Ep. 1924 - Upsets That ROCKED The First Round of Midterm Primaries Explained
Ep. 1924 dissects midterm primary upsets: Dan Crenshaw lost to Cruz-backed Steve Toth in Texas, while Democrat Jasmine Crockett fell to radical "moderate" James Tallarico. Texas Senate runoff pits Cornyn ($71M) against Paxton amid GOP base shifts. On Iran, Trump’s pragmatic approach—avoiding Pahlavi’s regime-change push—contrasts with neoconservative hawkishness, prioritizing stability over ideological goals. Voter priorities hinge on immigration and crime, with Republicans poised to capitalize despite economic messaging struggles. The episode blends political strategy with foreign policy realism, ending with a warning against DMT-induced "demonic" encounters. [Automatically generated summary]
The first round of primaries for 2026 took place last night, and there were some major upsets.
Seven-year incumbent Dan Crenshaw lost his primary to a candidate endorsed by both Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson.
Not a pair that you see working together every day.
Former future of the Democrat Party Jasmine Crockett lost her primary to James Tallarico, a soft-spoken pseudo-Christian who is somehow, in fact, much more radical than she is.
Didn't see that coming.
And Reza Pahlavi, the crown prince of Iran, light of the Aryans, they call him, appears to be losing his primary in the White House to take over Persia after the Ayatollah.
I'm Michael Knowles.
the Michael Knowles Show.
Back to the show.
Scientists are apparently attempting to use people who are high on DMT to communicate with the alien-looking creatures that many people assume are demons.
It's a real news story.
I'm not, I didn't, I know it sounds like a mad lib that I just filled in, but that's real.
Seems like a bad idea.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, I want to tell you about Balance of Nature.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
This episode is sponsored by Balance of Nature.
Does anyone else feel like nutrition is getting way too complicated?
We used to just eat food.
Now you need a PhD to read the back of your cereal box.
Here's the reality.
We have all been told since we were kids to eat our fruits and vegetables.
I even tell my own kids that, but nobody really explained that what you're actually after in those foods are the phytonutrients, those natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair, and respond every single day.
The more we've tried to improve food in factories, the further we've gotten from what your body actually recognizes as food.
That is one of the many reasons I love Balance of Nature.
They take real produce, they run it through a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes phytonutrition instead of nuking it with heat and chemicals.
Their whole health system bundle includes their fruits and veggies and fiber and spice supplements, giving you 47 ingredients of whole food and their phytonutrients in a simple, consistent routine.
They've even rolled out brand new freeze-dried snacks that go through a similar process.
So you're not trading convenience for quality.
It's great.
Our whole team loves it.
It's fabulous.
We've got them at the office.
We've had them at home.
We've had them all over the place.
Great on the road, especially if you travel like I do.
Go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe, save today, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that is changing the world.
Huge GOP Political News Out Of Texas00:09:05
Huge GOP political news out of Texas.
Dan Crenshaw has lost his Republican primary to a state legislator named Steve Toth.
So Dan has been in Congress for seven years.
It kind of makes me feel old.
I remember the first time I met Dan.
By the way, I'm hoping we can get Dan on bar fight tonight.
It's a little unclear.
Obviously, his travel schedule is a little busy and a little hectic right now, but we're going to try to get Dan to come on bar fight tonight.
We're going to be debating the Iran war with Lib and get all the positions on the right covered.
In any case, I remember the first time I met Dan, Charlie Kirk had invited us to a student action summit years and years ago.
I think this was before he was in Congress.
It might have been after he won the election, but before he actually entered Congress.
And, you know, at the time, I know now he's somewhat unpopular in the GOP, but at the time, everybody on the right, the whole conservative movement was really, really behind Dan Crenshaw.
And SNL made fun of him.
And then the right smacked SNL.
And he was actually very gracious to SNL about it.
In any case, seven years later, it's totally flipped.
What pushed Dan out of his seat?
Not so easy to nail it down.
The biggest political backer of Dan Crenshaw's opponent, and it was a late entry endorsement, but nevertheless a major one, Ted Cruz.
So Senator Cruz comes in and endorses Steve Toth, the state legislator going against Crenshaw.
So this is a big win for Cruz.
Senator Cruz has a pretty good endorsement record over his political career, and he comes in, goes against the incumbent, and wins.
What's really weird about this one, though, is that the other guy who was boosting Steve Toth is Tucker Carlson.
Now, I don't want to get involved in the clicky, nasty GOP infighting, but Ted Cruz and Tucker don't exactly get along.
Not bosom buddies.
This might be the only issue on which Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson have united recently.
And that was to back this opponent of Crenshaw.
And then you have Trump world.
You have President Trump's role in all of this because I don't think Trump endorsed Crenshaw.
I think Crenshaw was one of the only guys that Trump did not endorse, even though Dan has been a supporter of Trump substantially, but there have been sometimes when he's broken with Trump.
In any case, what is the lesson to draw here?
Let's divorce the personalities for a second.
Let's forget that it's Dan versus Toth.
Let's forget it's Texas.
Let's just look at what it means for the Republican Party because that's really what we're concerned about heading into the midterms.
It's a reminder that the GOP is fractured.
There are major primary contests.
There's a primary contest also in Texas in the Senate, Ken Paxton, running against John Cornyn, who's been in the Senate for a very, very long time.
We'll get to that momentarily.
But what this means is the GOP really is fractured on a whole host of issues.
The GOP can't quite agree.
Is the GOP for free trade as it had been from the 80s through 10 years ago?
Or is the GOP for tariffs?
Is the GOP for more legal immigration or for less immigration totally?
Is the GOP for war in the Middle East?
Is the GOP anti-war?
Does the GOP like Israel?
Does the GOP not like Israel?
All these little fissure issues.
Is the GOP for, I don't know, against only transgenderism, but for the rest of the LGBT movement?
Is the GOP anti-LGBT?
You could really go down a whole host of issues and realize there are these fractures going on, especially pronounced over foreign policy, especially pronounced over the Trump coalition.
And yet, weirdly enough, this GOP primary shows the clearest example of GOP unity we've seen in years.
You just got Ted Cruz, Tucker Carlson, and Trump, at least implicitly, all on the same team.
All of those guys in recent years have publicly hated each other.
And you have obviously Ted and Tucker going at it.
Ted and the president obviously fought a very, very bitter primary campaign 10 years ago, although they've worked very, very closely together since then.
And then Tucker's text messages came out when he left Fox News, a text message is saying that he hated Trump, though Tucker and Trump have also gotten along recently.
So you've got these three guys who have been seriously opposed, but when they've all come together, the race wasn't even close.
The race was, what drove this?
Was it the Iran war?
Was that?
Not really.
Crenshaw and Toth both have essentially the same view of Israel.
They're both pretty vocal supporters of Israel.
The difference here is that Toth ran to the right of Crenshaw.
Crenshaw has more of a moderate centrist record in Congress, though still pretty robust conservative record too.
But Toth ran to his right, which tells me a few things.
One, the GOP is fractured.
The GOP doesn't have to be fractured.
It can be united.
And the GOP base wants to double down.
The pendulum has not swung back among GOP primary voters.
There's no second-guessing the Trump agenda.
If anything, the GOP primary voters want more.
We want more deportations.
We want more political action from the White House.
We want to double down on the things that won Trump the popular vote in 2024.
What do we make of the Democrat side?
Got to pour one out.
I don't know if you have your morning coffee.
I don't know if you're having an eye-opener or a screwdriver or something.
But in any case, you got to pour it out.
Jasmine Crockett, we hardly knew it.
Jasmine Crockett, the former future of the Democrat Party, Kamala Harris just recently said she's a bright young star in the Dems.
She is the outspoken, chameleon, clownish member of Congress who got memed into running for Senate.
She ran for Senate against this other just absolutely awful Democrat candidate, James Tallarico.
He's kind of, in a way, he's the opposite of Crockett.
They look different.
She's a black woman.
He's a white man.
She flirts with all sorts of political radicalism.
He presents himself as a Christian candidate.
I actually think he's much worse than she is.
But in any case, here is how she conceded her race when it was not even particularly close last night.
So that's my news, is that we're not going to have election results tonight, in my opinion, based upon what specifically is taking place in Dallas County.
Unfortunately, this is what Republicans like to do.
And so they specifically targeted Dallas County, and I think we all know why.
So I want you to enjoy yourselves, but I won't be back tonight because I have no idea of when we're going to get results.
And I fully anticipate it won't be until tomorrow.
Okay, so this is what happens.
Sometimes races are too close to call, but often when candidates lose and they're holding out hope that some last minute surge, some last minute lawfare is going to save the race for them, they say, look, it's too close to call.
It's 52 to 47, but it's too close to call.
I'm not going to concede tonight.
But then who does she blame?
She blames the Republicans.
She says, it's too close to call in Dallas County.
These Republicans, you know, this is always what they do.
What a fitting end to her Senate campaign.
A Senate campaign that began because Republicans trolled her into running.
It was actually an op to troll this woman into running.
She had no popular support within her party to run for Senate, and they just kind of trolled her through pushbulls and actually got her to run.
She didn't know what was going on the whole time.
Probably not the very sharpest tool in the shed.
And the end of her race is her not even realizing she was running against a Democrat.
Isn't that just great?
This race was awful.
And these Republicans cheated in the race.
Honey, sweetheart, there aren't any Republicans running in the race.
This is you, you were running against a Democrat.
So this is a, okay, where do I, this is what's called a political primary.
Cheating in the Race00:15:54
So I know what you're thinking.
You think that in the election, the Republican runs against the Democrat.
That's true.
You'll get to, that's called the, if you could take notes, please, Jasmine, yes.
That's called the general election.
And that, that's what happens next if you don't lose like you just did.
But the thing that happens first is there's something called a primary, the primary, P-R-I-M-A-R-Watt, primary, yes.
It's like first.
It's like what happens first, primary.
And then you, if you know anything at all, and if you have skill and resonance with voters, you, you, you win that.
But it's hard to win the primary when you don't know what a primary is.
So anyway, better luck next time.
Now, the craziest part of this, we've all made fun of Jasmine Crockett, maybe excessively.
I don't know.
Maybe we need to do some soul searching.
It's been fun.
We've had a good time.
But you know the craziest part of Jasmine Crockett, who she changes her voice and her diction and her cadence depending on which audience she's speaking to.
She either pretends to be Jenny from the block or she speaks reasonably.
She's just over the top.
You know the craziest part?
The guy who beat her, James Tallarico, is much, much worse.
We'll get to that momentarily.
First, I want to tell you about Hallow.
Go to hallow.com slash Knowles, Kennedy W-L-A-S.
We are deep in Lent, walking steadily toward Holy Week, the cross, and the resurrection.
This is not a season for the half-hearted.
Lent is a summons to conversion, to strip away what dulls the soul and return to God with sincerity.
This time of year demands movement, prayer, fasting, and self-gift.
And our sponsor, Hallow, helps you do that.
Do not drift through Lent, live it.
First, prayer.
Hallow can help you build a daily habit that makes room for God's voice.
They have meditations on the passion, scripture, reflections, and sacred music.
Real prayer that draws you out of noise and into encounter.
Next, fasting.
Yes, from food, but more often from what's poisoning your interior life.
Gossip, constant strolling, cynicism, complaint.
Fasting is not punishment.
It's clarity.
It frees the heart and makes space for grace.
Finally, give.
Real charity always costs something.
Offer patience when you'd rather be sharp, mercy when you've been hurt, love when it's undeserved.
That's what it means to imitate Christ.
I love Hallow.
That app is taking over the world.
Download Hallow today.
Spend intentional time in prayer and meditate on his love for you.
You get three months free at hallow.com slash Knowles.
Folks, I know what you're thinking.
This whole time I'm speaking and you're not even, you're tuning out because you're saying, wow, what is that comfy, handsome, stylish sweater that Michael's wearing?
Well, it's one of my own.
People had written in for a long time to ask me about my sweaters.
And I finally said, we talked to the consumer products lead over here at Daily Wire.
I said, hey, can we, let's see if we can hook people up with these sweaters.
So my tailor in New York makes these sweaters.
They're really, they're great.
Knits them knit in New York with fabrics that come from Scotland or Italy.
They're great.
Sweater season is waning.
It's getting a little warm out.
So that means that my collection of fine sweaters from New York is also going to be at least temporarily put on the back burner.
So these garments are great.
100% pure cashmere, 100% fine merino wool, kind of sweaters you will wear for years.
Look, you'll look just as home in that Ivy League library as you do at dinner with your in-laws.
They are available at the Daily Wire shop right now.
We're going to bring some of them back.
I'm excited.
I love them.
And you obviously like them too.
You bought a lot of sweaters.
We're not going to bring all of them back.
So if you want these styles, get them right now.
Go to dailywire.com/slash shop and you can use code Knowles, Kennedy WLES, for an end-of-season discount.
Dailywire.com/slash shop.
You thought Jasmine Crockett was bad.
Oh, no, no, no.
If the Democrats end up winning the general election, if they end up winning the Senate seat, you're going to be wishing that you had Jasmine Crockett in the U.S. Senate because the guy who just beat her in the primary, James Tallarico, is much, much worse.
He's going viral right now, right this minute as we speak for a clip of him claiming that God is non-binary.
God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between.
God is non-binary.
Okay, so for people who obsess over using the preferred pronouns of confused individuals, human beings, it is amazing that they refuse to use God's preferred pronouns.
Let's not forget that God, according to my religion and according to James Tallarico's professed religion, is incarnate, takes on flesh and dwells among us, is a man.
He's a man.
God is a man.
God is triune, three persons in one divine unity.
The Trinity is incomprehensible by its very nature.
If we could comprehend the Trinity, it would not be, he would not be God, you know, to use the medieval formulation.
So even the point he makes about God encompassing feminine characteristics, too, that point's fine.
To say that God is non-binary is deeply sacrilegious and politically very, very radical.
It's not the only radical thing that Tallarico said.
Here's another clip going around of Tallarico explaining why it is so important for voters to keep in mind the abortion rights of transgenders.
Before we go further, I want to acknowledge that our trans community needs abortion care too.
Defending trans Texans is something we have to do every day at the state capitol.
And you better believe I'll be giving sermons on that too.
So when I use the word woman, it should not be understood as an exhaustive term, but rather as a lens through which to understand, examine, and interrogate patriarchy.
Similar to how we specify anti-black racism.
I think a lot of people who voted for Tallarico in this primary did not see these clips.
A lot of the Democrats who are really excited about Tallarico as the nominee have not seen this clips.
I think Tallarico probably is going to want to downplay these clips when he runs in the general election.
We cannot allow him to do that.
The rise of James Tallarico, and he was pushed heavily by guys like Stephen Colbert.
Stephen Colbert made a whole big national incident out of trying to interview Tallarico.
The whole reason they picked him is because the Democrats have realized that this radical game, the revolutionary game, you know, the power to the people, burn it all down kind of optics hasn't worked.
It's been pretty bad.
It peaked in the early 2020s and it left President Trump with a popular vote victory in 2024.
People don't like that stuff.
And so what the Dems are trying to flip back to is the polished, reasonable, middle-of-the-road ethos of a Barack Obama or a Pete Budigej.
You know, that the sophisticated Ivy Leaguer who understands middle America.
Now, I don't know if Tallarico is actually an Ivy League, but he's doing an impression of one at least.
He's doing his best Budige Obama impression.
So the radical Democrats will just come out and say, we hate Christianity.
Your stupid sky daddy isn't real.
And, you know, communism now.
This kind of Democrat doesn't do that.
This kind of Democrat says, no, Christianity is really, really great, but actually Christianity is just gay communism.
But we love Christianity, right?
They believe in the same stuff.
The radical Dems and the fake moderate Dems, they all believe in the same stuff, but it's all about that approach.
One says, one is honest and says, you know, we hate traditional religion.
We hate Christianity.
We hate whatever, traditional social mores.
We hate marriage.
We hate newborn babies or pre-born babies.
We hate the American flag.
We hate, you know, all the stuff that we consider normal American values.
The Tallarico kind of Democrat says, no, we love Christianity, but actually God is non-binary.
And we love traditional American values.
That's why we need transgenders to have more abortions.
And we, you know, they just fake it.
I don't think that I get why they did it.
They did it because the Jasmine Crockett antics don't play.
They don't even play with the Democrat base anymore.
But that ideology does still play.
So Tallarico is just the follow-up to Abigail Spanberger.
Run as a moderate, use a moderate voice, dress in a moderate way, use a moderate tone, but then push the most radical leftist agenda you can once you enter office.
It is our job in this primary to make sure Tallarico never runs away from abortion rights for transgenders.
That should define Tallarico.
It should define him because that's who he is.
This is not some devious, dirty trick I'm advocating here.
I'm just telling Republicans, you need to remind voters of who this guy really is.
Tallarico is going to run away from all this stuff.
He's going to say, I just want to talk about affordability.
You know, why won't the people on the news media just ask me about affordability?
Because you're running on abortion rights for transgenders, you freak.
That's why.
Because you're giving sermons on your heretical theology that God is non-binary or LGBT or whatever, because you're a total wacko.
That's why.
Whenever that guy opens his mouth, whenever that guy tries to debate the Republicans into talking about affordability, I don't want, don't even answer it.
Just say, hey, do you still support abortion rights for transgenders?
Hey, here's this clip of you.
Do you stand by that statement?
Do you stand by the statement that God is non-binary?
To focus on that.
This guy wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
All right, hold him to account for it.
Now, one last little bit on the primaries.
There is another long-term Republican member of Congress, a member of the Senate, who's served there longer than Dan Crenshaw.
This is John Cornyn.
And John Cornyn might lose his seat to a Republican primary challenge, headed to a runoff.
We'll get to that momentarily because that race especially is going to tell us something about how Republicans should run in November.
First, I want to tell you about Policy Genius.
Go to policygenius.com slash Knowles, Kennedy WLAS.
When the weather finally starts to thaw and the days get a little longer, people do all sorts of spring cleaning.
You clear out the closet, you tackle that terrifying junk drawer, maybe you even venture into the garage.
But the most important spring cleaning is not in your house at all.
It's in your long-term to-do list, namely protecting the life you're building and the people who depend on you.
That responsibility can feel pretty weighty, and wading through insurance jargon and fine print is just as fun as sorting your tax receipts.
That is where Policy Genius comes in to help you finally check this off the list.
Policy Genius is an online insurance marketplace that lets you compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free so you can actually see the coverage amounts, prices, and terms without any guesswork, just clarity.
Their license team works for you, not the insurance companies, which means they help you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life answering your questions, handling the paperwork, and advocating for you throughout the process.
Really important to take care of what you need to take care of.
Policy Genius also will show you life insurance.
It's not nearly as expensive as you think.
Just go get it.
Do the responsible thing.
Protect the life that you have built with Policy Genius.
You can see if you can find 20-year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage.
Policygenius.com slash Knowles.
Compare life insurance quotes from the top insurers.
See how much you can save.
PolicyGenius.com slash Knowles.
Three-way race last night between John Cornyn, the incumbent, Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, who is running for the Senate seat, and Representative Wesley Hunt.
No one was able to get over 50% of the vote.
in Texas that heads to a runoff.
Wesley Hunt is out.
He didn't get enough of the vote.
But the race between Paxton and Cornyn was 41.9 to 40.7.
1.2 point race.
John Cornyn has never lost a race in his 35-year political career.
However, John Cornyn outspent Paxton by like a bazillion dollars.
Here is CNN given the recap.
I'm going to spread this out.
This is what makes a lot of people at home just go about politics.
This is the most expensive Senate race in history.
$71 million spent just in favor of Senator Cornyn, the Republican incumbent.
$71 million spent for one candidate who's probably going to be in a runoff.
So they're going to probably have to do it again.
But then you look at the other races here.
Pro-Tallarico, $24.3 million.
Pro-Crockett, $5 million.
You see all this other money in here.
So look at this money.
Obviously, there's a lot of money behind Tallarico who won that Democrat primary.
But Cornyn, $71 million for a Senate seat in Texas, $71 million in a primary.
What?
Paxton, the pro-Paxton and the pro-Paxton groups, the super PACs, only spent $4.4 million.
That is crazy.
Is that 15 times what Paxton spent?
And how is Paxton running?
Paxton is running in the same way Toth ran on Crenshaw to the right, which tells you that the primary voters want to double down on the Trump agenda.
They want to go even further than the Trump agenda.
This is not what the establishment media are telling you, that Trump has gone too far and this is turning off.
No, at least the GOP wants to double down.
And they're willing to turn out and vote even when they're being outspent a bazillion to one.
Now, what does this mean for the median voter?
What does this mean for the people in the center?
What does this mean for disaffected libs?
Doesn't matter if the Republicans want to double or triple down.
If most voters are fleeing to the Democrat side, that doesn't tell us a lot.
However, that's not what's going on.
We have some numbers coming out of Gallup.
What is the nation's top issue?
What are voters considering to be their top political priority?
Government.
It's kind of funny that the top political priority is government, but government, corruption, defense of democracy.
It's this amoeba-like issue.
It's this very ambiguous issue.
And it's often in the top five issues.
But for a lot of people, the economy is the top issue.
A lot of races, the economy is the top issue.
Immigration is a top issue.
Crime is a top issue.
Healthcare can be a top issue.
It comes and goes.
And then government, corruption, dysfunction, efficiency, that's a top issue too.
Right now, that government issue has gone to the top.
This should not be surprising when a party wins the presidency in the following midterm elections, they usually lose, and they usually lose as a corrective on the administration.
That's especially true here when one party has unified government, the White House, the House, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court, I guess you would say.
So no surprise here that government dysfunction or a referendum on the party that is in power has risen to the top.
However, Gallup is quick to tell us, Americans' concern about government remained historically elevated in February, driven largely by Democrats' dissatisfaction with the current administration.
At the same time, immigration regained prominence across party lines, though for sharply different reasons.
Economic issues, while still present, receded from the forefront compared with late last year.
Don't Forget Venezuela00:15:08
This can be good news for Republicans.
Yes, they face an uphill battle because they're the party in power and they're supposed to lose the midterms.
That's how it's supposed to work.
They're not going to win on government dysfunction as the top issue.
However, immigration had declined as a or the top issue for voters, and now it's going back up.
Republicans will win on the immigration issue.
There were some numbers that came out just a couple of weeks ago that had been building for the past two months.
And I spoke to members of Congress on Capitol Hill about this on the afternoon of the State of the Union address.
Republicans win on immigration.
We have a notable advantage over Democrats on immigration.
We have an even bigger advantage when it comes to border control.
And we have an even bigger advantage when it comes to crime, which is tied in with the immigration issue.
For the last couple of months, voters have been giving Democrats the edge over Republicans on the economy.
I don't think that's fair.
I don't think that's backed up by economic data.
The economy has done very, very well under Trump.
Record high stock market, low inflation, much lower than under Biden, low unemployment.
The tariffs have been much, much more successful than anybody expected.
So I think that, you know, all things being equal, voters should give Republicans the edge on the economy, but they haven't been.
The fact that the economy is diminishing as a top priority for voters is good news for Republicans.
At a time when voters give the edge to Democrats on the economy, if the economy is diminishing in importance overall, what that says is Democrats are losing their edge, one, and two, the economy is probably doing relatively well, and voters are beginning to internalize that.
That's why it's not the top priority.
So, okay, yeah, the government issue is not great for Republicans, but if immigration is rising again, that's what you lean into.
You lean into the immigration issue, you lean into crime.
Healthcare doesn't seem to be a huge issue.
Democrats always have the edge on healthcare because they're always promising to give away all health care for free to everybody.
And they don't actually do it.
Their healthcare policies are absolutely terrible.
They lie about what you're going to get.
Oh, Barack Obama lying about healthcare was the politi fact lie of the year when he passed Obamacare.
Doesn't matter.
We lose on that issue.
Just don't talk about it that much.
We're going to lose on the government issue because we run the government right now.
Let's try to downplay that.
Let's focus on immigration.
Let's focus on crime.
Let's lean into our economic victories and recognize that the economy is not as important for people right now, according to the polls.
Pretty good news.
Now, moving to another major primary, I guess we got to talk about Iran, right?
We are in the midst of this war that kicked off on Saturday night, or Friday night.
There's this question of who's going to take over Iran.
And most Americans have no idea.
And everyone's pretending to be some Persia expert now, some national security expert, some Middle Eastern affairs expert, but no one really knows.
And the one name that comes to mind is this guy, Reza Pahlavi.
Reza Pallavi is the crown prince of Iran.
He is the son of the Shah, who was an ally of the United States, who was deposed by the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and who has got a good relationship with the West, with the United States, with Europe, with Israel as an outpost of the American Empire.
So there's been this big push to reinstall Reza Pallavi, the crown prince, the light of the Aryans is one of his titles.
President Trump just came out and threw Cold Water on who the next leader would be.
Do you have someone in mind right now?
Because you said all the people you do have in mind have been taken out.
Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead.
So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is dead.
And now we have another group.
They may be dead also, based on reports.
So I guess you have a third wave coming, and pretty soon we're not going to know anybody.
No one has ever trash talked better than Trump.
Okay, there's some people who are on the level with him.
I think Al Capone, at least as performed by Robert De Niro in that movie, you know, but heat, man, he trash talks as well as anybody, as any Italian-American, New Yorker, you know, really honed his craft, varsity-level trash talker.
Trump is at that level at least, maybe better.
Who's the next leader of Iran?
I don't know.
It's really tough because we keep killing them.
We're so good at killing them.
It's really, it's, I gotta, I gotta talk to my guys because the guy, the people that I want to take over, we're so good at killing them.
We keep killing even the guys I'm thinking about giving it to.
Isn't that, look, it's a good problem to have how good we are at killing our enemies.
But I'm going to tell them, guys, stop being so good at killing people because you're even killing some of the people that maybe I could put in power if we didn't kill them.
Great trash talk, good language, you know, when you're in the midst of a war with an enemy that doesn't want to totally concede.
Don't forget the Islamic regime is still in place.
And maybe that's not such a bad idea.
One of the big divides over among the people who are generally supportive of the administration on this Iran war is, do you want to keep the regime in place and just get a guy who's more cooperative?
Or do you need total regime change?
You know, I think this is the divide between the foreign policy realists, pragmatists, and the hardcore neocon idealists, war hawk people who want to, you know, rewrite the whole world.
You've got the peacenicks on the left and the right, the ones who don't want any intervention whatsoever.
The peacenicks, the people who are maligned as isolationists, but I'm not even taking them into account.
We are at war right now.
We've undertaken a major war to, and we're not supposed to call it a war, I guess, but when the bombs drop, I'll use the colloquial term, even if it's not legally precise.
We're at a war.
And now the divide is between the more reserved outcome.
Maybe we'll get some new Ayatollah, but he's going to play ball.
Or the revolution to liberate the people, to bring democracy and liberalism and Madisonian ideals to Iran.
Now, for me, I have been very, very clear from before this war took off and ever since.
Had I been on the National Security Council, which no one invited me to, I would have made strong arguments against going to war.
That would have been the side I was arguing.
Now, I'm only using publicly available information.
There's obviously a lot more information that the government had that I don't have, namely on the risks posed by Iran, on the imminence of those risks, and of the likelihood that we could efficiently and effectively affect our ends, you know, bring about the government that we want to see in Iran.
That's information that I don't have.
So just going from the public information, I would have argued that the risks were too high, that the likelihood of success was too low.
At the same time, we have to observe Trump has the best foreign policy record of any president, probably in our lifetimes.
So I think he's got a lot of credibility on this issue.
And given that starting point, I think a lot of people in my camp, and I think Trump's camp, every piece of evidence we see, not just from the last 10 years, but even day by day now, is that Trump is in this camp.
He wants the more modest outcome, which is, look, the neocons, the hawks, the liberal idealists, they want democracy and liberalism and a total revolution in Iran.
And pretty soon, you know, we're going to have gay pride parades through Tehran.
Uh-uh.
I don't care about that.
Actually, I don't want that.
And I certainly don't care about that.
What I want out of Iran is to neutralize our enemy, get rid of the people who keep threatening us, get rid of the people who openly try to kill Trump, get rid of the people who have been a real problem since 1979, since they threw out the leader that we could work with.
And I want to unify the Gulf states along with Israel and just keep them all in line with American interests, more importantly.
And I want a guy in Iran that we can work with.
Whether that guy is popularly elected, whether that guy is from an opposition party, whether that guy is from within the Ayatollah's regime.
I don't really care.
I want a guy that we can work with.
That's the restrained, realist, in my view, America-first outcome in Iran.
I think that's what Trump is on board with, which raises this question.
Is he going to support the guy who is supposedly the great restorer of freedom and democracy and justice in Iran?
Is he going to support Reza Pahlavi?
He's asked that question directly.
We'll get to his answer in a moment first.
Folks, if you have not joined Daily Wire Plus yet, you have to do it right now.
We have a bar fight tonight live from John Rich's Redneck Riviera on Lower Broadway in Nashville, Tennessee.
It's live, though.
There is no delay.
There's no editing.
There's no censor button if people say something that's a little, you know, vulgar or whatever.
So hopefully they're going to be nice about it.
Very, very exciting.
This is a war in Iran special episode.
We will be debating the multiple positions, the liberal position, my position, the more interventionist position.
We've got Luke Beasley coming on, returning to bar fight as our liberal contestant and combatant.
And we've got Dan Crenshaw.
Dan Crenshaw, who just lost his primary in Texas.
He's been a major, major figure in the Republican Party for seven years now.
Obviously has a very serious firsthand experience with war in the Middle East as a Navy SEAL.
So it's going to be explosive bar fight broadcasting live from Broadway in Nashville tonight, 9 p.m. Eastern, only on Daily Wire Plus.
My favorite comment yesterday is from Brady4915, who says, breaking news, former supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has registered to vote as a Democrat in the upcoming election.
I think that's probably true.
It may be in multiple states.
He's, you know, a lot of people think, from within Islam, they think that when you die, you go up to paradise with Allah and you get 72 virgins.
But of course, we know from the American political order that when you die, you are immediately registered to vote as a Democrat.
So that's what he's going to get.
It's not maybe not as exciting as the 72 virgins.
Are there any virgins left in the Democrat Party?
I'm not so sure about that either.
Trump is asked specifically.
What about Pahlavi?
What about the crown prince?
What about the future Shah?
Here's his answer.
Ralph, here's Reza Pahlavi.
Is he an option at all in your mind?
I guess he is.
Some people like him, and we haven't been thinking about too much about that.
It would seem to me that somebody from within might maybe would be more appropriate.
I've said that.
He looks like a very nice person, but it would seem to me that somebody that's there, that's currently popular, if there's such a person.
But we have people like that.
We have people that were more moderate.
You know, these were radical lunatics.
And you know what they get?
They get nothing.
All they do is kill people.
Okay.
So Trump getting specific on his broader philosophy here, which, you know, I thought was clear enough too.
He goes, look, Pahlavi's a nice guy.
Yes, the opponents of the Iranian regime have been holding him up for a long time as a possible unifying figure.
And he gives himself wiggle room.
He says, look, maybe, maybe, but I don't see it.
I think that the person who's most likely to unify Iran is going to come from within Iran.
Don't forget, Pahlavi has not stepped foot in Iran in decades.
He can.
He would have been killed had he stepped foot in Iran.
But nevertheless, Trump is just coming out and he's saying, look, he's a nice guy.
Maybe.
Look, wouldn't that be nice?
But I don't think he's got the juice.
That's what he's saying.
I don't think he's got the juice.
So who's it going to be?
I think this is, if you were someone who, like me, was a little skeptical of too much interference in Iran, who's a little skeptical of some of our foreign entanglements, especially in the wake of the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, this should make you feel a lot more confident.
Because what Trump is saying is, I kind of want to go with the playbook that I had in Venezuela.
Don't forget what happened in Venezuela.
In Venezuela, the same thing.
The United States for decades had wanted to oust this regime that began under Chavez and continued under Maduro.
And you had the real neocon, idealist, liberal interventionist types coming out and saying, we need to install a pro-liberal, pro-democracy champion of human rights.
And they were talking about this lady, Maria Karina Machado, who won the Nobel Prize, but then was, you know, I think gave it to Trump, right?
Was trying to cozy up to Trump.
She was this vaunted opposition leader.
And Trump was asked about putting her in charge after ousting Maduro.
That's what I think most of the Hawks and the Libs expected.
And he said, nah, not going to work.
And have you been in contact with her?
No, we haven't really.
Mr. Madam, I haven't talked about Machado.
I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader.
She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country.
She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect for the country.
Mr. President's money.
There it is.
There it is.
And no knock on her.
She seems like a nice lady.
Kind of same thought on Reza Pallavi.
However, this is the difference between the more realist, restrained America, what I consider to be America First Camp, what Trump considers to be America First Camp, and America First is his movement.
You know, in this iteration, in this century, America First is his movement.
It's not some podcasters movement.
It's not some tweeters' movement.
It's Trump's movement.
Clearly, he's the guy who brought the coalition together.
He's the guy who pushed the term.
And he's the guy who got elected president at least twice, maybe three times.
So his view of it, which is my view of it, my longtime view of it, is we got to, we want to promote American interests around the world.
We have to recognize that there is American grand strategy.
We have to recognize that America is an empire.
We can't pretend that we're some yeoman republic totally isolated from the world.
But we want to do it in realistic, practical, pragmatic ways.
That's the distinction between that camp and the neocons and the radical hawks and the liberal interventionists and the globalists, whatever word you want to use.
Those guys would want Machado in Venezuela because she's the paragon of democracy and liberalism and human rights and the opposition.
We Want Someone We Can Work With00:02:31
Trump says, no, I don't need that.
You know what?
Let's just keep Maduro's number two in charge.
We're not going to get rid of the regime.
We don't like Maduro.
And Maduro has a warrant out for his arrest here in America.
And Maduro has threatened us and done a lot of bad things to us.
So, you know what?
We're going to go and we're going to take him out, but we're going to leave his number two in place.
And you know what we're going to tell you, Delcy Rodriguez?
We're going to tell you, keep on running the government efficiently.
We're actually impressed that you were able to export as much oil as you did under American sanctions.
That's great.
I say very impressive.
You know, game-recognized game.
That's great.
If you don't cooperate with us, we'll kill you.
Cool.
Do we have an understanding?
I don't care what you think about democracy and human rights and liberalism and John Locke.
I don't care about any of that.
I don't care what you say in your stupid speeches.
I don't care.
You keep the government running in a way that does not lead to civil war and in a way that plays ball with American priorities.
You do that.
We're going to get along great.
You don't do that.
Trump said it will be worse for her than it was for Maduro.
Translation, we'll kill you.
Khabish, good.
Looks like he's bringing about the exact same strategy in Iran.
I, for one, think that's a good thing.
No knock on Reza Pallavi, no knock on Maria Machado.
But we do not want this to descend into chaos and civil war.
We really cannot get bogged down in an endless war and in the process of trying to reconstitute a whole nation along the lines of ideologies that have never taken root in these areas.
We're, uh-uh.
We want the government.
The purpose of this, as far as I'm concerned, if the grand strategy here is to reorder the world in such a way that benefits America, then what we want is someone we can work with.
Doesn't really matter the party.
Doesn't really matter the details.
We want someone we can work with.
You want to call him Ayatollah?
Whatever.
Okay.
But, you know, if you keep giving us guys that we can't work with, we're going to keep killing them.
So, you know, let's be smart here, folks, right?
Blood is bad for business, wouldn't you say?
A lesson from New York, certainly from a certain Italian-American subculture, and from business actions and from, I don't know, public ways of doing things that Trump is very, very familiar with.
Okay, a lot more to get to.
One thing I do have to get to before we go.
DMT and Alien Realities00:09:46
Scientists are trying to use DMT to allow people to communicate with the seemingly alien creatures that they see when they do the drugs.
I'm not making this up.
I wish I were making this up.
This is from Wired.
Some people see aliens while on DMT.
If you've ever had a friend, not just who's done DMT, but I've even heard this about shrooms or you might have heard it about acid, the hallucinogenic drugs, psychedelic drugs.
People see these creatures that eerily all sound pretty similar.
They're like little gray, weirdo aliens.
That's how they describe them.
They say some people see aliens while on DMT.
Researchers want to find out what they can teach us.
Okay.
I agree with the first sentence.
I think the second sentence would not follow from the first sentence.
It's probably not a good idea.
A new psychedelic retreat, calling itself a SETI for the mind, aims to establish two-way communication with the non-human entities people encounter while tripping on DMT.
What could go wrong?
Just read you a little bit from the article.
Very lengthy article.
The idea had been suggested six years earlier in a paper by neurobiologist Andrew Gallimore.
So it's not just some weirdo entrepreneurs.
It's not just some journalists.
It's a neurobiologist.
Then the ethnobotanist, boy, boy howdy, there are just so many specializations in science today, aren't they?
The ethnobotanist, Terrence McKenna.
What do you want to be when you grow up, Sally?
I want to be an ethnobotanist, whatever that is.
Okay.
One of the more gifted articulators of the psychedelic experience famously described these entities as, quote, self-transforming elf machines.
This is what people are seeing when they do the drug.
Self-transforming elf machines and jeweled, self-dribbling basketballs from hyperspace.
McKenna likens them to playful leprechauns.
But others, like Bilton, have also met more sinister beings, dark, evil mother effers, horrible things.
Okay, tell me more.
I've never done psychedelics.
The thread connecting most perceived DMT entity encounters is an overwhelming sense of technological sophistication and godlike power.
Quote, I was confronted with what seemed to me to be the undeniable hand of some kind of intelligence, Gallimore said of his first DMT trip during his recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast.
A supremely advanced, ancient, and yet highly technological intelligence.
Is this sounding familiar to anyone?
If you've done psychedelics, it might be sounding familiar to you because you've experienced it.
If you are familiar with religion, Christianity in particular, this might be sounding familiar and it might not be sounding good.
Gallimore argues that whatever is happening to the brain during the DMT trip, it is not mere hallucination, a term he uses somewhat derisively.
He makes the case that DMT unlocks a realm ordinarily cut off to our senses and populated by unfathomably advanced non-human entities.
So right off the bat, there are two options.
And probably you're thinking this too.
These things can be one of two things.
They can either be, to use the language of the scholastics, ens reale or ens razionis.
They can be mind-independent beings, that is, things that have a reality in themselves outside of your own conceptions, or they can be figments of your imagination, things that we just come up with in our head, that we can talk about as if they were real things, but they don't have an existence outside of your own mind.
Now, the whole premise here is we need to communicate with these things.
That very phrase tells us that if these things matter at all, if we're going to do any of this stuff, you know, have the weirds science, summer camp, DMT trip, then they can't just be figments of our own imagination because you can't communicate with something that is not in itself a cognitive power.
You would just be talking to yourself, but then you don't need the DMT trip to talk to yourself.
You can have a conversation in your own head.
The only way to communicate is to involve two cognitive powers.
I can't communicate with the Tumblr.
I can't communicate with my paper here.
I can communicate to you because you have a cognitive power.
So right off the bat, we are assuming that these things are real, but they're not physical.
They're not visible ordinarily.
They're purely intelligence.
They are pure intelligence with which we might communicate, but only if we do things that are bad and sinful, like lose our minds on drugs.
That is a demon.
That's a long way of saying that's a demon.
Invisible cognitive powers, non-physical cognitive powers are spirits.
That's what a spirit means.
Spirits can be angels.
They can be demons.
There are other kinds of spiritual realities.
Now, the ones that we invite in to communicate when we are doing bad things, when we are sinning, they're not the good ones.
They're the bad ones.
They're demons.
I am not a guy.
I've said this many times.
I'm not a guy who sees demons under every rock.
I know that's very popular now.
I've had conversations with exorcists and I acknowledge spiritual reality, but I take C.S. Lewis's approach, which is you don't want to think about demons none of the time because then you could be leaving yourself open to danger, but you don't want to think about demons all of the time because then you're obsessing on spiritual darkness and the privation of good and you really should just be focused on God.
So you should think about demons like a little bit of the time.
This is one of those times.
Do not go do a bunch of drugs with a bunch of hippie scientists and talk to demons.
It's a bad idea.
What is it that you desire that would impel you to go do this?
There are plenty of people who take psychedelics and want to talk to the aliens, which are demons.
Either their hallucinations, in which case the whole thing's pointless, or they're demons.
What would impel you?
Because you want to learn something about yourself or about the world.
Okay.
If you want to learn something, if you want to learn like the truth, right?
You want to learn the truth of something, not the falsehood of something.
Probably if you want to learn the truth, you should speak to God, who is the truth, the way, the truth, and the life, Christ says.
You would want to speak to the true source and summit of all being rather than demons whose defining characteristic is that they're evil and they lie.
Why else would you want to do it?
Well, because I'll tell you why, to be fair to the druggies.
The reason they want this is they recognize that we are in part spiritual creatures.
They recognize that we don't comprehend all of the truth.
They want some knowledge.
But the reason why, if you want all of that, the reason why you would go do the drugs with the scientist instead of just like go to church or read your Bible or pray or avail yourself of the sacraments, the distinctive feature between those two things, either of those things promise you the truth and recognition of spiritual reality.
The reason you would choose the drugs over the church is because you want the truth on your terms rather than on God's terms.
Because you want to increase your personal agency, because you want to become like a God yourself, rather than submit your will and your reason to God, who is both omnipotent and omniscient.
That's why.
It's just a reiteration of the original sin in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve had everything and they were walking with God and it was awesome, but they wanted paradise on their own terms.
And when you try to make paradise on your own terms, it turns into hell.
Okay.
Have I made my point clear?
Don't do drugs and talk to demons.
This should go without saying, but we're in a very confused age.
Today is work from Home Wednesday.
I assigned it over recent days.
I know I sometimes forget to do the essay, but it's very exciting.
We're talking about George Orwell's essay, Politics in the English Language.
Really important essay for us to read for our writing, for our thinking, and especially for our politics.
The rest of the show continues now.
You don't want to miss it.
Become a member.
Use code NOLSKNOWLIS at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
Tomorrow, we make.
I think it's a desperate plan and foolish.
I would save my people from destruction.
So should you.
This new faith is glad of his judgment.
He's waiting on America.
And why do you tell me this?
Because I think you can give him one.
If I lead you into victory, Uther, the men of Britain will proclaim me king.
He seeks our deliverance from God when he could so easily just give it to us with his own hands.
How long ago you offered me the Fisher King's sword?
I've always believed you were meant to be high king.
How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield?
The Call to Leadership00:00:28
We're Britain!
How are we to drive out 15,000 Saxon with only 2,500 men?