Ep. 2477 - This INSANE Clip Shows The True THREAT Of Islam

This one clip shows the truth about what Islam in the West really means. We keep being told that Islam is a religion of peace, that the West shouldn't be threatened by Islam. Oxford held a debate precisely on this very subject. Well, the people who argued for Islam ended up making a case against Islam. They are accidentally saying the quai part out loud, or maybe it's not even accidental at this point. Maybe the West is so done as a philosophical and civilizational entity that its enemies don't really need to hide the ball anymore. They take advantage of the rights and privileges of our civilization and then they spit directly in our face. And they receive apparently nothing but applause. We're going to play the insane clips in just one moment. Plus, we'll get to the infiltration of radical Islam into the United States. Senate Tucker Carlson forming a third party. And the WNBA has decided the true villain. After all, is Sophie Cunningham. This is the Ben Shapiro show. Okay, so there is a comforting lie people in the West have been telling ourselves for some decades as we import literally millions, pond millions, pond millions of Muslims from third world countries. Islam is generally compatible with Western civilization. Now, that was a weird idea historically. Since let's be real, Islam was founded indirect conflicts with the West since literally its birth. But that idea was always awkward because it then dictated that the West might have to face down implacable ideological enemies who would not be wooed by the power of simple economics. So religious enemies are kind of different than even communist enemies. Yeah, communism is a form of religion, but it is in the end dictated by the power of the economic vision. And the true neoliberal fallacy was not that free trade raises living standards because it does. The fallacy was that economics always dictates ideology that if we put economic pressure on radical Muslims, they will magically exceed to your cultural changes. That they will moderate in some way. It didn't work with China. It certainly was never going to work with radical Islam. Anyway, we decided that we were going to import massive numbers of radicalized Muslims to the West. People who do not believe in the basic rights the West was founded upon, who actually see the West as a plum right before the picking. And then who tell us that if we see what they are doing and what they believe, it must be because we are Islamophobic. Now, here's the deal. There are a lot of wonderful people who are Muslim. I know many of them. Just as there are a lot of wonderful people, individually, of pretty much every persuasion. That doesn't mean that every persuasion is equivalent and it doesn't mean that Islam generally is a philosophy that is particularly compatible with Western belief systems. Anyway, this was the subject of debated Oxford Union just a couple of weeks ago. And apparently, what happened here is that this debate went so poorly for the pro-Islam side that they delayed the release of the debate for a couple of weeks. The resolution at Oxford, I've argued at Oxford before, the resolution was this House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. And the resolution did not pass. It was voted down. One of the people who is arguing in favor of the idea that the West should be suspicious of Islam. It was Tommy Robinson, who of course is an activist who has been labeled extremely radical. But when he says that Islam is not particularly compatible with the West, that was the argument of pretty much every Western leader for several centuries, actually. Unheard wrote about this appearance back in June. And they said that anti-Robinson protesters were numerous and well-organized, combining the forces of town and gown. Campus groups, including Oxford students against discrimination, while the effort was led by more established left-wing organizations, such as stand-up to racism, some protesters linked arms to form a court and blocked most of the access to the union. The union president, a person named Arwa Al-Rais, faced criticism across the city and the university for inviting Tommy Robinson. Susan Brown, leader of Oxford City Council, demanded that the Oxford Union meet the full cost of staging the event. They actually had to spend about 80,000 pounds for police security because of all this. Now again, the greatest mark that your religion is a religion of peace who is when it requires tens of thousands of pounds and security to prevent people from storming the place and chopping off people's heads. Now that is always a great mark that your religion is the religion of peace. But one of the people who is arguing in favor of the proposition that the West ought to be suspicious of Islam was British actor and now quasi-activist Lawrence Fox. Here he was at Oxford Union, recalling Winston Churchill's early suspicion of fascism and comparing it to radical Islam. It is perfectly acceptable. And I actively encourage in every school, university, TV channel and media organization across the West to be suspicious of fascism. In fact, if we listen to our friends outside, that's not enough. You've got to be an anti-fascist. You've got to take direct action against fascism. Chamberlain today just seems like a moronic simpleton to me. So perhaps the deaths of millions of people could have been avoided. If only Churchill's suspicion had been heeded, that his perspective acknowledged, but he stood alone whilst the train continued to hurtle towards us because we didn't want to upset anybody. Okay, so again, the comparison was pretty obvious. There are Lawrence Fox then went on during this debate to describe the expansionist submissive aim of Islam. Islam does not, in fact, mean peace. It means submission. There's Lawrence Fox explaining. Islam literally means submission. So there is no church. There is no state. There is only Islam. My suspicion of Islam, therefore, is strongly, and I think reasonably held. Islam is a comprehensive social, political and military doctrine which leaves no part of its followers lives untouched. As Andrew Hussie, the British historian, says Islam is more closely resembles a ruthlessly efficient war machine than a religion. Islam is borderless, expunctionary and interested only in submission to Allah. So another British podcaster and broadcast name Jonathan Sikr Doty got up and then he talked about the Muslim Brotherhood and their civilizational G-Hod, which of course, again, everything that's being cited here happens to be factually true. Their devised strategy was one of patient Islamic transformation from within. A civilizational G-Hod, don't worry, that is not a far-right name made up by Tommy Robinson or me. That's actually what they called it. And we know that because the FBI sees their 1991 explanatory memorandum setting out the plan to settle in the West, build Islamic centres as bases, infiltrate institutions and work until, quote, "Alarz religion is made victorious over all other religions." No, thank you. Nearly a century later, they are widely accepted across Europe and in the US and much of the West as a dangerous threat to democracy. Well, I was a piece over the weekend by Lorenzo Vidino, who is the George Washington director, program on extremism, talking about political Islam and he writes quote this. In both the Middle East and the Western world, political Islam with the Muslim Brotherhood its main proponent operates in many arenas, including politics, education, and grassroots activism. Washington's European partners have long known this. Several European governments have correctly analyzed the societal challenge posed by Islamism. The Trump administration this year designated as terrorist organizations for branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Sudan, which the US concluded have engaged in direct violation. By the way, the United States should have expanded that to say Qatar. They did not, or rather obvious reasons. Okay, and we are seeing Muslim Brotherhood expand its reach into American universities, spreading its funding, and all the rest. Okay, so that is what the pro side had to say about why the West should be suspicious of Islam. Then the anti side got up and they proceeded to prove the entire case. All right, coming up, we'll get to the people who oppose the motion. We say, no, no, Islam and the West, they're like everything's great. It didn't go amazing for those people, but I'll tell you what won't go amazing for you putting all your eggs in one basket. That's true financially. It's true in business. It's kind of true in life. If all of your wealth depends on one asset class, you're probably taking more risk than you realize. You must diversify it. Again, that doesn't mean that you should take your entire portfolio and just dump it into gold, but it does mean that owning some precious metals is just a smart thing to do. One thing I appreciate about golden crest metals is they don't treat you like a transaction there. But seek firm with real people who know the business. No high pressure sales tactics, transparent pricing, no hidden markups. They focus on widely recognized coins. So what you buy is something you can sell. Right now, they'll send you a free investor kit, a free portfolio review, up to 25 grand and free silver on qualifying purchases. Taxed Ben to metals at 638-257, go to goldencressmetals.com/benn or call 888-429-3999. Again, you should have some of your wealth and precious metals because it's a smart thing to do. The government's going to inflate the currency, the government's going to make all sorts of dumb decisions that impact your buying power. Taxed Ben to metals at 638-257, go to goldencressmetals.com/benn or give them a call at 888-429-3999. A student named Aisha Han Aziz was talking to Tommy Robinson about the mob outside. And this is the clip that I was talking about at the top. This is the one where it's like you're just saying the quiet part out loud now. Steven, there is a crowd outside writing against you tonight, and without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a mostly South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked. I believe that you are making an argument that is the opposite of the argument that you are seeking to make. If the idea is that the Muslims are so moderate that they are willing to heed any debate, the idea that we are being nice by allowing you to speak here and if it weren't for us, our friends outside would murder you. That is definitely a statement. That is definitely, by the way, that also happens to be the statement of a lot of people who live in the West. We are the moderate ones. We're moderate because we just want our aims. And if you piss us off, If you draw a cartoon in a newspaper, we will riot all across Europe. If you are, as we will see, a person who speaks out against Islam in ways that we find offensive, we'll beat the living crap out of you in Dearborn, Michigan. We'll get to that. That's the thing that happened over the course of the last 48 hours. So you pretending to be moderate for the purposes of basically saying it is we are the only thing standing between you and the pitch works give us what we want, talk about how moderate we are. It's pretty insane. By some of the people who also got up at Oxford included a person named Abdullah, all Antelusi, who used to be named Mouloud Farid. All Antelusi used to live a double life, apparently, according to the UK independent. He would teach Muslims by night that ISIL, which is ISIS, was no different than Western armies and that non-Muslims would be punished in hell. While by day, he would work for the British government in her majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which grants him privilege to access to sensitive and classified information. He resigned his government post in 2014. Now he's an international Muslim thinker, who how exciting. Well, here he was talking about the wonders of Osama bin Laden. So when I said, when I said, when I said live and let live, what was, what was I referring to the actual his full phrase? He said, if the West stop attacking us, will stop attacking them live and let live. He did not say the Quran tells us to kill or non-Muslims and massacre them. He did not say it. So the issue is this, we talk, we talk a lot about what motivates terrorists. We talk a lot about what motivates terrorists, but at least quote them because Osama bin Laden never himself uses the argument that the Quran says to kill non-Muslims. I'm just going to point out at this point that the terrorist group al-Qaeda was very much in favor openly of say reconquering our underlose, meaning Spain. How do I honestly, how do people think that Islam became a global religion? It did not become a global religion because missionaries were sent to far flung places. That is not how Islam became a global religion. It became a global religion through conquest and war. That is the history of Islam. Other opposition speakers, people saying you shouldn't fear Islam. They say the reason you shouldn't fear Islam is because Islam offers an alternative to drugs, porn, alcohol and interest banking. I mean, this is a person named Michael Doward, a podcaster from the same part of England as Tommy Robinson. I'm, I feel like there are other things in life that offer an alternative to drugs, porn, alcohol and interest banking, like say Christianity, but don't also include the incipient destruction of entire civilizations. Should the West be suspicious of Islam? What the truth for that is it's going to depend. Okay. It's going to depend if you're invested in pornography, if you're invested in alcohol, if you're invested in interest banking, if you're invested in drink, drugs, criminality, then probably you should be suspicious of Islam because Islam has come as an alternative way of life today. Islam, what is it? Could we add Judaism to that list? Isn't it sure? Okay. But you can't become a Jew. So, so, so not very easily. So, so Islam as come as Islam as come as a option and alternative to those vices in this world. It's pretty easy to become a Christian. Where Christians are opposed to those vices as well. I noticed. And one of the opposition speakers, again, according to the opposition speakers, nothing Islam has ever done has been bad. Everything is simply blowback for what the West did. So, for example, the fact that homosexuals are routinely murdered in the Islamic world, that is only a result of the fact that the West created homosexuality, which would come as a surprise to, I don't know, all the men in Afghanistan who are praying on young boys. That is a real thing, by the way. If you talk to any American soldier who served in Afghanistan, it was a real thing. It was a massive issue in Afghanistan. That many of our so-called Afghan allies were very much into the pre-pubescent boys. And they were supposed to look the other way. The American soldier, like this is a major issue. There are multiple reports on this. The idea that homosexuality in practice was somehow foreign to the Muslim world is shall we say, a historical. The laws that do exist on some of the books in Muslim world, unfortunately, were taken from somewhere. The idea of the homosexuals invented in the 19th century, as in the the idea that you should classify people by sexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and so on. Croft on Ebbing was the person. And then the Victorians developed an idea that you should be intolerant about these people. It was a mental disease. And then they imported it or exported it into the Muslim world. When we never had the concept of the heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, every more is just people. Interesting. Interesting. Well, the Oxford opposition union president actually had to get up and say the motion is about Islam itself, not people who claim to represent Islam. Now, what's funny about this? What's really interesting about this is that I tend not to want to adjudicate whether a religion itself calls for a thing. The reason I don't tend to do that is because it turns out the texts are eminently interpretable. You could read the Old Testament and come away with things that are not in accordance with the practice of Judaism, for example. You could read Hindu texts and come away with things presumably. They're not in accordance with how people actually practice Islam. Actually, the best way to adjudicate the quality of a religion is by the adherence. Overall, not every single adherent, but overall has the religion had a positive or negative impact on the societies in which it exists. But the goal here, like what are you going to do? Have some sort of debate over proper interpretation of the Quran? It's a strange argument. But here is the Oxford University president, Arwa El-Raiyes, who is a Palestinian from Gaza. Explaining that actually the debate is supposed to be over the doctrines of Islam. Well, I mean, I'm just the problem with that particular claim is that it evades the question is what Islam means for the people who practice it in the West? Let me reiterate what this motion is and what it is not. The motion is not. The West is right to be suspicious of Salman A.D., the Manchester Arena bomber. The motion is not. The West is right to be suspicious of jihadist ideologies of al-Qaeda of ISIS, of the examples that you've presented. I, as a Muslim, and I am certain, and I can assure you, as many, many, many vast majority of Muslims are equally as suspicious of those people, of those organizations as anyone in this room. Let me get to the question. The motion is the suspicion of Islam itself, not some caricature that has been painted by Lawrence or by Tommy or from selected verses in the scripture without context, without understanding, without reference to any of the verses that preceded it or came after it. It is not selective understanding by people who do not believe in Islam. The people who behead the people who waged wars, the people who attack and the people who stone and behead these are not followers of Islam. The motion is about Islam. Okay. So again, the evasion here is we are going to pretend that there is not widespread sympathy for anti-Western values among Muslims. Well, I mean, again, one way to make this debate irrelevant would be if the adherence of Islam in the West were generally oriented toward individual rights and Anglo-American traditions. That would be a great way to avoid this entire debate, but it turns out it turns out that events on the ground tend to suggest the truth of the other opposition speaker that basically outside these doors are a bunch of people who if you say the wrong thing might burn down your business or attack you. Are you coming up if you are somebody who says anti-Islamic things in Dearborn, should you have the crap kicked out of you? This apparently is now an open question here in the United States, but you know what is not an open question. If you run a business and somebody calls you and you don't pick up the phone, you lose the customer. That's just a reality. Customers do not like to wait if they need an answer, a quote or an appointment. They're probably moving on to the next business if nobody picks up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo. The business phone system built so you never miss a call. Quo keeps all your calls, texts and voicemails in one place. So anyone on your team can jump into the conversation, see the history and respond quickly. One exciting feature is the built in AI agents. It can answer after hours calls, respond to common questions and even book appointments so you're not losing business just because your office is closed. It's also easy to set up on any device. You can keep your existing number and it grows with your business. No IT headaches. Money is on the line. Always say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com/benn. That's q u o dot com slash Ben again, that's Quo dot com slash Ben. And you can try for free plus get 20% off your first six months Quo dot com slash Ben to get started and strengthen your business today. So if you think this debate is relegated to the other side of the Atlantic, you are wrong. It is here and it is a growing threat from New York to zero more. And so there's a guy named Jake Lang. Jake Lang is a radical right winger. He you may remember him from leading a protest outside of the mayoral mansion in New York that was an attack of bomb. And you remember that Zor mom's on he condemned the protest and had very type of words for the person to murder the people at the protest. Anyway, Jake Lang showed up in Jirborn Michigan. Jirborn Michigan is the most Islamic city in the United States. And there he had the help basically kicked out of it. People just attacked him on the street. He just went after him. For ice, we can all walk this illegal immigrant here. Jesus is king of Jirborn Michigan. I think the name of Jesus. And here come people who are actively attacking him. Literally punching him. They're coming in and punching him. People carrying rail various Islamic flags following him around chasing him through the streets throwing things at him. At one point security tries to protect him and let's just say that doesn't go particularly well. They don't do a great job protecting him. So that was a very, very peaceful event. So much peace happening there. Strong, strong levels of peace. You don't have to like Jake Lang to understand that a dude standing on the side of the road, shouting through a bullhorn in a public area, getting attacked. The reason he was getting attacked was not because he was violating time-placing manner restrictions. There's only one religion in the West that is treated with these sort of hands-off perspective of Islam. They say, "Okay, well, you want to attack a place, you want to protest outside of synagogue and threaten people inside, you want to take over an entire college campus, you can do all those things, and this is now considered some shortcoming in the West." And actually you'll blame Jake Lang for being offensive. There's literally no other religion in the West, where if you draw a cartoon in a newspaper and bunch of people get shot, half the West goes, "Well, they did draw a cartoon in the newspaper." How radical is Dearborn? I mean, we know what Dearborn is very radical. It's very radical. Again, this doesn't mean that every person in Dearborn is radical and it doesn't mean God forbid that anybody should do violence to people in Dearborn. It does mean we have to be clear-eyed about the ideology of people we import to this country and to the West more generally. So, here is just some evidence. Here is a Dearborn mosque, mourning Iatullah Khameini, and declaring that America is still in land. We're gathered here today to commemorate the martyrdom of the great leader of our time, and it's just like Karasai, we live on stolen land on the devil more simply, may sins reach these shores and the Zionists in binded Christopher Carvallis who can't take the score and they can assign it to me. And put upon eye of the devil, on the currency to put their plans in full sight, while the destruction of liberty is actually loosed of the demonic bearer holding that source of lights. And look. Yeah, again, this is the kind of stuff happening in Dearborn. So much so, that again, Abdul Al Sayed, who may very soon be Senator from Michigan, right? He openly acknowledges that Dearborn is in favor of Iatullah Khameini. Like, he acknowledges this. This is not a giant secret. He said it quietly, but he was caught on safe here he was. I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today. So like, I just don't want to comment on Khameini at all. Like, I don't think it's worse. Even have she not, like, they're going to try, this is what we practice, but like, is it easy to find any bad guy? Is Nick right that he's dead? How am I first in the middle is 86 years old? Who's going to be dead sometimes soon anyway? Nick, it doesn't justify the fact that he was a bad man does not justify our breaking of international law and unilateral action outside of, outside of horsemen. Like, this is a bigger question about the United States responsibility to international law. And we have been breaking it once and this is the second leader that we've gone after in a matter of months. We are not the world's policeman and that's not what he got elected to do with. Again, the reason he's saying that is because there are a lot of people in his neighborhood who are upset that Khameini was dead. And again, we already have a couple of Congress people sitting in Congress who are actively pro-Islamic terrorism. That includes Ilhan Omar and also includes Rashid Ali. There's probably another one who's going to get elected to a New Jersey, a guy named Adam Hamali, who was allegedly a spokesperson for actual al-Qaeda. Well, now we're on the verge of a senator as well. Abdul El-Sayed is entering, according to Newsweek, the final weekend of Michigan's Democratic Senate primary with a double-digit advantage over Hayley Stevens. So we'll see how that works out. El-Sayed is the kind of person who campaigns with Hassan Piker. He's the kind of person who said about a Michigan synagogue attack. Remember, there was a Muslim from the yearborn who attacked a preschool near the yearborn in Jewish preschool near the yearborn who was standing next to Hassan Piker who is again a complete and total piece of crap. And El-Sayed said, "What really happened there hurt people, hurt people." What he's talking about is the person who tried to kill preschoolers. Jewish preschoolers was doing so because his brother, who was a member of Chizballah, was killed in Lebanon, which is why you would go after the local Jewish three-year-old in Detroit. Here is Abdul El-Sayed. This guy could be in the Senate. When it comes to temple Israel, I was profoundly shaken. Many of my friends growing up worshiped the temple Israel. Nothing justifies the heinous attack that we saw on temple Israel. And I stand in solidarity with my Jewish sisters and brothers for an America where that kind of thing never happens again. I also think it's just critical for us to understand that hurt people, do hurt people. And the circumstances happening 6,000 miles away can affect the lives that we live here. And if we stand against violence, we've got to stand against violence, all violence. Unbelieveable. That would be him equating the killing of a member of Chizballah in Lebanon with the attempt to murder three-year-old Jews at a synagogue near Dearborn. Pretty amazing. That guy could be in the Senate. And of course, the way that he's going to get in the Senate is he's going to, as always, utilize the weakness of the West in order to promote himself. So because he knows that the West is tolerant, he's going to claim that you're a racist if you don't want to vote for him. So here he was yesterday saying that the reason people are calling him unelectable is because his name is Abdul El-Moderno. It has nothing to do with your name, a dude. It has everything to do with your belief system. That would be the reason why you are less electable than say, "Haley Stevens." So again, I think Haley Stevens is terrible. I think she's an awful candidate. But here's Abdul El-Sayed claiming the only reason to oppose Abdul El-Sayed is because, of course, his name is Abdul El-Sayed. See, there's nobody with more political experience, big name Abdul, except for maybe the narrative, the narrative, the narrative here for him. Then me and all of Michigan, I'm pretty good at being the guy named Abdul in Michigan. You know what they're talking about? Talking about all the bus. All of you. That's right. All the people in the state. Again, trying to claim that it's the only reason to oppose radical Islam is some sort of bizarre phobia. This is the stick. This is the stick. Already coming up, we'll get to the democratic radicals who are perfectly fine with radical Islamolisten. All this could have you losing sleep, but you need sleep. It is the thing that is most associated with health, like pretty much the thing more than it. Maybe diet, but other than that's like sleep. And that's why you need a mattress that is made just for you. Sleep is not just another healthy habit. It's the foundation. Everything else is built on, which is why I recommend Helix. Again, if you just get one of those mattresses from the store, you got it. You're not like 10 years. You're rolling around. You're wondering why you're too hot or why the thing is lumpy or something. You need a mattress made just for you. Pretty much everything in your life is personalized right now. Helix will personalize your mattress for you. They have more than 20 different models. Their sleep quiz matches you based on how you actually sleep, whether you're a side sleeper, whether you tend to sleep hot or whether you prefer a firm or mattress. They'll ship it right to your door for free. You get a 129 sleep trial, a limited lifetime warranty. They're happy with Helix guarantee, so you can buy with confidence. Go to HelixLeap.com/Bend for 20% off-site-wide exclusively for listeners of this show as HelixLeap.com/Bend for 20% off-site-wide exclusively for listeners to this show. HelixLeap.com/Bend, I've been using it for years. So as my wife, obviously, try it yourself. HelixLeap.com/Bend. The real question that a lot of people have, and I know I have a lot of reasonable Democrat friends and they're puzzled by the infiltration of the left by radical Islam, the hands-in-hand willingness to go along with this stuff. One of the reasons, again, that people have trouble understanding the infiltration of radical Islam into our politics is that the left, which theoretically should oppose radical Islam because, you know, it is a radical Islam is a tyrannical anti-freedom of every sort, religion. They're happy to join in the chorus of Islamophobia every time somebody notices the problem, which is weird. The answer, of course, is that it always comes down to the coalition of the scavengers. As long as you hate the system, you will follow travel with anybody up to and including the radical Muslims who would like to destroy it. So the appeal for Bernie Sanders agrees with Abdul Al-Sahead. That is the reason. It is a natural fit. Bernie Sanders thinks that the system is conspiratorially rigged on behalf of the successful. The same thing that Abdul Al-Sahead believes. And that crosses paths internationally with the idea that Israel is disproportionately successful with Palestinians because they've made horrific choices for several decades at this point, for 80 years at this point, that they are somehow victimized. So Bernie is perfectly happy with all of this. He loves all of this. In fact, Bernie says that people like Bernie, people like Abdul Al-Sahead, they should be leading the Democratic Party. And you've heard a lot of people say that if you're not going to just kind of fit in nicely with the Democratic establishment, you shouldn't be a Democrat. Well, maybe the conversation is true. Maybe the Democratic establishment should begin to understand they are way, way out of touch with where the American people are, that we don't need a party anymore, which is dominated by wealthy campaign contributors. So when you talk about the Democratic establishment, it's really, really, relatively few people. And meanwhile, Melat Keroche, who is again a congressional candidate over in Colorado, another one of these. extraordinarily radical candidates, extraordinarily radical candidates, total DSA candidate. She's out there suggesting that the Declaration of Independence was rooted in socialism. Okay? I don't think there's anything more American than subscribing to an economic philosophy that as the evidence shows is the only one that's actually capable of delivering things like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I really can't think of socialism as proven to deliver on the values of the Declaration of Independence more than capitalism has. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you're on more on. But again, it's all about ripping down the system. It's not about replacing it with anything in reality. It's just about destroying things. This is why Mila Kirosch on "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" says that capitalism is really about monopolies. The ultimate monopoly of socialism because the government owns the means of production. It is literally a monopoly. It is the only power. There's no competition with it. There's Mila Kirosch. And this is a person who the left has decided is wonderful. When folks think of capitalism, they think they think of free markets and competition and innovation. And what do you think of? I think of monopolies. I think of. That's not capitalism. It's a monopoly. Well, and that's the question, right? Because in unfettered capitalism, it does end up leading to. monopolies. That if there's no government intervention. Right. But it's. Yeah, this is the entire Democratic Party. They have decided to embrace a burning down of the system. It's the thing they care about most in life, just burn down the system. And speak a bunch of nonsense, by the way, about capitalism and the meritocracy. You know what? Kirosch talks about the idea of "donut economics." Okay? To make it super clear, come on. I subscribe to this theory of "donut economics." In "donut economics," you have the inner ring of the donut, which is where everyone's basic needs are being met. And then the outer ring are the boundaries, so that you can make as much money as you want and do whatever you want with it, so long as you are not harming the planet, the one that we all have, or that you're not exploiting others in order to earn that wealth. Um, is she aware that a donut has a hole in it? Does it make sense to metaphor? But again, this has been imbibed. All this stuff has been just taken into the mainstream Democratic Party, which by James Tallarico, who's considered a mainstream normie Democrat, spends his time suggesting that Jesus was a socialist on health care somehow. We can finish the work of President Obama and pass a public option so that every single American has access to the health care they deserve. Because health care is a human right. It is not a privilege. I just sense we are in church, and because I said BS earlier, if you read our scriptures, if you read the New Testament, what does Jesus spend most of his time doing? It's not, well, you already know, okay. It's not preaching, it's not teaching, it is healing, healing the sick. And in Matthew 25, scripture says, that's how we will be judged and how we will be saved by healing the sick, by feeding the hungry, by welcoming the stranger, by visiting the prisoner. I feel like Jesus, who had the power, according to the New Testament, to heal the sick himself, I don't think that's quite the same thing as every doctor must be forced to provide care at a price provided by the government. I'm pretty sure that's a major distinction there. In any case, the whole thing is about the coalition of the dispossessed, tearing things down. That's the entire thing. That's why you have the Abdullas I edge running, heard over the traditional Democrats. And I have to say, there is something sad about the fact that there are traditional Democrats who are looking around and suddenly realizing that this is all about destruction, not about building. So Scott Galloway, I was on Scott's show recently with with just guitar love. I like Scott, but this is like, this is perfectly predictable stuff. This is the, I voted for Leopard's eating people's faces party and now they're eating my face stuff. So Scott Galloway said that he supported Zorn Mumbani's pitotary tax. Now there are a lot of people on the left and sort of the moderate left who say, I want higher taxes. Could it all pay for better social services? Not understanding that for people like Zorn Mumbani, it is not about the better social services and it never was. It was about eating the rich when AOC wore a dress to the Met Gala. It did not say better social services upon it. It said acts of the rich. That's what they care about. It is about tearing people down. So why exactly Scott was surprised when Zorn Mumbani decided to plaster the names and addresses of every apartment owner in New York all over the internet. I'm not sure why he surprised. Of course that was the way it was going to go. Of course it was. Come on. And I've been doxed. He'd been doxed. What? Tell me. So I don't know if he heard, but Mayor Mumbani has decided to release a list of the 950,000 residences with addresses and names that might be eligible for his pietta tear tax. I'm a fan of this tax. I'm supportive of it. Rich absenteeism should subsidize a nurse in the Bronx, nine 40% of her income on rent. I came out in favor of this tax. This is the definition. He's taken a legitimate source of tax revenue and he's turned it into a wanted poster. And the question I would have is other than trying to identify and imply these people have done something wrong. And then 18 months after a healthcare see it was executed in the street and then publish the list. What? What is the upside here? Why is he doing this? I mean, why is he doing this because because of what you just said because a year ago a healthcare see it was murdered in the street. That's why Zorn Mumbani is doing he's doing because that's what he wants. Again, aOC wore a dress. It's a tax the rich to the McAllen. It did not say better social services. I know the old style left thinks that we're just arguing about how best to provide public goods to people or what constitutes a public good. That is not what the argument is about anymore. That argument was solved long ago by the radical left, which decided that the only important thing is tearing people down. This does bring us to the horseshoe right. So there's been a weird fascinating new phenomenon on the horseshoe right. We've talked about it before. This weird embrace of radical Islam, right? Tukka Carlson traveling to every Muslim country he can find and talking about the magic of Sharia law or Candace Owens apologizing to Muslims all over the world for the evils and predations of the United States and all the rest. Now I mean this is obviously tied to the horsehoe rights deep desire to shift the focus to wait for it always the you know always focusing on the Jews. The horsehoe right has joined the left and economics and they've joined the radical Muslims on Jews and it all fits beautifully together. So in the aftermath of 60,000 Muslims invading Suta, which is a Spanish city on the coast of Africa. Again, so you have a story that involves only, only a socialist government in Spain that is Christian oriented in history and Muslims somehow they came up with the Jews as the causative factor here. The situation again was created purely by the factors of Islamic migration and invasion. The insane open borders multiculturalism and anti-Westernism of Pedro Sanchez, the prime minister of Spain. And somehow but the horsehoe right and the left found a way to blame wait for a wait for a wait for a wait you know, yep, they found a way to blame the Jews. I've got what can't the Jews do? Apparently other than telling people do stop saying stupid things and being successful with us. What can't they do? So Thomas Massey who again has decided that the Jews are his bugaboo. After losing his Kentucky seat by focusing specifically and only on the Jews in the district with 500 Jews. He put out a tweet saying don't fall for the fake Fox GOP outrage over Souta two weeks ago the House passed a bill that green lighted the transfer of Spanish territory to Morocco. Every Republican except for me voted for it. But now they are acting shocked at the invasion. Well, no, actually these were notes on what the committee was talking about. This was not what was in the approved text of the bill. In any case, the idea that somehow the GOP, like the neo con GOP was responsible for a Moroccan invasion of a Spanish city because in an obscure bill, the committee had notes. That's insane. MTG of course did the same thing. Of course she said Republicans paid 40 million of your tax dollars to Morocco to invade Spain. Uh, what now? And then they all pretended like borders matter and clutch their pearls like invasions are offensive. R's and D's are the same and the uniparties put us $40 trillion in debt and Americans last. Um, no, that no, um, I'm, you're going to have to connect the dots between we gave aid to Morocco and then we told, we told the Moroccans to invade Souta. They've done this before by the way. This is not like the first time a few years ago 8,000 people crossed the border. Candace Owens of course suggested that this is all about the flag. She's, she's disarmed the signs and the symbols. Candace Owens tweeted out. As you know, the star of David occult ball symbol. Uh, used to be on the flag of Morocco before modern Israel existed. They want to look into the history of the aloe white dynasty. We discussed this and might be coming Brigitte series at all connects pedophiles like a manual Macron's favorite author Andre Sheed would regularly go to Morocco with the express purpose of raping Muslim boys. Occult worshipers always harm children. Spain stay strong. The world knows what is happening and exactly who is behind it. So because the Moroccan flag like a century ago something like that had the star of David which was the star of Solomon which was a symbol that was recognized in both the Islamic and the Jewish world. and really became sort of an exclusive Jewish symbol in the 19th century. Because of the symbol, that means that when Muslims invade a Christian territory, it was the Jews, 'cause it was on the flag. I hate to imagine what can a so-and-so-and-things happened in like Hindu India hundreds of years ago. Did the Nazis take a time machine to emblaze in all the swastika on the artwork? So now when India does something in Pakistan, is it actually the Nazis who did it? Meanwhile, Anna Kasparian, who appears to have fallen off the conspiracy tree and hit every branch on the way down? She put out a tweet, "People are finally waking up." Replying to, "I was fairly reasonable toward Israel, but this Morocco thing makes it clear Israel has become an enemy of the West." It's Morocco. What are you talking about? What are you even talking about? People are finally waking up, said Anna Kasparian. I hate to attribute this to stupidity, 'cause I know Anna, I don't think Anna is stupid. The problem is that the only alternative explanation is nefarious or brainwirmed. Those are really the only other possible explanations. But again, this is all part and parcel of a horse shoe right that is trying to form its own new kind of conspiracy-laden third party. What they really hate in the end is the same thing in the left-hates, which is the system, the system, because what they think is that the system is rigged. They constantly talk about it. They hate the meritocracy, the meritocracy is bad. The meritocracy, and this means, by the way, that because the meritocracy is bad, the people who are the most successful in the United States must be torn to the ground. That's true everywhere from tech CEOs to real estate CEOs, and if Jews are disproportionately present in positions of finance or education, this means the Jews must have rigged the system, right? That's the whole stick here. Because the anti-Semitism in the end is just a conspiracy theory about power focusing in on the Jews. Well, all of these doles, all these cloths, decided to get to, they have formed a new third party. Yay, a third party. Okay, so the third party will involve all of the most brilliant members of our horseshoe right, just genius level stuff. So Tucker Carlson still cosplaying as a man of the woods, this silver spoon jacked with his gigantic complex up in Maine, where apparently he just stole Gaston's antler chandelier from Beauty and the Beast. He had a dinner at his all wooden cabin that he built with his own two bare hands and lots of labor from other people. And then he's like a rail splitter. And he hosted at this dinner, the greatest collection of mines since the Coca-Cola company decided to try new Coke. And the blazing intellect at this table could illuminate, it has the wattage of a whale oil candle. It is just a, this is the kitty table of brains over here. All the chairs should be 13 inches high. Who was he joined by? He was joined by all of the best people. He was joined by Marjorie Taylor Greene and her husband, I imagine being her husband honestly, like a Marjorie Taylor Greene's husband is like, man, that lady who is like nailing her gym coach, gotta, she's so brilliant, she's so wonderful, need that. So he married her, so that's great. So they're sitting there at the table, Marjorie Taylor Greene sitting down there next to Tucker Carlson at the far end, Tucker looking like El Pichino in the devil's advocate. And then you have Thomas Massey, who is sitting there looking free of the congressional life because he's basically given up on life, except for his quick sonic presidential run which he will certainly make in the next few months. Joe Kent is at the end of the table all. So that would be the counterterrorism guy who is basically cut out of all informational loops because everyone knew who's a nut job inside the administration. Again, what a blazing collection of just geniuses at this table. These are the people who are going to quarterback the revivification of the American dream. So Marjorie Taylor Greene put out on X, we said no more foreign wars and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise, but he's betrayed us all. Our commitment is America first for all Americans, right, left and center. The movement has begun. Wow, wow, that movement. Look at look at the size of that movement. Fit those people inside of phone booth. Look at that movement, it's huge. Well, again, remember, I'm just gonna remind you that the leaders of this movement are people who literally think that Kishtapo is called Guspacho. I mean, I understand that they may be planning the invasion of Poland at that table, but Marjorie Taylor Greene, these are the kinds of leaders you need. - Not only do we have the DC jail, which is the DC Goulog, but now we have Nancy Pelosi's Guspacho police, spying on members of Congress, spying on the legislative work that we do, spying on our staff and spying on American citizens that want to come top together representatives. - Oh, yeah, she seems like a leader. She seems like somebody that you should get behind. Probably she knows what's going on. How about Joe Kent? Also, I mean, he was in counter terrorism. I mean, he did vote for Bernie Sanders, but then later he wasn't and I mean, sure he said that he would testify as a witness for Tyler Robinson in the trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk. And then he might make statements about a foreign excess that he has no information about. Sure, he might do that. Again, just what a collection of brilliant blazing geniuses. Just geniuses over that. Forget about the genius of it. Obviously people with great central American principles, people who really care about things like demon attacks and also APAC and also Jews and also APAC and also demons and also gym trainers. Like it is just these are the people. I mean, we have Tucker Carlson sitting over there and they're like, I'm not doing this because I'm an American. I'm doing this because I love Trump. I mean, I hate Trump. But I also love Trump. What is love? Do I even know a lot? Third party? I was gonna watch a third party. I would never. I mean, I would if I knew a third man to even know what three is, what is three is three? A number? I don't even know what that means. I don't even know what is three. Is three a person who is three? (screaming) Good luck. Good luck. Okay, so why am I talking about this aside from the fact that it's kind of hilarious? So there are a few things. There's one big reason though. Okay, it's a question. It's just a question. So I've been told for months and months and months at this point. No enemies to the right. A conservative movement must unite against those who would divide and destroy it. Coolsies. So would all those people who have been saying this, when will they start calling out Tucker Carlson and his friends? I mean, like the vice president should probably start calling out people like Tucker Carlson and his friends. I mean, I think that the vice president would like for the Republicans to do well in the midterms. And I think he would like to be president in 2028. So now I'd be a good time to start calling out people who are openly threatening to destroy the Republican party, attacking President Trump every single day, ripping the Republicans before the midterms, ripping into the administration daily and talking about founding a third party. That might make things complicated. I mean, I don't think that the VP's team can pretend ignorance about this. And the VP is very concerned about Rando tweets on X who criticize his negotiation of the MOU. And they say that this is somehow an attack on him. But when you have people who overtly say they are going to start a third party to run against you, that's not an attack. Weird, weird. It might be nice to spare just a thought, just one single solitary thought occasionally for the destructive people who actually would love for the Democrats to win in 2026. And maybe 2028, all of which brings us to a broader conversation that's been happening in the online space about so-called common good conservatism. Okay, so there is a battle happening right now on the right. And it's not about anti-Semitism or Israel. It isn't. Everybody wants to direct it in that direction for I think in the farrogous reasons, because they don't want to have the central debate. If there's an actual really interesting and vital debate for US conservatism, should American conservatism stand for individual rights and free markets and checks and balances and yes, social institutions that are powerful outside the government like churches and families or should American conservatism take a hard turn into a government that is extraordinarily powerful, designed to impose a vision of the good life from above. Without reference to individual rights or free markets or private property or any of that stuff, that is the real question when we are talking about traditional conservatism versus common good conservatism. Common good is in scare quotes there. Now, at first I want to dispel a semantically overloaded tactic that's being used here. When you talk about common good conservatism, let's first define what common good means. Here's what we're not talking about. We are not talking about utilitarianism. A utilitarianism is the most good for the highest number. That's what utilitarianism is. That is not what we're talking about here. First off, conservatives do not and should not believe as a rule in utilitarianism as a rule for what the government ought to do. Conservatives believe generally in either a sort of natural law or deontological framework. Natural law is the idea that there are discoverable rules for life that they are discernible from the workings of the world itself. So for example, a good example of a sort of natural law ideology would say that sex ought to be reserved for marriage and procreation because sex produces children. Right, that is nothing to do with the highest good for the greatest number. That's just a reality about the world. That's what natural law is. Deontology, which is a fancy word, just me means rule-based ethics. There are rules that we ought to follow. And there are a bunch of forms of deontology. You can have a Kantian-based deontology where he tries to establish without reference to God a set of rules. But religious people very often are deontological thinkers, meaning God said to do a thing, therefore it's right and good to do the thing. Conservative is generally, don't do utilitarian ethics predominantly. It's presumably utilitarian to murder all infants with Down syndrome, the elderly and the infirm. If you're a quote, unquote, "doing the best for the best number," you get rid of all the people who are inconvenient. No conservative or a decent person, by the way, would say that that is acceptable logic, of course. So, when we're talking about common good conservatism, what are we actually talking about? Well, typically people who are talking about common good in this way, they are saying common as opposed to individual. They want to have an argument about good, but that really is not the argument. The argument is common versus individual. If people call themselves more specifically post-liberals, they argue that the failure of our social institutions in the West like church and family, the reason that happened is because of individualism and individual rights. That individual rights, the focus on what we are allowed to do without the government forcing us to do it, that that turns us into atomized fragments or a destined conflict with one another. Their idea is that individual rights are inherently relativistic because we all have different priorities and rights can be abused. So therefore, what we need is a common good crammed down by the government. Individual rights you put to the side because individualism automatically fragments, atomizes, and people end up doing bad things to each other and you end up with anarchy, basically. So you need a common good that is enforced at the top by the government. Now, this is a radical simplification of the founding idea of individual rights. It suggests that what individual rights are really about is you being able to do a bunch of terrible things. This is how they talk about individual rights, right? Like the post liberals will say that they're against individual rights because you have a, do you really have a right, a moral right to access pornography? That's not the argument. Now again, this is a radical simplification of individual rights. It suggests individual rights are about you being able to do a bunch of terrible things. So when these people talk about individual rights, what they mean is they say you, you say you have an individual right to pornography? No, no, I didn't say you have a moral right to pornography. The question is what government should be allowed to do. So they think that terrible things can only be prevented by the government and terrible things that harm the common good must be prevented. Therefore, we should curb individual rights. And by we, we mean the government. And this is why the post liberals openly, by the way, again, this is not an empty accusation. They openly hate the American founding. The post liberals hate the Constitution. They want something fundamentally un-American, a tyranny from above that crams down their version of virtue on everybody else. Now again, maybe I agree with some of their versions of virtue, but what they really want is an overarching government that forces down their version of what they call the common good. One of the authors who's a big sort of founder of this kind of thing is going to patric to mean. He wrote a book called Why Liberalism Failed. And he says that the American founders aired and quote, not for seeing that their atomistic philosophy would act as a solvent on our civic institution. So for example, he opposes capitalism. He believes that individual rights are bad. And here he is. Again, this is not me mischaracterizing the position. They say it. I mean, they're not hiding the ball. Here's Patrick Teneen talking about the American founding. When I say liberal, I mean the political philosophy of liberalism that has a kind of inaugurated in the kind of social contract tradition of late 18th century Britain and gets imported to the United States. It's articulated by our founding fathers. And then it's further developed from its kind of classical liberal origins into its progressive liberal form. And what makes it in some ways continuous, even though today we think of classical liberalism, what we call conservative and progressive liberalism, progressivism as opposites. Its core similarity is the idea of being liberated from any kind of unchosen sense of self, any unchosen inheritance, any unchosen form of identity. It's a kind of idealized form of autonomy that's pictured or imagined in the fictional imaginary state of nature. And you could say that our entire political, social, economic, cultural order is organized around the creation of this radically autonomous, liberated self. Okay, so that's all I'll explain in a second. This is a radical oversimplification of the intellectual legacy of the founders. They radical oversimplification and a direct attempt to conflate things. So these people argue, post-liberals, they argue that what government really should be is a club to bash enemies and a cement to rebuild social institutions. So for example, there's an often interi-shilling. He argues in first things, which is a post-liberal publication that's heavily rooted in Catholic thought. That quote, "A new conservatism is being born, one less interested in managing our nations decline than in using political power to promote virtue, public morality, and the common good. There's needs to overcome their fear of governing the nation that elected them." Now he uses the language of elections there, but let's be clear. In this vision, the common good does not have to be linked with democracy, right? Democracy is about your individual right to vote, but they don't believe in individual rights per se. So if democracy cuts against the common good, then the common good should override the democracy. So in 2019, in first things, again, which is a journal largely about this sort of stuff, a series of authors, including Teneen, spelled out an attack they titled against the dead consensus. And here's what they wrote, in against the dead consensus quote. We oppose the sole society of individual affluence. Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the intellectual competitive. We want a country that works for the workers. The Republican Party has for too long held investors and job creators above workers and citizens, dismissing vast swathes of Americans as takers on worthy of its time. We believe in the potential of political movement that heads the cries of the working class, as much as the demands of capital Americans take more pride in their identity as workers, than their identity as consumers. Economic and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption. Okay, if that sounds like left wing talk, like it could come out of the mouth and people on the left, that's because it could. Trusting an elite case to determine which groups ought to benefit at the expense of other groups is directly against a rights based society. And again, they admit this stuff. It's not like I'm making this up. Okay, they cut directly against both individuals and the success of the nation. This is our natural outgrowth of human nature and natural rights. You own yourself. You own your labor. No one has the right to remove that labor from you for the good of the collective without just compensation. The success of free markets rests precisely on the fact that it does reflect basic truths about human nature that we have a desire to create and to acquire and to own and to control the environment around us. Okay, this is the common good governance here is a utopian scheme that would be very familiar to Plato in the Republic. The idea that you have to have a government that is tutillary in nature and sits as a heavy hand on everyone by suggesting that it is the job of the economic system to pursue, quote, unquote, the common good. These common good conservatives are committing a pretty serious category error. Basically, they are saying that the wage to promote the common good is through economic systems. And economic systems are about promoting the common good. That is economic systems. That's like, again, I've said this before. Economic systems are not designed to inculcate morality in you. That is not what an economy does. Economic systems create prosperity if they work. That is what economic systems are designed to do. Economics is the study of the distribution of goods and resources, particularly when it comes to scarcity, which is a common feature of human life. That's what economic systems are about. Trying to go to economic systems to explain why people are good or bad is like trying to use a hammer as a scissors. It is not the same thing. Spiritual and cultural systems that work create functional families, economic systems that work create prosperity. And the history proves this. For thousands of years, people living in the worst sort of economic privation married and had families and ones of church. By the way, still do. And then the free market started. And guess what? There was still family structure. It remained present for a couple of centuries. It was not capitalism that destroyed the family. It was the welfare state and the birth control bill. Pretty obviously because the decline of the family really does not happen until the 1960s. But back to individual rights for a second. So again, the argument of the post-liberals is that individual rights are bad because they allow you to do bad things. So if you don't like the bad things, you should oppose individual rights and you should root for the so-called common good to prevail. That is not what the founders were talking about. The founders were pragmatic. They believed in virtue. They talked about virtue all the time. They can read the founders. They use the word virtual a lot. But they also recognized a government powerful enough to cram down its version of virtue would be a government powerful enough to destroy virtue. When the founders talked about natural rights, they were talking about what could more logically be called immunities, assertions against government power. That is not that is the argument that government should not have the power to do a thing. It's a limitation on government power, not a moral assertion that your abusive limitation is somehow good. For example, I believe in free speech. What does that mean? That means I don't think the government should have the power to restrict your speech. That does not mean I think it's a good idea if you use the N word. Okay, now what post-liberals say is that you cannot defend individual rights without arguing that it is morally good for people to say the N word or to be sexually profligate or to never give charity again. That's not true. I think all those things are bad. I'm saying the government should not have the power to compel those things because as the founders recognize, men aren't angels. This is the entire case against an Aristotelian aristocracy or a monarchy. That's what the founders were arguing. That's what the Declaration and Constitution are, which is why the common good conservatives don't like them. So why does this matter? Because if the common good post liberals win, then we're just having a competition in this country over which side gets to invade your life. And I'll agree, I'm sure more with the common good conservatives about the principles they are trying to pursue. But if government gets bigger and stronger, no checks and balances, we will sometimes lose. And the entire premise of the Constitution is that even when you lose, you have rights that can't be destroyed by the power of government. Well, if that premise disappears, what you get on the one side is a call from mobocracy on the left. That's why they want to get rid of the Senate and the judiciary and calls for fascistic tyranny on the right. Like true calls, but there are people out there like, say, Jack Pesobia, who literally calls for Francisco Franco in the United States. I don't know. I'm an American. I don't like Francisco Franco. I don't think we need Francisco Franco in the United States. And I don't care about the ironic, wink, nudge, nudge, bullshit. Like I don't care. I don't want tyranny in the United States. I don't know, call it like just a, call it a knee jerk opposition to tyranny. If you find yourself spending time talking about the magic of Hitler or Stalin or Franco, you're not talking about America. You're talking about someplace else. That's a battle that's been happening in Europe for a very long time between a left that wishes to dominate you and a right that wishes to dominate you. It has a long and vicious and hideous history in Europe. The founders would have hated this, hated it. That's the thing traditional conservatives are actually trying to conserve. You know, those old fashion, but somehow weirdly new ideas like individual rights and free markets and checks and balances. And yes, social virtue that can flourish in a system where people do their religious duty. If the traditional conservatives lose, America loses, no matter who wins next. All righty. So meanwhile, in later news, the WNBA, like they can't get over themselves. It is incredible. Somehow Sophie Cunningham has become the face of all controversy in the WNBA because Sophie Cunningham said the absolutely and arguable truth that women are not men. And the WNBA is very upset about those. So members of the WNBA hierarchy and a player named Leah Boston, they were asked by an out kick reporter, Clay Travis's outfit, about Sophie Cunningham. And they literally got up and ran away. I would say like little girls, but these are big girls. I mean, these are ladies. So I'm here we go. I think there's always going to be outside noise. But I think we've been professionals long enough to know that if you let that affect you, then you're not really here for the right things. And so for us, we just keep the main thing the main thing. That's whoops. You're speaking of that outside noise. So if you're teammate, Sophie came out with. Oh, thank you. By oh, who run away run away. Can't talk about it. Can't talk about whether the boy should play with the ladies. Again, this is just ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. The entire premise of the WNBA is it exists as a separate lead because of men were allowed to play. They would dominate the ladies. This is not controversial in any way. And this is not me being anti female in any way. There are many things which women are better than men. Many, many, many things basketball is not one of those things. This is perfectly obvious on its face. Men are built stronger. They are built bigger and they are built faster on average. And at the extremes, that's just the way it is. Any D3 bench player would destroy the ladies. That is not a rip on the ladies. They're very, very good basketball players. Four ladies. Why this is even remotely controversial is beyond me. Why in the world? The WNBA, listen, the WNBA again, because this is it does raise a similar question as to why the left sided with radical Islam. Why did the LGB decide to decide with the T? The T totally eviscerates the LGB, right? LGB, lesbian gay bisexual, is premised on the idea that there is a difference between the sexes. Transgenderism is predicated on the idea that there is no difference between the sexes. If you are a man and you say I prefer men and the word man has no meaning, then presumably you should marry a lady because a lady could be a man and then you could have natural born children. The entire LGB requires there to be a divide with the T. So why did they make common cause with the T? Because the idea was all of us hate the values-based system that promotes heterosexuality and therefore we need to join to oppose it. And so now you end up with this very awkward situation in which the WNBA has to argue that somehow dudes should be in it. So the Minnesota Lynx coach, a person named Cheryl Reeve, were a trans kids' belong t-shirt. I love how their back up move. It's just somehow blame the kids. As though there are tons and tons of trans kids. There's no such thing as a trans kid. It's not a real thing. You make a case that there are kids who have gender dysphoria, but the idea of like a vast swath of five-year-old who are actually just trans, their boys and girls bodies, is biologically inept. And as you can see, it is a massive social contagion because it is relegated predominantly to blue areas and liberal parents. But here is the Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve, Neurosophie Cunningham, and wearing that shirt. The trans kids belong t-shirt. When we see Cheryl Reeve wearing a shirt today in support of trans kids, trans kids belong on the shirt. He's in the aftermath of Sophie Cunningham. Okay, so the Indiana fever coach was asked about Sophie Cunningham's speeches about all this. And the Indiana fever coach somehow, unlike my three-year-old son, has no idea from a scientific standpoint whether boys are girls or girls are boys. Again, the full frontal lobotomy that our society decided to perform on itself is truly crazy. It's truly wild. So here's the Indiana fever coach who again only has a job in a league called the WNBA because there's a category called women. Says she is not educated enough from a scientific standpoint on whether men should be able to play in women's sports. Again, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, if I were slightly better at basketball, slightly, because you don't have to be very good as a man to play in these leagues. If I were slightly better, I would try out for the Seattle Storm today. Because again, like apparently anyone can be a chick at any time. This is the stupidest crap you've ever heard. It is so insanely dumb. What is your stance on men or athletes who test as biological male participating women's sports? What's your personal stance? Yeah, I mean, I'm I don't know that I would say that I'm educated enough from a scientific standpoint. I don't ever believe that exclusion is an answer. I just don't. I do think, you know, when we think about various levels of sport, various governing bodies of sport and things that go into that, like I said, I'm not educated enough at the different levels. I know growing up, I play with the boys all the time. So you and your girls sports? Would you welcome a biological male and WNBA? Again, it's like I don't know when we talk about biological male and scientifically where we are, I think it's a totally different scenario. As I said, I'm not educated enough in terms of of transgender and transitioning to give you a smart answer. Oh my goodness. By the way, the WNBA doesn't have, there are no rules on this. The WNBA level. None. Zero. So calling all frustrated 45 year old tubby men who once played some varsity high school basketball. Now's your moment. It's your moment to shine. Well, this is all coming for Sophie Cunningham because, again, as we've seen, Caitlin Clark is basically having the crap kicked out of her every game now because she is beloved and white. And so that is apparently a thing that cannot be allowed to happen. Sophie Cunningham is not only well liked and white and pretty. She also happens to have said a thing that you're not allowed to say, which means that now if Sophie Cunningham gets elbowed directly in the face, that's called a foul by Sophie Cunningham, which like, okay, here is a, I have to say this is not a recommendation of WNBA's referee and quality here. So defensive foul, no one's allowed to curve. There was no secondary act after the defensive foul. Play resumes within a sort of all the side line. Oh, you didn't realize they called it on Sophie Cunningham. Oh, okay. So I think it should be an offensive foul. I don't think it should be a defensive foul. Wow, I can't believe the her face attacked that lady's elbow like that. That's terrible. Look at that horrible defensive foul in which she used her head to smack that other lady's elbow. What did the actual help? That's some quality referee right there. Strong, strong stuff. Right there. But believe it or not, none of that was actually the worst thing that happened at a women's professional sporting event in the last 24 hours. I feel a little bad about playing this. I'll be honest. I mean, it is hilarious, but I feel bad. And I don't feel bad enough that I didn't play it four times for my kids yesterday. But Martha Reeves, who is the lead singer of the Motown Group, Martha and Vendela's. And you know her, you know her song like Dancing in the Street is one of her songs, right? Heat Wave, another one of her songs. So back in 1965 when she could quasi sing because she was 22 or 23 or something. Well, she's still performing. And this is one of those like shack with the Celtics. Like should have hung this up a while ago. This is this is not good. You have overstayed your vocal welcome. I feel bad for her a little bit here by playing this. But I also don't want to deprive you of the enjoyment of the crowd reactions to this singing of the national anthem at the first women's professional baseball game. It was it was a, I mean, this is like for you with the national anthem, but significantly worse. Prepare yourself. Prepare your ears and turn down your volume just a little bit. [Music] Look at the reveries. The author of the best friend of Scraces. [Music] She's not even. I love that she's in a completely different key from the other singers, from the back singers. Look at the people in the crowd who are like trying to figure out what the hell's happening. Trying not to laugh. [Music] And the rock is right there. The bounce bounce. Oh, good Lord. [Music] [Music] That our flag was still there. Still there. Oh, she's going to go for it. Look at this lady. She's just trying to hold it. Don't break, don't break. [Music] The big finish is not part of this. [Music] There's a menu of ringtone. [Music] And the home of the brave. At least she was into it. You know confidence. The crowd loved it. There was like, I don't even know. [Laughter] [Music] I got to enjoy life because otherwise, what are you there for? The reason I feel bad is because she's 85. It's not really her fault. Nobody decided to listen to a tape before booking her. That might have been a mistake. Already coming up, we'll get to some actual serious news. The latest in the Middle East. But if you want that analysis, you need to actually become a member over at Daily Wire. Just code Shapiro and check out for two months for annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. [Music]