Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 12, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

39:25

Ep. 196 - A Party Of Bigots

Today on the show, we'll discuss the rampant bigotry in the Democratic Party. Also, Jussie Smollett's "hate crime" story continues to fall apart. Finally, Bill Nye makes the all time dumbest case for abortion. Date: 02-12-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, we will examine the rampant bigotry in the Democratic Party.
	Also, we'll get the latest on the Jussie Smollett alleged hate crime attack, a story that is falling apart more and more right before our eyes.
	And finally, I want to play a video for you of Bill Nye making the case for abortion.
	And it is maybe the stupidest thing.
	That you'll see at least this week.
	So we'll talk about that today as well on The Matt Wall Show.
	So Jew-hating Congresswoman Ilhan Omar tweeted yesterday a standard anti-Semitic trope.
	Well, actually, that was on Sunday, claiming that the Jews over in Israel are paying off Republicans, buying their support.
	This is the same.
	You have to look at this in the context of the sort of stuff that this woman often says and tweets.
	She tweeted out a few years ago that Israel has, quote, hypnotized the world.
	And she prayed that Allah would help us all see the evil doings of the Israelis.
	So this is all part of a pattern, a pattern that you can find throughout the Democratic Party with anti-Semitism and bigotry of all different kinds.
	Bigotry in general is a common theme in the Democrat Party.
	This, after all, is the party that subjects Christian judges to unconstitutional religious tests, examining their belief systems and their religious affiliations and convictions as if that's somehow relevant to what they're going to be doing.
	You remember one of the most bigoted statements I think uttered by an American politician in recent memory was Dianne Feinstein telling Amy Coney Barrett that her Catholic dogma, quote, lives loudly within her.
	And that's a concern, she said.
	If you want to understand why that's bigoted, well, then all you have to do is imagine a Republican senator saying something like that to a Muslim judicial nominee and saying, you know, your Islamic faith lives loudly within you, and that's a concern.
	Now, of course, in that context, everybody would agree, and the left would be calling it Islamophobic and so on and so forth.
	Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono have likewise scrutinized Christian judges for their faith, or if they're affiliated with the dastardly Knights of Columbus.
	And this is nothing, of course, compared to what Democrat politicians and Democrat policies and state governments do to Christian business owners who face persecution, penalties, fines for simply trying to operate and live according to biblical precepts.
	The Democratic Party is also your one-stop shop for man-hating and anti-white rhetoric.
	And they've come out against stay-at-home moms and, you know, Midwesterners and Southerners and homeschoolers.
	And of course, if we're talking about bigotry among Democrats, there is no group more reviled, more diminished and discriminated against by Democrats than the unborn, who, according to nearly every single Democrat in the country at every level of government, don't even count as people.
	Okay, so when you think about this, it's really no wonder that Democrats are constantly trying to hang the bigot label around other people's necks, trying to call other people bigots.
	This is just a classic case of projection, that's all.
	You don't need to be a psychotherapist to see what's happening here.
	It's very similar to the cheating husband who becomes very suspicious of his wife.
	Which, because he's cheating, he kind of sees that in everybody else because that's how he is.
	There was a recent survey that was done that showed that a sizable majority, over 60% of registered Democrats, think that Republicans are bigoted and sexist.
	Now, keep in mind, That many of these same people think that babies aren't human, masculinity is toxic, the Jewish state has no right to exist, Christians should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings against their will.
	So, among other things.
	So they are so immersed in their fanatical prejudices that they cannot see anything but prejudice in others because that's just, that's the world they live in.
	And this is no surprise, really.
	Because that's how it is with bigots all the time.
	That's how bigots operate.
	They never think that their own bigotry counts, right?
	There are very few bigots who will just admit, oh yeah, yeah, I'm a bigot, sure.
	No, the justification is always, well, no, no, no.
	Yeah, I'm allowed to hate those people because they deserve it.
	Of course I can hate them.
	No, it doesn't count.
	If I say something awful about white men, well, that's okay, because they deserve it.
	I'm allowed to say that.
	In fact, that is literally the leftist philosophy.
	Their theories of race and gender dynamics exempt them from any charge of prejudice or discrimination.
	This is what they believe.
	This is what they are taught and teach in college.
	That essentially, you know, it's impossible for, for instance, a white man to be the victim of racism or sexism.
	You could treat him however you want.
	You could say whatever you want to him.
	It doesn't matter because his institutional power insulates him from bigotry or some such nonsense.
	These kinds of rationales allow their hatred and their bigotry to go unchecked and unnoticed.
	But bigotry is still bigotry.
	And the Democratic Party is where it thrives in our culture.
	Now, you could you could say that, well, you know, if you go to the far right extreme end of the spectrum, you've got white nationalists and racists over there.
	And sure, okay, fine.
	A couple of differences, though.
	Number one, that is a—despite what you may hear from the media, that is a pretty small group.
	And number two, they are denounced by everybody else on the right, nearly everybody, certainly in the mainstream.
	You know, white nationalism has been denounced, and any time a Republican or a conservative says something perceived as racist, You're going to have other conservatives and Republicans lining up to condemn it.
	The difference is, on the left, you don't really find that.
	On the left, if there are condemnations, now, it took a while with this Elon Omar stuff.
	It took a while.
	Some Democrats eventually did come out and condemn it.
	It took them a while to do it.
	They did it.
	But depending on the group being insulted or targeted, You may not hear any condemnation from the left.
	So that's the difference.
	Because you have to keep in mind that they really do believe, this is their philosophy, they believe that there are certain groups you're allowed to hate, and the hatred is totally justified, and in fact it is impossible to be bigoted against those groups.
	That's their philosophy.
	All right.
	Speaking of bigotry, here's a sort of a different form of bigotry.
	Jussie Smollett, the actor from the show Empire, a black man, also a gay man, I'm sure you've been following this story.
	He claims, we'll just review here briefly.
	He claims that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack.
	And claims is the key word here.
	Huge emphasis on claims.
	So as the story goes, he was walking through downtown Chicago at around 2.30 a.m.
	one night, several weeks ago.
	And he was then attacked and brutally beaten, he says.
	And he says the attackers shouted, um, this is MAGA country as they were beating him in Chicago.
	Okay.
	So these are, these are racist whites who are claiming that Chicago is MAGA country.
	Um, and they, he says that they called him the N word and the F word and so on.
	So, fast forward over several days, police investigate the attack.
	They find no evidence to support the claim, none at all.
	Smollett says that he was on the phone at the time of the attack with his manager, and his manager heard it happening, so police asked for him to turn over his phone, and he refused for a while.
	Finally, he did turn over some phone records, but he redacted them so heavily as to make them useless.
	Police also checked camera footage, Security cameras.
	Now, as it happens, he was walking down the street at 2.30 a.m.
	in Chicago in the winter.
	It's, you know, extremely, extremely cold.
	He was on his way, I think, to Subway to get a sandwich, and he says that he was attacked on the way.
	Well, it just so happens you're in Chicago, a major city.
	There are security cameras everywhere.
	So his entire trip To Subway is caught on camera, except for 60 seconds.
	There is just a 60 second gap where cameras don't pick him up, where he's out of sight of cameras.
	But all the rest of it, you don't see him getting attacked.
	We don't see the alleged culprits.
	So he says, Oh no, you know, it just so happens that the attack occurred in that 60 second gap.
	You know, it just so happens kind of conveniently.
	Um, but we don't see that.
	Um, he says that he was beaten to within an inch of his life in that 60 seconds, but then he just casually got up and walked the subway anyway.
	And in fact, he kept, um, he says that he was, um, That they poured bleach on him and that they tied a rope around his neck.
	And oddly enough, he kept the rope around his neck and went to Subway and then went home and he kept wearing the rope.
	Because that's what you would do, right?
	If you were attacked with someone with a rope, you would just wear the rope the whole time.
	He also, he didn't want to call police.
	He didn't call police.
	He didn't call, you know, he didn't go seek medical help or anything like that.
	Eventually, his friends convinced him that he should call the police.
	And so he did.
	Now, some of his neighbors have come out and they say that they don't believe him.
	His neighbors point out that they live in a neighborhood with a lot of gay people and a lot of minorities, and they live in one of the most liberal cities in the country.
	So this is one of the most liberal towns in one of the most liberal cities in the entire country.
	It is essentially the last place on earth where you would expect to find a roving group of white racists randomly attacking minorities in the middle of the street in the middle of the night when it's, you know, negative 10 degrees outside or whatever.
	But of course, even if this happened in like Alabama, or somewhere like that, it would still be extremely farfetched.
	Because even before you find out that the security camera footage doesn't capture the attack, and that he didn't turn over his phone records, and all the rest of it, you should still hear that story and think, yeah, I don't...
	No, I don't think so.
	I really, I don't think that happened.
	That just doesn't sound like a thing that would happen.
	In fact, that sounds like the kind of thing that liberals make up all the time.
	It doesn't actually sound like the kind of thing that really happens, though.
	Also, by the way, we should note that nobody else in the town has reported an attack like this.
	But these two culprits, if they existed, which they almost certainly don't, But that would mean that they either just so happened to have a noose and a bottle of bleach, and they happen to be walking down the street in the middle of the night when it's freezing cold outside with a noose and a bottle of bleach.
	And then they happen to find this guy and then attack him.
	Or They took those items and they went out essentially hunting for a minority or a homosexual to attack.
	But if that's the case, it's very unlikely that this would be their first time doing it.
	Okay, you're not going to have two guys that just up and decide one night to go do that.
	You kind of work up to that.
	If you have someone who is so psychotic and so racist and violent that they would, not just one person, but two people, that they would go out and do that, it's probably not their first time.
	Yet there have been no other reports of anything like that.
	So, the police have not yet filed charges against Smollett for filing a false report.
	I think it's pretty clear that if this guy wasn't a celebrity, or if the whole thing wasn't so politically charged, or if he was a white guy making this claim, saying that two black men had attacked him in some sort of racist attack, in any of those scenarios, I think there would already be charges filed for filing a false report.
	But in this case, they haven't, because I guess You know, it's like 99.999% certain that this is all made up, but there is that 60-second gap, so the police can say that, well, technically, I mean, it could have happened in that 60 seconds, and then he just casually got up with the rope around his neck and went and got a sandwich and went home.
	And then the two attackers, by the way, just vanished into thin air.
	Or maybe they scaled a building or something like Spider-Man and escaped into the shadows.
	I mean, it's possible that that happened.
	So...
	I think basically they're going to need to find total, incontrovertible, absolute evidence that this was invented before they charge him with a crime.
	And unless they find video for that 60-second gap, they're not going to have that kind of evidence.
	So, I don't know.
	So maybe he'll get away with it.
	This was, if this is made up, if this is a hoax, which again, all signs are pointing in that direction.
	If it's a hoax, then what's the point?
	You know, why do people do this kind of stuff?
	And you do find this on the left rather frequently.
	Usually it's not as elaborate as this.
	Classic hoaxes usually involve, like, a waiter or waitress claiming that somebody wrote something racist on a receipt.
	You know, that kind of thing.
	And then always, a couple days later, it comes out that, oh no, they actually wrote it themselves.
	So why do they do this?
	And I think it's pretty clear that there are two elements to it.
	One is definitely political.
	Trying to paint your political enemies as these dangerous lunatics roving the street looking for minorities to assault.
	So there's that political element to it.
	But I think psychologically, even before that, it's just a ploy for attention.
	Why do people look for attention in that way?
	It's hard to know.
	People that just have some sort of hole inside them, some sort of emptiness.
	And this is how they want attention.
	I also think that on the left, especially, we have to remember that victimhood is painted as a desirable thing.
	Victimhood on the left is power.
	That's how you have power is if you're a victim.
	And so there's always this competition among people on the left, different groups competing about who is the greater victim, who faces the most persecution.
	And so I think people are sort of conditioned this way.
	And they're almost so, you know, you have this guy, he's a Hollywood actor, living in a kind of upscale neighborhood in an urban area.
	I assume he gets paid pretty well, so he lives a pretty comfortable life, and it seems like he's almost disappointed by that.
	He wants to be a victim, because that's how people are conditioned, by liberals.
	And so he invents this story.
	All right, I want to get to this.
	This video is from a couple of years ago, but it's making the rounds online again.
	And I want to play it because it is just such a wonderful sort of distillation of every fallacious pro-abortion argument.
	It really is incredible.
	Every single Bad pro-abortion argument just in one video, one after another after another in succession.
	This is Bill Nye, the fake science guy, and he did this video a couple years ago rambling on about why he supports abortion.
	And I'm going to play the whole thing for you.
	I want you to watch this, and then we'll talk about it.
	But here it is.
	If you're going to say, when an egg is fertilized, it therefore has the same rights as an individual, Then whom are you going to sue?
	Whom are you going to imprison?
	Every woman who's had a fertilized egg pass through her?
	Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn't become a human?
	Have all these people failed you?
	It's just a reflection of a deep scientific lack of understanding.
	And you literally or apparently literally don't know what you're talking about.
	And so when it comes to women's rights with respect to their reproduction I think you should leave it to women.
	It's really – you cannot help but notice.
	I mean I'm not the first guy to observe this.
	You have a lot of men of European descent passing these extraordinary laws based on ignorance.
	Sorry you guys.
	I know it was written or your interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago, 50 centuries ago, makes you think that when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse they always have a baby.
	That's wrong.
	And so to pass laws based on that belief is inconsistent with nature.
	I mean it's hard not to get frustrated with this everybody.
	And I know nobody likes abortion.
	Okay.
	But you can't tell somebody what to do.
	I mean she has rights over this, especially if she doesn't like the guy that got her pregnant.
	She doesn't want anything to do with your genes.
	Get over it.
	Especially if she were raped and all this.
	So it's very frustrating on the outside, on the other side.
	We have so many more important things to be dealing with.
	We have so many more problems.
	Wow.
	What a fantastic idiot.
	This may be the dumbest two and a half minutes ever recorded.
	It's really incredible.
	Yet, as I said, it also perfectly represents the pro-abortion side.
	So what does that tell you?
	All right, let's run through this.
	So he begins by conflating abortion with miscarriage and claiming that pro-lifers want to put women in jail for having miscarriages.
	And he even says that we want to put men in jail if they have sex but fail to conceive.
	Yeah, because that's an argument that we make all the time as pro-lifers, right?
	But yeah, if you go to the March for Life, you'll see people holding big banners saying, put men in jail for not conceiving children.
	He then claims that the pro-life side is a conspiracy among men of European descent, when of course, in fact, the pro-life side is at least 50% women, if not more.
	Then he says that pro-lifers base their positions solely on the Bible, and he claims that the Bible was written 5,000 years ago.
	Which is remarkably stupid.
	Let's just focus on that part alone for a minute.
	He says the Bible was written 5,000 years ago, and he says it with such confidence.
	5,000 years ago!
	50 centuries!
	You think the whole Bible was written 5,000 years ago?
	No, the oldest books in the Bible were written maybe 3,000 years ago.
	Much of the Old Testament is far more recent than that.
	And then, of course, the New Testament was written less than 2,000 years ago.
	So you couldn't be more wrong with 5,000.
	Now, I know it seems like I'm semantics or something, but this is a grown adult man, claims to be a scientist, claims to be very knowledgeable.
	He does these shows where he's instructing people on all these different subjects, and he thinks the Bible was written 5,000 years ago.
	My kids are five years old, and even they know better than that.
	Um, he then spends a while explaining that sex doesn't always lead to a baby, which thoroughly debunks a view that literally nobody holds.
	Then he says that nobody likes abortion, which actually the feminist movement is clear that they are proud of abortion and they do like it.
	And finally, he gets to his big mic drop moment, the summary of his whole case.
	And he says, you know, he's kind of, he's kind of condensing it all down.
	And he says that, well, Abortion has to be legal because, quote, you can't tell somebody what to do, which you can't tell.
	That's his argument.
	Why should abortion be legal?
	Well, because you can't you can't tell somebody what to do.
	Okay, well, if that's the case, then that means that we can't have any laws of any kind at all.
	You have just undermined law itself, because every law tells people what to do and what not to do.
	And then at the end, after spending two and a half minutes torching the most absurd straw man ever constructed, he accuses the other side of having a lack of understanding.
	It's... wow.
	But remember something else.
	You know, as stupid as this is, you can't do much better than that.
	If you're going to spend two and a half minutes trying to defend killing babies, it's not like you can make a good argument.
	I think you could be more eloquent and more coherent than Bill Nye, which isn't hard to do.
	But If we're kind of grading this on a curve, then although it was supremely moronic, we would have to say that as far as pro-abortion arguments go, it's maybe like a B minus.
	Because there aren't any good ones anyway.
	That is just, wow.
	But the really sad thing, you know, we can laugh at how crazy it is, but the sad thing is that There are millions of Americans who will watch that video and say, oh, wow, yeah, he really debunked the pro-life position, didn't he?
	Wow, that was quite a debunking.
	Mic drop.
	There are millions of Americans will see that and think that it's convincing.
	They'll be convinced by it.
	All right, we'll go check the inbox if you want to send a message email to the show.
	A message email.
	Then you can do that at mattwalshow at gmail.com.
	This is from AJ.
	It says, Hi Matt, I love your show, especially love when you talk about the historical case for Jesus, ancient manuscripts, biblical history, etc.
	Considering your interest in those subjects, I was wondering if you'd seen slash read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
	I assume you have, but I'd be interested in your take on it.
	Hi AJ.
	Yes, I have read it.
	I haven't seen the movie.
	But I've read the book.
	Now for anyone who isn't familiar, The Case for Christ is a really famous Christian book turned movie written by a guy named Lee Strobel.
	And the conceit of the book, the framework, is that I can't speak, I don't know, I assume the movie follows the same beats, but I can't speak to that.
	So in the book, Lee Strobel is a journalist An atheist journalist who sets out on this kind of investigation to discover the truth about Jesus, hoping to disprove Christianity.
	But along the way, he found that Christianity was true, and so he converted.
	So the book, and movie too, I assume, consists mainly of Strobel's interviews with various New Testament scholars.
	One of the most famous Christian books written in the last, you know, 30 or 40 years.
	And it's very popular.
	I know a lot of people love the book.
	This is what I'll say about it.
	It is a nice devotional book.
	It's nice spiritual reading.
	It's good encouragement for Christians.
	But that's not how it advertises itself.
	It advertises itself as a historical investigation.
	And on that front, it fails.
	So ultimately, I didn't like the book because I think that there's a lot of false advertising with it.
	And I don't really appreciate that.
	I found it disappointing, honestly.
	So I think it's a well-written book.
	It's an entertaining book.
	But no, I didn't like it.
	Here's my problem with it.
	Strobel says that he was an atheist hoping to disprove Christianity, which is a great premise.
	I mean, the premise of the book is great.
	You've got an atheist journalist who wants to prove that Christianity is wrong, so he goes and he interviews a bunch of scholars and historians and so on, and at the end of the interview process, he comes to the opposite conclusion and says, Never mind.
	So that's a great premise.
	And so I love the way the book is presented.
	I was excited to finally read it because I thought, well, that's awesome.
	Let me read this book.
	The problem is that he only interviews conservative Christian scholars, which is, of course, totally ridiculous.
	This is supposed to be an atheist who's trying to disprove Christianity, and he doesn't interview one single skeptic or secular historian.
	How can you possibly claim to be conducting an objective investigation if you only talk to one side?
	And he's supposed to be an atheist while he's doing these interviews.
	Yet an atheist would only talk to evangelical apologists?
	He wouldn't take the time to hear from the other side at all?
	There are, I forget how many interviews, maybe a dozen interviews in the book, he doesn't talk to one single person who's on the other side of the issue.
	Obviously, I agree with the evangelical apologists about the historical case for Christianity.
	I'm just saying the book advertises itself as a sort of objective historical inquiry and then proceeds to be absurdly one-sided.
	In fact, this is how bad it gets.
	There's even a chapter in the book called the rebuttal evidence.
	And so I'm reading the book And, you know, there are several Christian scholars interviewed making their case.
	And then finally, we get to a chapter called rebuttal.
	And so now I'm thinking, okay, this is going to get good.
	This is going to be interesting.
	This is where he brings in an atheist or a secular person and has them rebut everything that he's just learned.
	And so this is going to be interesting.
	For the other side, for the rebuttal, he interviews an evangelical apologist.
	Instead of getting a secular historian to tell his own side, he has an evangelical apologist give his version of the opposing side.
	So it's ridiculous.
	Now, I've heard people justifying this and saying, well, Strobel is the skeptic.
	He is the other side.
	So, he doesn't need to talk to someone on that side.
	He already is, so he's representing that side, talking to Christians.
	But that's not really true, because the whole point is that he doesn't really know either side.
	He goes into the investigation not really knowing anything about the historical context for Jesus.
	He was ignorant of the whole issue.
	He knew very little about it either way.
	So no, he can't represent that side.
	He can't represent the side of historical, of secular historical experts and scholars, considering he was not an expert or scholar himself.
	In fact, throughout the book, he's constantly being told basic historical information, things that a lot of us, most of us who aren't scholars know, things about like Josephus and, you know, and he's told these things and he reacts with surprise, like it's the first time he's heard it.
	He didn't know it beforehand.
	Now, in a real investigation, he would then take that information and go to the other side and say, OK, this is what they're claiming.
	What's your take?
	I mean, imagine a book written by someone, imagine a book with the opposite that goes the opposite direction.
	Imagine a book written by a Christian, a former Christian, claiming that he did an investigation and talked to experts and discovered that Jesus was not the Son of God.
	So he had a deconversion.
	He went the other way.
	Well, imagine if that book only interviewed atheists.
	Imagine if he never once spoke to a single Christian expert.
	What would we say about that book?
	We would laugh at it.
	We would say, well, this is just atheist propaganda.
	Obviously, the guy knew which side he wanted to believe beforehand, and he only talked to them.
	So, it's the same thing with this.
	I think it's a well-written book, enjoyable book in some respects.
	Obviously, I concur with the conclusions, but I think that it's not what it bills itself to be, and for that reason, it's not going to convince anyone of anything.
	Christians might find it compelling, but it's not going to convince atheists, and if you talk to atheists about this book, they just laugh at it, and they say, well, that's, you know, They make all the points that I just made, and they're fair points, anyway.
	And it's really a missed opportunity.
	I would love to see a book, you know, when it comes to this sort of thing.
	Usually, you can pick up a Christian book, or you pick up an atheist book, and you're going to get one side and then the other.
	I would love to see a book that kind of goes back and forth, and there's this debate inside the book between both sides, and I think that'd be really interesting.
	But that's not what this book is.
	All right, from Paul.
	Now, I got a bunch of emails.
	I mentioned yesterday on the show this question of if a person can survive with half a brain.
	And so theoretically, it might be possible in the future to do a brain transplant.
	We can't right now.
	We're not anywhere close to that.
	So the sort of thought experiment is, imagine if you cut my brain in half and transplanted half of my brain into someone else's body.
	Where did I go?
	Where is my consciousness?
	Where is my soul, in other words?
	I didn't come up with that thought experiment.
	It was something that a philosopher proposed.
	A few decades ago.
	And so I mentioned on the show, I got a lot of emails about this, and I found it really interesting, some of these emails.
	I'll read a few of them.
	This is from Paul.
	He says, I would think that the soul follows the right brain.
	We never hear things like, wow, that math equation has a lot of soul.
	But we do hear that being said of music.
	Since art, music, and other forms of creative expression originate in the right brain, it would seem that that's where the soul resides.
	Interesting.
	This is from Stuart.
	He says, I've been a listener-reader for several years.
	I wanted to say thank you for your boldness in speaking out for what you believe.
	Okay, I'll skip over the compliments, although I appreciate them, Stuart.
	Anyway, I listened to your show today and had a theory about the brain transplant thought experiment.
	I'm with you that I don't think God would let a soul be divided, but I'm also with you that the response is a bit of a cabba.
	My response to this was, the only response I could think of is that, well, you just couldn't do it because The human soul is immutable.
	It can't be divided.
	And so my response to, hypothetically, if it were possible, my response is, well, it could never be possible, which is a bad response at a total cop-out.
	So he says, ultimately, I think your answer is overemphasizing the role of the brain in constituting the soul.
	In other words, it's a faulty assumption that the processes and parts of the brain that manifest in consciousness are, to some extent, the source of the soul.
	But I think rather than being the source, maybe they're more like the window to the soul, the true you, is a separate metaphysical entity sustained and empowered
	by the Spirit of God and experienced and expressed through the filter of you,
	the body including the brain.
	So speaking strictly biologically, if we think of a brain as what it really is, an organ or even
	more generally a machine, it's just a window or a medium through which the true metaphysical self,
	the you, is expressed.
	In theory, if my soul was connected to somebody else's brain, I'd still be me.
	I'd just experience some different thoughts, emotions, compulsions, etc., all of which are just flavors of the brain chemistry you possess.
	Just like if my soul was connected to somebody else's body, I may be stronger or weaker or slower or faster, but I'd still be me.
	Technically, if there was a way to connect my soul to a toaster, I'd still be me, but that would be weird.
	I know this sounds like it verges on Gnosticism, but I don't think that's the case.
	It's not the spirit and physical are too divided, unconnected realms, really the opposite.
	It's more that the physical world we live in is just a limited window through which we interpret the true spiritual reality.
	And this is also not to diminish the free will we do possess, but it is to say the free will our souls possess is certainly impacted by our bodies, brain chemistry included.
	So back to the question, based on this whole theory, my guess is that if we were to wire the brains together, we wouldn't get a conscious being at all, but both Both people would just die, and the resulting Frankenstein monster would just fire off neurons and twitch around, but would never achieve a consciousness as we understand it.
	In a physical sense, the brain would be able to control the limbs and move the body, but wouldn't ever possess a will to drive it to interpret the world and make decisions.
	This is a much better answer than the one that I gave.
	I wish I had... Maybe you should just do the show, Stuart.
	I will just clarify.
	No, I don't think the brain is the source of the soul at all.
	Of course, it's not the source.
	But there is a In this life anyway, in our mortal realm, there is an inextricable relationship and link, obviously, between the body and the soul and the mind.
	And I think of the mind as just sort of another word for the soul.
	But everything else you said there, I agree with.
	Last one, this is from Patty.
	I recently watched an episode of The Good Doctor in which the face of a girl who was killed in a car accident was removed to replace the face of another girl who had been badly disfigured in a separate car accident.
	I think that scenario may help to address the question you raised about the irreplaceability of the soul, making it impossible to transplant one person's brain with another.
	Watching the transplant and seeing the face of the one girl on the other was bizarre and unsettling, precisely because it almost seemed that the living girl was no longer herself, but was taking on the identity that is the very person of the dead girl.
	Yet the soul, being spiritual, is the immutable part of the person, whereas the body, being material, is subject to constant change and can be altered through human intervention such as transplants.
	Even of the face or the brain and not constitute the loss of the person.
	A brain injured person or one in a vegetative state still has his soul abiding in his body despite the lack of normal consciousness.
	So I would think that even someone with the face or the brain of another of another person would remain himself, albeit not in the ideal sense originally intended.
	That's from Patty.
	A lot of good answers.
	There were probably dozens of answers to this.
	All of them much more interesting than what I offered.
	So I appreciate that.
	All right.
	We'll leave it there.
	Thanks for watching, everybody.
	Thanks for listening.
	Godspeed.
	Hi, everybody.
	I'm Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are angry at Congresswoman Ilhan Omar because her anti-Semitic remarks are getting in the way of the Democratic Party's attempts to destroy Israel.
	They forced her to apologize.
	Worst apology ever.
	We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.

▲