thing.
There's no defending him.
We have sent arms in and now he's threatening nuclear war and we don't even have the ability to say, well, you know, we're going to stand up to him because we are something admirable that is better than what he's doing.
I don't know if we are.
I certainly don't know if this administration is.
I think this is an administration that has absolutely degraded this country.
I think allowing these activists, these sexually deviant activists, to take control of the party and to basically attack the family, to attack mom and dad's power over children, I don't think any country, truly, I don't think any country is looking at us and saying, boy, that's the country we want to be like.
That's our main power.
It's not our bombs.
It's not our tanks.
It's not our Air Force.
The main fact is that when we come to your country, you see the people coming who you want to be like.
And we are not those people anymore.
These guys are really doing damage, not just to us, but to the entire world, which needs an example of what a great country looks like.
This is not it.
And so when you are raising your child and it's drudgery, when you are working hard to support your wife and it's hard, just remember, you are Rourke Strift.
You are the defense of the world.
I know it sounds strange because you're living your ordinary life.
You're living your small life.
But it's everything because it is the basic building block of a free state.
Cease your dreaming.
Make a stand.
This week I had a great evening giving a talk to the Society for Women of Letters, just wonderful, wonderful women.
And one of them said to me, would you come on and just say rockauto.com?
And I said, I'm sorry, I can.
I'm a married man.
Because when you say rockauto.com, the ladies go insane.
Because when you say that, women know, they know that you know how to get auto parts for your car at great prices right in your computer.
You're not the kind of guy who's going to go down to your broken car and sit in it pretending like a kid that you're driving down to a car parts store that doesn't know anything more about cars than you do.
No, you're going to go on to rockauto.com's easy-to-use catalog and find their terrific prices with lots and lots of car parts for all kinds of makes and models.
This is a family-owned business.
They've been doing this for 20 years.
So go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
However, let me caution you, do not just go around saying rockauto.com because you will find you may be carried away by a group of very excited women who know you know where to get your auto parts.
When you go there, be sure to write Clavin in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know I sent you.
And you don't want to say Clavin out loud either because that really is trouble.
So we're talking about sexual imperialism and cultural imperialism.
It's really leftist imperialism in a way, but which then actually just links right into this movie Bros, this gay rom-com that came out this week, directed by Nicholas Stoller, and which with a screenplay he co-wrote with Billy Eichner.
And the idea of it is it's just going to be a rom-com, but it's going to be about gay people.
But underneath is also the message that gay people are very, very different than straight people.
And all this stuff that they told us about love is love was just a trick they were pulling on us.
So the movie comes out and it just tanked and it had a lot of money behind it.
It made 4.8 million in its first weekend.
Now, that's really low, by the way.
That means that gay people didn't show up for it either.
Nobody showed up for it.
That's a really small number.
And the co-screenwriter Billy Eichner starts sending out these angry tweets.
Here's one of them.
That's just the world we live in, unfortunately.
Even with glowing reviews, great rotten tomato scores, an A cinema score, et cetera.
Straight people, especially in certain parts of the country, you know who you are, just didn't show up for bros, and that's disappointing, but it is what it is.
He says that's just the world we live in, unfortunately.
And this is a guy who's tweeted angry stuff about the Bible.
Get your fictional, hateful Bible stories and your fake fictional religious BS out of our lives and F you and all.
So it's a little hostile, a little hostile to the straight culture.
Here is the trailer from this.
And it's just a little bit of this trailer, which gives you an idea of what's in it.
Hi, everyone.
It's Bobby Lieber, and welcome to your favorite podcast where I talk about whatever I feel like talking about.
So these big movie producers came to me and said, we want you to write a rom-com about a gay couple.
Something a straight guy might even like and watch with his girlfriend.
Gay guys in my jam.
Awesome.
Something a straight guy might like?
Am I going to be in the middle of some high-speed chase then all of a sudden fall in love with Ice Cube?
Am I going to get butt f ⁇ ed by Jason Mamoa while we're both worrying about a volcano?
They said, we just want a movie that shows the world that gay relationships and straight relationships are the same.
Love is love is love.
And I said, love is love is love.
No, it's not.
That is bullshit.
So he's basically saying, you know, that, well, well, you heard what he was saying, basically, that straight culture is just too, too shabby for gay people to even pretend to be part of.
So you may ask, did I go and see this movie?
And the answer, you may have guessed, is absolutely not.
And will I see it?
No, I won't.
But my son, Spencer Clavin, no relation, is a gay human, and he reviewed the movie for the Washington Examiner.
Love Is Complicated00:15:55
And here's what he said.
He said, I am among the apparently select few who saw Bros.
Very satirical there.
The apparently select few who saw Bros this weekend and liked it, but it is unquestionably the portrait of a micro-demographic.
If you're in or adjacent to that micro-demographic, it's charming, relatable, and funny, sometimes even hilarious.
On the other hand, if you've never lived among affluent, liberal homosexuals in an American metropolis, the jokes are likely to fall flat.
This isn't even slice of life filmmaking.
It's sliver of life cut with one of those surgical blades that's only a few atoms wide.
Now, I have a limited amount of time myself for gay stories.
When I lived in London, there was one theater season.
I'm a big theater fan, and there was one theater season where there must have been like four or five gay plays in the West End in London.
My wife and I went to one of them, and we thought it wasn't bad, but it exhausted our interest in the subject.
We thought that was a subject, and we were willing to watch a play about it, but not a lot of plays about it.
And I mentioned this offhandedly at the time to a gay friend, but he was a leftist, so he was prone to being offended, and he was offended.
And I said, look, this is not about me.
It's not something that I care about that much.
It's part of the world.
I know gay people, so I'm happy to hear a story about this.
But a love story between a man and a woman has a subtext that it's about whether the world will continue, whether a man is strong and brave enough and a woman loving and tender enough to create the next generation.
The future of two gay people really doesn't have that kind of resonance, and it's not about me.
It's about something else.
Now, there's also something else, and I want to just talk about this bluntly.
Straight guys tend to find gay acts of affection, let's call them, not to mention sex, unpleasant to look at.
We don't like looking at that.
In fact, what we like looking at is pretty girls.
That's what we like looking at.
That's why men want to see a sex scene because they want to see the girl.
They do not want to see the sex.
They want to see the woman.
This is actually the truth.
And that's why a lot of guys love lesbian sex scenes because they're two naked girls.
That's what that's about, right?
So if you're watching something that you actually find unpleasant, you are going to have limited tolerance for it.
And the reason this point is important is this.
We're not obligated to see what you make.
We have no debt to you whatsoever.
We don't owe you anything.
I'm talking as the audience.
I'm also an artist.
You as the audience don't owe me anything.
You don't owe me to pre-order, as you well should, a strange habit of mind.
You don't owe that to me.
I'm asking you to do it because I think you'll love the book, but you don't owe it to me.
It is my job to entertain you.
And so this isn't just with gays.
It is with all of these lefty guys in Hollywood.
They are basically accusing the audience of being bad people for not showing up for their work.
Even if their work is good, we don't owe it to you to see it.
There are plenty of, I don't like rom-coms at all, by the way.
I don't go to a romantic comedy at all.
Even if it's great, I'm not going to go because I don't care, right?
I am not responsible to come to your story.
So they did this again.
They did it with, what was it, the Ghostbuster, the Girl Ghostbuster one in 2016.
They made it Ghostbusters with all women, and people didn't like the trailer and didn't show up.
And the cast came out and said, well, because we were basically sexist, here's that.
It's not something that hasn't happened.
It's just that each and every time it comes up, everyone seems to act like it's the, you know, it's the first time that like there's a talking monkey or something crazy.
Like we cast billy goats or something to play over here.
It's like billy goats.
It just seemed like we did something completely wrong and we didn't.
We made a great movie.
So here's the thing, right?
We may have not gone to see it because there were women in a film that we considered to be a bro film and we didn't want to see a bro film with a bunch of girls in it.
That's one reason.
We may have not gone because we thought it was bad.
We may have not gone because we had 40 bucks to spend and we decided to spend it on dinner.
We may have not gone because it was a sunny day and we felt like taking a walk instead.
We could not go for any reason we like.
The idea that we are somehow you made this thing so we're responsible for seeing it is insane.
It is completely insane.
It is a complete turnaround.
They did this with Black Panther.
Now I didn't like, I thought Black Panther was really dull, but I think all superhero movies are really dull with one or two exceptions.
But they were doing the same thing before Black Panther came out.
This LA Times writer, Jamel Smith, wrote in Time magazine, he says, when I'm considering the folks who preemptively hate Black Panther, I will bet there wasn't one person in America who preemptively hated Black Panther or cared.
But he says, they seek to stop it from influencing American culture.
I say, let them try.
Wow, what a hero.
This guy is, you know, who cared?
Who cared?
Maybe you just don't like superhero movies.
Maybe you have something better to do.
You know, this is the entire thing.
You know, I sometimes joke about the fact that I have a hard time promoting myself, especially comical when I've been trying so hard to promote a strange habit of mine because I really think you'll love it.
But Jeremy said this, the God King of the Daily Wire said to me, there are many kinds of intelligence.
You have no self-promotional intelligence.
When the prequel to A Strange Habit of Mine, When Christmas Comes, came out, I took my Twitter list.
I did this because Knowles told me to do this because I'd never promoted myself before.
And I said, how do you promote yourself?
Knowles told me to go on your Twitter list, find the people who have a lot of followers, and ask them if they will tweet about the book.
So I had a list.
I have a long Twitter following.
I had a long list.
I got halfway through it.
Absolutely true story.
Absolutely true.
I began to get so nauseous that I couldn't continue.
I only got halfway through the list because I got nauseous.
And I don't ever get nauseous.
I mean, I could eat poison and not get nauseous.
But it was asking people for something that really bothered me.
I didn't want to ask anybody. to help me because it's my responsibility to entertain you.
The reason I did it, the reason I decided to do it is because of my politics and because of my outspokenness.
I've lost the venues that would have advertised it to you and I only had me to do it.
So I realized that I had to do it.
It was only fair to the work I put in to bring it to you.
But just because I bring it to you doesn't create an obligation in you to do it.
And this sense of obligation is absolutely fascinating and it is absolutely a change in pace of what the artist is supposed to be.
You know, there's a famous speech that was written by Samuel Johnson in the 18th century for the famous British actor of his day, David Garrick, when he opened his theater.
David Garrick is so famous, the Garrick Club is a club in London where actors go.
And there was a famous line that is engraved over the Garrick Club in London that was written by Samuel Johnson.
He says, the drama's laws, the drama's patrons give.
For we that live to please must please to live.
In other words, you're the audience.
You set the rules.
And the rules can be anything you want.
They can be we don't like to see nudity.
They can be we don't like to see Tom Cruise.
They can be we don't like to see movies that have too much red in the color palette.
They can be anything you want because we are here for you.
Now, mixed in with that attitude is a certain snobbery that has always been there.
I mean, I'm sure you've seen, or I hope you've seen Hamlet and you've seen him give his speech to the actors, how they're supposed to read the lines and they're supposed to be natural.
Here's Lawrence Olivier giving part of that speech.
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature.
For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold as twere the mirror up to nature.
To show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time is form and pressure.
Now this overdone, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of which one must, in your allowance, outweigh a whole theater of others.
You see, so what he's saying there is that art has a purpose to hold the mirror up to nature, and if you do it badly, you may please the fools in the crowd, the peasants in the crowd, but the judicious will not like it, and they are worth more than anybody else.
So there's always been this snobbery that artists have in it, and it's got a fair point to make, which is that we are doing something, and when you do it well, the judicious will know, but the crowds might not.
So you might make a beautiful movie that folds because only the judicious know, only people who understand the arts get it, and then only a few people will show up and the big crowds who show up for garbage like Black Panther won't show up.
And there's always been that kind of snobbery.
But the difference there, the difference there is where did the artist at that time in the Shakespearean time, where did he get his ideas of what nature is?
Well, Shakespeare tells you.
He tells you in a Midsummer's Night's Dream, he has a character say, the poet's eye in a fine frenzy rolling doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven.
And as imagination bodies forth the forms of things unknown, the poet's pen turns them to shape and gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name.
such tricks hath strong imagination.
In other words, looking at heaven and looking at earth, the poet acts as a sort of translator of what heaven has created and gives you the things that you can't see and gives them a shape.
It gives to Airy Nothing a habitation and a name.
It gives a shape to things that we feel and we know, but we can't say.
But he's looking at heaven and earth.
He's looking at nature and he's looking at heaven, at the create, not just the creation.
He's also looking at the creator.
Now, with the death of God, now we're just looking at people who are looking to themselves.
So all they're really telling you is what they think, which is very different.
It is very different than someone who has the responsibility to hold a mirror up to nature.
It's what one critic called the difference between the mirror and the lamp.
The mirror looks to nature and collaborates with nature and thereby collaborates with the creator of nation to give you ideas in ways that you might not thought of before.
But if you're a lamp, then the light is coming out of you and you are shining this beautiful lamp on the world and illuminating the people.
So when people say, oh, you didn't show up for my movie, what they're saying is you didn't show up for me and you are obligated in showing up for me.
Now, again, you know, I often say that the left has taken over the arts because we abandoned them.
Sarah Hoyt, who is a science fiction writer who I know because she's on Glenn Reynolds' site, Instapundit, a lot, she says, no, this is not true.
We were forced out.
And I think that's right.
I mean, I've been forced out of places because of my opinions, but we didn't build a structure to review the arts, to celebrate the arts, to reward the artists.
We left that to the left.
And that's what's missing.
It's the money, the money people, the people who build venues for artists and reviews for artists.
That's what's missing.
And so we have work still to do, but at least we're catching on to this idea.
And the idea is simply this.
We have a vision too, we people who still look up to heaven to understand the earth.
We have a vision too that we have to turn into art that you're not responsible for seeing because it supports America or supports freedom or supports anything.
We have to do our job first.
This guy, he may have done his job.
This movie Bros may be a good job, good show, but people don't want to see it.
We owe him nothing.
Zero.
Zip.
Buckus.
We owe him nothing.
It's up to him to make art we want to see.
If we don't want to see gay art, then maybe he has to make straight art.
How would that be?
Tough luck.
This is what I mean about cultural imperialism.
They want to force us to like the things they like.
They want to force us to desire the things they desire.
And they want to force our children to do it too.
And the answer is simple.
No.
This Monday, we will celebrate Michael Knoll's Day, or as some people call it, Columbus Day.
And while many woke companies will ignore or attempt to rebrand this holiday, Jeremy's Razors will honor it with an historic sale.
From now, through October 12th, you can purchase a Founder Series shave kit for 40% off plus free shipping.
That's a 1% discount for each of the 40 Christopher Columbus statues that have been removed or destroyed in this country by illiterate buffoons.
It's time to stand up and celebrate history in defiance of those who wish to cancel it and stop giving your money to woke razor companies that hate you and give it to Jeremy instead.
God knows he needs it.
Now he doesn't need it, but he wants it.
He wants it so much.
So navigate your way to jeremysrazors.com and enjoy a sale for the ages.
One of the more positive things that is happening to my mind is that I feel like a lot of women are suddenly waking up to the fact that some of the ideas they've been sold over the last 30, 40 years are not really very good ideas after all, and that some of the things that women need and want out of life are being denied them by the very people who tell them that they're their friends.
Louise Perry is a British journalist.
She's the author of a new book that is making waves called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century.
Louise, thank you very much for coming on.
You're so welcome.
It's a pleasure to be here.
So I was looking first at the table of contents of this book.
Chapter one, sex must be taken seriously.
Chapter two, men and women are different.
Three, some desires are bad.
And chapter eight is called marriage is good.
So I don't know.
You sound like some kind of conservative evangelical semi-fascist, as we call them.
We call them here.
What is your excuse, Louise?
No, but where is this coming from?
Well, I mean, I say that I think that what the book expresses is that I started with some feminist priors.
I started with the idea that it's important to protect the well-being of women and of mothers and of children.
And then I ended up at some conservative conclusions.
What I was trying to achieve with those chapter titles is on the one hand to say things like men and women are different, for instance, that is an apparently very obvious statement.
But also, we know that actually it isn't necessarily regarded as obvious.
And so I was trying to tread that exact tightrope.
And I think I achieved it because I've had, even before the book was published, I had a bit of a Twitter storm when the contents page was shared.
And some people look at that contents page and they say, duh.
And some people look at the contents page and they're appalled.
So clearly there's something going on.
In your introduction, it says you're a British journalist.
Are you in England?
I'm in London right now, yeah.
So what was the reaction when the book came out in terms of the press?
So it came out in June in the UK.
So there was a bit of a lag before the September publication in the US.
You know what?
It was more positive than I thought.
I did obviously get a little bit of pushback and there were some critical reviews and so on.
But really it was, I thought it might be 50-50 in terms of positive-negative responses.
It was more like 90% positive, actually.
Wow.
And sometimes from slightly unexpected quarters, I've had really lovely responses from readers from pretty much every demographic and point on the political spectrum you can imagine.
So what went wrong?
The Consent Dilemma00:15:28
The sexual revolution was supposed to set everybody free.
We're all supposed to be happy as clams.
And really, you know, when I go and give speeches to colleges, I sometimes start off by saying, young women seem to me to be miserable.
If I'm wrong, because I'm obviously not a young woman, let me know.
And no one has ever contradicted that.
What went wrong?
That was interesting.
The polling seems to confirm that as well, that women's happiness levels have been cycling downwards for some time.
So I think the problem with the sexual revolution is that what it was ideologically was really just an effort to tear down everything that had gone before, to completely obliterate the old sexual culture and to put in its place a much more rational, supposedly system of ethics, which really was just based on consent.
It's really very legalistic kind of ethical system, which I don't think is anywhere near adequate enough to actually promote the good and protect people from harm.
But I go into that length in the book.
I think that one of the problems with doing that is that it has proved very, very difficult to manage the fact of sexual asymmetry.
So the fact that men and women are different in some really, really fundamental ways, obviously on a, well, I say obviously, I mean, this isn't necessarily obvious in this day and age, but on a physical level in terms of the fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and the fact that men are stronger and bigger than women are and all of this kind of stuff, which obviously has huge, huge, huge social impact.
But also on a psychological level, that there are some important ways in which men and women differ on average.
For instance, one important difference is that men are generally more interested in casual sex than women are, if left to their own devices, are more promiscuous than women are.
And I think the problem with that we've seen with the post-sexual evolution ideology, which is all about freedom, it's all about just discarding any supposedly old-fashioned traditional norms which used to oppress us.
So that's, you know, that's the story.
Is that it can't really accommodate the fact that the playing field is not even.
And actually, if you're just unleashing freedom on a group of people who previously were controlled by really a very subtle, complex set of institutions, norms, religious ideas, and so on, which were often painful, which were often shame-inducing, which were often unfair.
We have to face up to the fact that the old system had all sorts of flaws which cause people pain.
The problem is that I think the new system is causing people pain as well.
And I think that trying to pretend as if all you need to do is just inject freedom into the sexual culture.
I think we tried that experiment.
It's 60 years on, and I think it's proved to be an abject failure, to be honest.
Yeah, I mean, they tried it in the 19th century as well, and it was a failure then, too.
You have a chapter which really grabbed me that you had a chapter called Some Desires Are Bad.
I recently read an article in the New York Times quoting a woman.
She may have been quoting your book, in fact, now that I think about it, I'm not sure.
Quoting a woman who said she was afraid to tell her boyfriend that she didn't want him to strangle her because she was afraid she wasn't being sex positive, which made me laugh in a sort of morbid way.
But like, that is an amazing idea that a woman can't tell, is not supposed to tell a man to not strangle her.
What do you mean when you say some desires are bad?
How are we supposed to parse that?
Well, what behavior is bad?
I mean, it's just a different way of asking what's good and bad, which is an extremely knotty moral question that I don't think we're all of one mind on at all.
But we need to try and answer it, right?
That's the task set to us as human beings.
The problem with the consent model is it offers this very seductively simple proposition, which is that as long as you consent, as long as everyone reaches various sort of legal thresholds for consent in terms of being old enough and sane enough and so on, then everything's fine.
You can do what you like.
The problem is that that system actually cannot account for things that we feel very intuitively are not right.
You can jump that legal bar of consent and still do all sorts of dreadful things.
And people will sometimes request of others that they do dreadful things as well.
The nature of human beings is that we don't always have perfect insight into what's good for us.
And actually, the consent framework, I think, permits all sorts of horrors, including, as you say, choking, which has gone from being a very bizarre practice.
I mean, I told my grandmother that this was now considered a flavour of the month among Gen Z millennials.
She was appalled.
That was completely unheard of in her era, right?
Whereas now it is supposedly considered to be a completely mainstream practice that you will expect to have done to you during on a first date without even any kind of request for consent.
And it's amazing the extent to which this has been mainstreamed.
I think it is because of porn.
It's because you now have this generation of young people who've grown up with porn beamed into their smartphones.
I'm 30, so I'm just a little bit too old to be of that generation where you had these devices, personal devices, when you were adolescents.
But the younger generation, they did.
And it's interesting actually that some of the most vehement anti-porn sentiment is coming from that age group precisely because they have learnt very much the hard way exactly how damaging porn can be on the young on the young developing mind and where things like choking or spitting on your partner or slapping your partner or calling the partner disgusting names, this is presented as being just part of the sexual script.
This is what sex is.
And so you have young people who have never even kissed someone else watching hundreds or maybe thousands of adults having this aggressive, loveless sexual scene played out.
And I think it's no surprise that we're seeing this offline as well.
So I am so incredibly ancient that I remember there were rules about certain things that whether a girl consented or not was actually not the question.
It was whether she was consenting to something that was going to be damaging.
And you, the guy, was responsible in part at least for saying, you know what, I'm taking you home, even though whenever people make this point that the sexual revolution has gone bad, they're always very careful to say the old way was bad, but, or I'm not saying we go back to the 50s, but.
Is there something wrong with that disclaimer?
I mean, is there maybe something that was lost that actually was in and of itself good?
You know, sex is not a system that's made to work.
It's a system of great confusion and difficulty and complexity.
But maybe the old rules had a point.
Is there any reason to disclaim them?
The old rules certainly had a point.
I mean, I don't think that we should necessarily idealize any particular decade.
You know, the 1950s is always the one that gets held up.
It was a very unusual decade in all sorts of ways.
What I think is, though, worth looking at is the commonalities across culture.
My first degree was in anthropology, and I call on anthropological research quite often in a book because I think it illuminates quite how strange we are.
And it seems to us as if things like premarital sex and online porn and all these things, which are now completely just the air we breathe, those are strange, actually, in historical terms and anthropological terms.
And I think, you know, part of the reason I make the case for marriage is because I think you can see in the data that there are all sorts of ways in which married people do better and married mothers do better and children brought up in households with two married parents do better.
You know, I think you can very easily just call on rational means to make that argument.
You don't necessarily need to be appealing to traditional to religion.
But it's also worth pointing out that every culture has a system of marriage.
That there are, I mean, there are really two systems, which is either the monogamous or the polygonous systems.
Those are the only two available in all the cultures that we've seen.
And the cultures that do best in all sorts of ways are the monogamous ones.
And I think the idea that comes out of the sexual revolution that we're unique, that we don't need all of that old-fashioned rubbish, you know, that we can just do away with it.
And we don't need a system of marriage.
We don't need a system of sexual ethics that's any more complex than just consent yes or no.
I think it's really hubristic to think that that's true.
So I think that you can say simultaneously, you know, I don't necessarily want to be directly recreating the 1950s, but also if we're the only culture that's saying this quite peculiar stuff, does that not suggest that we might be the ones that are wrong?
So that's an excellent point.
Now, what is to be done, as they say?
I mean, you have men who know no rules and want no rules, most of them, and women who are really being victimized.
I mean, it's just very obvious.
How do you make a change and who begins that change?
Well, it's a difficult one because our material circumstances have changed a lot.
You know, we have the pill, we have the internet, we have all of these inventions that can't be uninvented.
So it's not possible to just revert immediately back to a new kind of old system that was dependent on completely different material conditions.
But one thing that I do really hope comes out of the book is something I really noticed from speaking to lots of young women and all the campaigning and journalistic work I've done in this space is there are so many women who are so afraid to protect their own boundaries.
One of the things that, one of the ways I think in which the old culture did in some ways serve women better than the new culture within our lifetimes is that the default used to be no.
If you were going on a date with a woman, the default assumption was that you would not be having sex.
And obviously there were exceptions to that and there was all sorts of hypocrisy, of course.
But I think one of the things that's really difficult for a lot of young women now is that the default is yes.
The assumption is that you will be having sex on a first date.
And suddenly it becomes the responsibility of the young woman to be trying to impose a boundary where there isn't assumed to be one.
And I've so often heard from women who say that they are having miserable sexual experiences with, you know, not consensual.
They're meeting at the legal threshold, but they're not mutually satisfying.
They leave women feeling miserable.
And I really, really hope, and I believe this is happening from having heard from readers, that some women will read this book and they will come away feeling confident in saying no.
It's interesting because what women complain about, young women complain about, to me is they say if everybody's saying yes, it's very hard to say no because then you're taken out of the game, you know, and they're all looking for relationships.
This is a bad way to find them.
The book is called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century.
The author is Louise Perry.
Louise, thank you very much for coming on.
You really have some interesting ideas and insights into this.
And I hope you'll come on and we can talk again.
I'd love to.
Thank you so much.
Thanks a lot.
And now I'm sorry to tell you we are approaching the Clavenless Week, especially if you're not a subscriber.
We've got a little bit of mailbag coming before you get there.
But still, if you're not a subscriber, the Clavenless Week will come.
But if you are a subscriber, there will be a subscriber's block to fend off the inevitable doom that you will be facing as you enter that darkness, that internal darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Here it comes, but before it does, we're going to solve all your problems with the mailbag.
I just love Venn diagrams.
You know, the three circles, right?
Sometimes there are more.
Yeah!
I love Venn diagrams too.
All right, this is the letter I was telling you about earlier in the show from Jenae or Jen E, maybe, but it's Jen will call her.
She says, I want to thank you for being such a wonderful supporter of women who wish to lovingly serve their husband and nurture and care for their children.
I can feel the respect you have for us.
Good, because it is true and it is there.
She says, I would love your wise advice.
My 13-year-old son is autistic and obsessed with the character Buzz Lightyear.
He is so looking forward to the new movie, but with a gay kiss in it.
My husband and I do not feel this is appropriate for him or for our younger children.
Emotionally, our son is about a three or four year old, and he will just not understand why mom and dad decided we can't see this movie no matter how hard we try to explain.
Much of our extended family feels we ought to just let him see it anyway.
And I have even found myself trying to rationalize it.
My son is a sweet boy and he does not ask for much.
These bastards, I realize, Disney people, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I realize that much of parenting is hard and I'm not usually afraid of hard things, but I'm so disappointed that I cannot let him see this movie.
I guess I don't have a question.
And I'm just looking for words of support and encouragement as I try to do what is right.
Thank you.
And just a mom of five, trying to do her best.
I love the fact Stephen Colbert, who is just a hack and a corporate spokesman, makes millions of dollars, but she is just a mom of five, and he is the great Stephen Colbert.
So it's a wonderful world.
It's an upside-down world.
Here's the thing.
I do support you in this.
I think you're right.
As I said, it's not just a kiss.
It is an actual worldview that is being put forward and sold to your children by people who are dysfunctional and wicked and who live in a business that is full of dysfunction and wickedness and have no business telling you what your children should see.
And so remember, you're not really, you are old enough.
Obviously, your son isn't, but you are old enough to know you're not seeing Buzz Lightyear.
You're seeing the people behind Buzz Lightyear.
And I support you in this.
I know how hard it is, but it will pass.
You know, that is the thing.
It will pass.
And, you know, there will be other films that he likes seeing, and maybe you can find other things that he will enjoy.
But I do understand this.
I will say this.
There used to be a thing that the, of course, the left made fun of.
It was called something like Clean Flicks.
And the Mormons kind of supported it.
And it would edit out scenes so that you could show your kids things that had sexuality or bad ideas in it.
And you could show it to them.
Now, they lost a court case.
It was quite a while ago.
It was almost 20 years ago, I think.
They lost at least 15 years ago.
They lost a court case where the court said, no, you're making money off somebody else's artwork, and that's not fair.
So you can't do that.
And so I believe that Clean Flicks or Pure Flicks, whatever it was called, had to shut down.
However, that doesn't mean you can't have it done.
You know, you can't sell edited versions of a movie.
That doesn't mean you can't edit the movie when it comes out on streaming.
You can't record it and then edit it and take out these few scenes.
And it is only a few scenes that push this idea forward that you can't find it yourself.
You may have to find someone to do it, but it might be possible to get it done.
I don't want you to break the law.
I don't want you to do anything you're not supposed to do.
But you might look into that.
It is one option.
Moral Adoption Choices00:06:02
But if you have to say no, I know how painful it is, and I can tell from your letter.
And I just, I really, it's very hard for me not to curse these people for taking the Disney Corporation, which was a family-friendly, one of the greatest family-friendly corporations ever made and turning it into their imperialist cultural agenda.
They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
They will pay a price for it, if not in this world, then in the next.
It is a really ugly, small thing to do.
And I'm sorry you have to go through that, but I do support you in making the decision and making sure that you are the person who teaches your kids values, not these limping fools.
From Colby, Andrew, I just upgraded specifically to seek advice from either you or Knowles.
That's a choice.
So you either wanted the good advice or the bad of it.
No, I am a Christian.
Last year, I made a concerted effort to turn away from my former lifestyle.
I went an entire year celibate, but then I made a huge mistake and slept with a girl I had only known for a month and was not dating.
About nine days later, I told her that it was a mistake.
We both saw that we were not honoring God and needed to end it.
The next day, we checked to make sure she wasn't pregnant just to be comfortable, but she was.
Now we have to figure out how to move forward.
We don't love each other, and we don't dislike each other either.
We barely know each other.
She has a similar story of celibacy and repentance to me over the past year, so we know the child is mine.
Obviously, we're both terrified.
Abortion is not an option, and we're discussing dating through the first trimester, then getting legally married so that my insurance will cover her health expenses, then getting actually married before God and the community after the child is born.
But my huge reservation is not wanting the child to grow up with parents that don't feel love for each other.
I hate divorce.
I've went through it as a child.
I don't want my child to suffer the same things I did.
That being said, both of our initial reactions to adoption is to say no because we have to own up to our mistakes.
I acknowledge that every option has a downside, but these are the options I see.
Keep the child and marry and risk being unhappy and an unloving life.
Keep the child and don't marry and risk being a split home and single parenthood money is not the concern.
Or place the child up for adoption, the risk being regret, fear of the unknown, and a last-minute change of heart.
I really would like some counseling grounded in the Bible and Christian morality.
Please help.
Well, first of all, I just want to point out a logical error you make here when you talk about adoption, that we have to own up to our mistakes.
The child doesn't have to own up for your mistakes.
Adoption is a perfectly reasonable option.
I don't think anything, you know, the other things you said that you might regret it or that you might have a last-minute change of heart, those are risks that you would be taking, but there's not some moral rule.
I mean, adoption, after all, is one of the key moral principles of the gospels in which Joseph essentially adopts Jesus.
Adoption is a thing that we actually believe in.
And so, no, you're not forced to own up to your mistake in some mystical way that the child has to not have an adopted parent, not have adopted parents who would take him or her in and love him or her and raise them as their own.
No, that is a very, very good option.
The only other option I think that's moral is to get married and raise the child as a married couple.
And then you are right.
You have to face the fact that this may not be a good marriage and that you are committing at least the next 18 years of your life to what might be a very difficult marriage.
And, you know, I can't make this decision for you.
I think that's the lesser option.
I think adoption is a better option.
But all I would say to you is those, I think, are the two moral options.
But you shouldn't count out adoption for some strange reason, like you have to own up for your mistakes.
That's just not true.
I mean, the child does not have to own up for your mistakes.
And if adoption is the best thing for that child, then do it.
Those are, I think, your two options.
Marriage with the risk that it's going to be an unhappy marriage and the next 18 years, which is a long, long time, that's a third of your life, about maybe a little less, but still, it's a long time, is going to be unpleasant.
But if you want to make that commitment, you have to make that commitment because divorce is worse.
Divorce is worse, and it's certainly worse than feeling bad about the adoption.
But if you can agree on adoption personally, I think that is your best way out.
Gosh, I'm running out of time, and these questions are so good.
I'm going to continue answering questions in the member block.
Let me just see if there's a fast one in here somewhere.
All right, here's a quick one from Dean.
I'm a big fan of the show.
You suggested a policy.
I described it as moral but not Christian.
Could you expound on what you meant by that?
That phrase seemed meaningless to me since as Christians, we know God, God's will, aka Christian teaching is synonymous with morality.
And so the phrase moral but not Christian is contradictory, like saying moral but not moral.
Thanks and God bless you.
What I meant is not specifically Christian.
There may be many moral answers to a problem.
They don't have to come wrapped in Christianity to be moral.
Obviously, it is Christian to do the moral thing, but there are things that, different ways of handling something.
You may say, we were talking about the death penalty, as I recall, and I said the death penalty.
I can imagine situations in which the death penalty is moral.
It is not specifically Christian thing to do.
And I can imagine putting someone in prison for life being moral, which is also not a specifically Christian thing to do.
Christianity is not a rulebook.
It's not a book of, it's actually not a rule book.
It's a relationship with Jesus Christ that hopefully improves your view of morality and makes it clearer.
But there are lots of solutions that are not specifically Christian that are moral things to do.
That is the end for those of you who are not subscribers.
So at least you can take a little bit of consolation in knowing as you face the eternal darkness of the Clavenless Week, you deserved it because you didn't subscribe.
But if you subscribe, the members block is coming up and I will be answering more of these really interesting questions in the mailbag.