B (7:37)

I hate the city. I hate the Bachelorettes. I hate the pedal taverns. I hate country music. I hate all of the things that make Nashville apparently, and its city to the rest of the country, but I hate it.

A (7:49)

I know you said those comments were taken out of context, but I want you to. I want to ask you about it because I'm wondering, do you think it was a mistake to say that.

C (7:58)

Once.

B (7:59)

Again I was a private citizen, Nashville is my home? Do I roll my eyes at the bachelorette parties and the pedal taverns that are blocking my access to my house? Yeah, every Nashville does. But this Race has always been something about something bigger. It's about families across middle Tennessee that are getting crushed by rising prices while Washington politicians and billionaires argue about this type of nonsense.

A (8:24)

So, and this is what the left does, of course, they never apologize for anything, ever. They double down on everything, always, never admit they're wrong about anything. And it works. Politically, it works. Clearly, she can't even muster a single word of praise for Nashville, not a single positive thing, even when it's teed up for her. The best she could do is utter a non sequitur about how she made the previous remarks bashing Nashville as a private citizen, as if that's relevant in any way. But if anything, that makes it worse because it means that it's what she actually believes. It's something she said before she had an obvious incentive to lie. As a politician, she's just being honest about what she believes. Now, of course, this woman knows what just happened in Virginia, where a Democrat sociopath, someone who says he wants conservatives and their children to die, just won the race for attorney general. She understands that Democrat voters are motivated above all else by hatred. And she's made the calculation at this point that the only viable path forward is to appeal to Democrats profound disdain for the world they live in, or in this case, the city they live in now. To be clear, if she had just said that she hates the bachelorette parties in Nashville or whatever, then that wouldn't be an issue. I would agree with that. If she had just said that she hates the pedal taverns and wants to abolish them and imprison everybody involved, I would wholeheartedly agree. But she explicitly stated that she hates the entire city as a whole, and now she's banking on the possibility that most people living in Nashville also hate the entire hate themselves, essentially. And frankly, she might be right. In recent days, across various interviews with friendly outlets, Bain has used the same script when she's been asked about her many, many other deranged comments. Here's another example.

B (10:20)

Crime is of course also was a major issue in the presidential election. And I know there are some old posts. You've been asked about those old posts a number of times. My question for you today is whether more money from for cops on the streets in the district you hope to represent would help fight crime. Would you like more money for more cops on the streets in your district? So those past comments were at a time when I was a private citizen as an activist and organizer, and now as a Tennessee Lawmaker, I represent 40,000 individual opinions and political thoughts.

A (10:55)

What do you think now?

B (10:55)

Would more money for cops be good or bad? I think it depends on what the community wants. And so there. I've worked with communities, at least my constituents want to ensure that there is investment in their community for community safety, community protection, mental health services. And that's what I'm hearing from at least my constituents. All right, fair enough.

A (11:22)

No, not fair enough. That was not an answer at all. And notice that in this case, CNN attempts to do her a favor. They don't show any of the old posts that they're asking about. They think they're teeing up a softball question where she can safely say without any pushback that, yeah, she wants police departments to exist. This is one of those issues that, especially now that the George Floyd hysteria has subsided, it's something that you'd hope 100% of Americans would agree on. It's very easy. But still, even with this very generous setup, she doesn't give the answer that a well adjusted, sane person would give. Instead, she once again states that she was a private citizen when she made those old posts, which remain unmentioned, by the way. And then when she's pressed on her non answer, she strongly suggests that indeed she still wants to defund the police in the year 2025. She states that she's going to defer to her community rather than take any position of her own. And then she proceeds to say that her community wants mental health services. So she never says that her community wants to have a police department. And what she's implying is that if the community got together and had like a majority vote and said, yeah, we'd rather not have police. We want to be able to just do whatever we want. We prefer if the law was not enforced. She's. She's implying that she would just go. If she somehow had the power to do it, she would just go along with that. Again, it's the kind of answer that will only appeal to you as a voter if you are a deeply disturbed and disturbed individual. And the more that this woman rises in the polls, the more we have to ask ourselves if that's a fair way to describe the entire Democrat party, as in every single voter they have, not just the politicians over at msnbc, AKA msnow, the damage control went even worse for Afton Bain. That's because in this interview, the anchor actually put some of her tweets up on the screen to great comedic effect. Watch.

B (13:22)

Representative, in 2020, you made some tweets that have since been deleted that were very Critical of police. You said in those since deleted tweets that the metropolitan Nashville Police Department should be dissolved. Another cheered on a teachers union saying that defund the police should be a requirement for schools reopening. And another saying good morning especially to the 54% of Americans and that believe burning down a police station is justified. 2020, it was obviously a very fraught year. Do you still stand by those comments? And if not, is there anything you want to clarify? I'm not going to in cable news talking points, but what I will say is that, you know, our communities need solutions. We need local people deciding solving local problems with local solutions. And that's not the overreach of a federal government or state government of is of what we are dealing with and in Nashville and our cities across the state of Tennessee. So you don't want to clarify whether you still believe that the police should be defunded? Once again, I don't remember these tweets, but what I'm saying is, is that I'm not asking you if you remember, what is your position today? How's that on this issue? I mean, once again, I'm here to talk about my race, which is in literally nine days.

A (14:50)

So she's not going to get into those cable news talking points, like addressing the question of whether she supports burning down police stations, which she already said she does support. Does she still support it? That's just a talking point, as in it's something that she explicitly stated that she supports a few years ago, and to this day, she won't renounce it. Now, to be clear, Afton Bain is indeed a real person. This is a real candidate that the Democrat Party is running for a House seat, and they're not disavowing her or even criticizing her in any way. Why would they? Bain represents the mainstream Democrat party. That's the important point here. If someone says that they're a Democrat, this is what they're supporting and they're not doing. Because the Democrats, they don't do the disavowal game. Have you noticed that? They don't do it at all. There's no push by anyone else, never mind her disavowing her own comments, which she won't do. No one else in the Democrat party is being pushed to disavow her, even though the things that she said on the record are far worse than anything that any conservative is saying. Openly calling for people to burn down police stations is far worse than pretty much anything I've ever heard someone on the right say, especially when you consider that this is something that mobs of leftists have shown a willingness to do, actually go, they've actually done it. It's a real thing. These are not just words on Twitter. It's hard to think of anything more dangerous than having a congressional representative who openly wants police stations to be burned down. And just to emphasize the point, the Democrat Party has come out and announced that they not only don't condemn her, but they strongly support everything this woman is saying. This is a post from Ken Martin, the chair of the Democrat Party. Just a couple of days ago, he said, quote, democrats are building momentum. We're all gas, no brakes. Let's do everything we can to chip away at the GOP's House majority this Tuesday. Get out and vote for Afton Bain, if you live in Tennessee. Seven. So there it is. The highest levels of Democrat Party have endorsed one of the most demented candidates to run for office in the modern history of this country. They've also endorsed all of this. Watch.

B (17:10)

Well, I'm currently involved in a transfer transformative justice seminar. And so it's how to imagine a world without police and what that looks like and what community mechanisms look like, how people can not police themselves. But what. But for example, if you experience sexual assault, like, what is the reconciliation process? And what does transformative justice look like? Because, as we know, like, you can't take those things to court. Like, you know, our legal system is terrible when it comes to retribution. So my therapist always asks me to transcribe my dreams when they happen. And the recurring dream I've had is standing up in a cafeteria full of women. I don't know why I was there or whatever, and saying, I don't want children, I want power. And just screaming it at the top of my lungs. And for someone who grew up with my mother telling me, never have kids because you will, you know, you'll have to give up a lot. You'll have to sacrifice professionally. Which is what she was saying.

A (18:13)

And.

B (18:16)

Where I am now with seeing the consequences and the ramifications of women having kids and being in the political field and what they're able to achieve because we don't offer. You know, it's like the political field hasn't met the challenge of working moms. They really haven't. But also the deeply patriarchal structures that these women are part are involved with because they've chosen marriage and they've chosen to raise children.

A (18:47)

My therapist asked me to transcribe my dreams, and the recurring dream I had is standing up at a cafeteria full of women and saying, I don't want children, I want power. Now, just by itself, 15 years ago, that statement would have been disqualifying, regardless of your politics. For one thing, she's going around admitting that she's in therapy, which obviously isn't something you should brag about. I mean, there's no reason to be proud of the fact that you're paying someone with a master's degree who has a vested interest in making sure you're never cured of whatever disorder he's diagnosed you with. That's a point of shame, not pride. In fact, in the same country, going to therapy would be disqualifying by itself for any political candidate. If you need therapy, you are not mentally fit to hold political office or any other position of importance. But that clip gets even worse when she goes on to explain that marriage punishes women and forces them into patriarchal structures, whatever the hell that means. Maybe she's talking about no fault divorce laws where women can cheat on their husbands and then take half their assets. Who knows? Didn't really elaborate as far as I can tell. What I do know is that there are many, many more clips that illustrate how unhinged this woman is. She also admitted that she follows around ICE vehicles and harasses ICE officers and state troopers, for example, says she's uncomfortable with Christian influence in the government, and so on and so on and so on. We'll end with this clip, which we played before, because it really underscores the extent of the threat that this woman and the Democrat party in general posed to our country. This was how Afton Bain responded to the massacre of Christian men, women and children at the Covenant School in Nashville in the aftermath of the shooting. She didn't say she was worried about the safety of Christians who had just been massacred because of their faith by a trans identified terrorist. Instead, she. She said that the so called trans community was under attack even though they just attacked, but they're under attack. And that as a politician, one of her primary goals would be to go after me and the daily Wire Watch.

B (20:51)

So for those of you who don't know, my partner has a trans son. And the month of April and the final week of March was incredibly upsetting for us. In the wake of the Covenant shooting and the disclosure that the Covenant shooter was trans, I was pulled into a chat with other trans organizers and activists across the state that were fearful of their lives. And third, every legislative session, I promise to carry a trans Bill of Rights so that we could push Back against the far right narrative that is being emanated by Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire, who have set up their home in Nashville. And I promise to do that. I promise to fight for our trans community.

A (21:34)

Well, they did a really poor job of that, by the way, pushing back against the quote unquote narrative, the narrative that. What is our narrative? Our narrative is just reality. It's what is real. You know, men can't have babies. It's reality. But they've done a really bad job of pushing back against it. Afton, you've done a pretty bad job. Cause you've completely lost. We won entirely on that issue. You lost. But the fact that a woman this deranged and evil even has the slightest possible chance to win the special election today in a district that Trump carried again by more than 20 points in a deep red state in a race against a candidate who has been endorsed and heavily promoted by Donald Trump, that is a very, very bad sign. I mean, it just is a very bad sign for the future of the Republican Party. Even if she loses today, which we certainly pray that she does, the fact that there was any chance at all that she could win is a bad sign. Over the past few months, we've talked about some major built in advantages that Republicans are probably going to have in future elections. If the Voting Rights act is gutted by the Supreme Court, which is the expected outcome and the justified outcome, Democrats will lose several seats in the House. And as more illegal aliens are deported and as more people leave failing states like California and New York for states like Florida and Texas, Democrats will lose even more representation in Congress. That's what's going to happen. But these benefits, well, they only exist at the margins. They don't protect the Republican Party against a complete and total collapse of popular support. And that appears to be where the party is headed, given the Democrats are running complete sociopaths, I mean, lunatic psychopaths, and winning or coming very close to winning. If today's election in Tennessee is indeed even somewhat close, if this woman is not completely blown out, then we may be headed for the worst case scenario one year from now in the midterms, which is Democrats sweeping both houses of Congress. And you know, that's. If this trend continues, that's where it goes. And we shouldn't be surprised by that outcome if it should come to pass. Because Republicans in Congress have been so ineffective that they failed to give voters a reason to support them. Now, yeah, the Democrats are a lot worse. Democrats are insane. That's a reason to not support. That's a reason to not support the Democrats. It's not a reason to support you, though. You got to give people an active, positive reason. Here's what I am doing. You should support that. This is the point where, as we talked about yesterday, the Trump administration has to step in and take decisive action. Any kind of decisive act. Decisive action that actually improves the lives of American citizens in some tangible way. Denaturalize as many foreign fraudsters as you can. Bomb as many drug dealers as possible. Suspend all foreign migration. Do something or else you'll be replaced very quickly by lunatics and craven degenerates like Afton Bain. Today's election is a massive warning sign. The polling alone makes that very clear. We can either heed that warning now while we still have time, or we will lose so badly in 2026 that as a country and as a movement, it's going to take a long time to recover. Now let's get to our five headlines. This episode's sponsored by Vandy Crisps. Did you know that chips and fries were traditionally cooked in tallow until the 1990s when major food corporations made the switch to cheaper processed seed oils? These seed oils now account for about 20% of the average American's daily caloric intake, and emerging research suggests that maybe contributing to metabolic dysfunction and increased inflammation throughout the body. That's where Vanity Crisps comes in. They actually decided to do something about this mess by creating potato chips the way that they should be made with just three simple ingredients and zero seed oils. We're talking heirloom potatoes, sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. That's it. Here's the thing about that beef towel. It's not just there for the incredible flavor, it's loaded with nutrients that are actually good for your skin, braid and hormones. Plus, when you eat Vandy, you'll feel satisfied and energetic without the gross sluggish feeling dragging you down afterward like regular chips do. 100% American made with zero compromises and honestly the best chips I've ever had. Vani Crisps have a lot of great flavors worth trying, but their original flavor is personally my favorite. They're all really good. Ready to give Vandy a try? Go to vandycrisps.com walsh and use code walsh for 25% off your first order. That's vandycrisps.com Walsh Code walsh for 25% off your 1st order. Don't feel like ordering online? That's fine. Vandy is now available nationwide at your local Sprout supermarket, stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone. We're in the middle of the holiday season, and for many families, that means excitement and a little stress. Between gifts, travel and higher prices, it's easy to feel overwhelmed, especially if you're already relying on credit cards to cover the basics. If you feel the debt is piling up, you're not alone, but there's help with American Financing. If you're a homeowner, you might have considered reaching out to American Financing but hesitated because you don't want to give up your low mortgage rate. That's why American Financing created the Smart Equity Loan, a simple and smart way to get your finances back on track without giving up your low mortgage rate. Smart Equity Loan offers a fixed rate so you'll have one predictable monthly payment. Let's use your home's equity to pay off high interest debt free, free up your cash flow and still keep your existing mortgage intact. There are no upfront fees to find out if you qualify, so call American Financing today, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569- 4711 or visit american financing.net walsh now, we talked yesterday about the strikes on drug boats. The media is desperately trying to find some reason to object to the strikes. So they've landed on the idea that there was a second strike on one of the boats. The missile hit the boat and then there was a second missile that killed the rest of them, who were, I guess, floating on driftwood or something like that. And the second missile is supposedly some kind of major scandal is the idea. Caroline Levitt addressed this scandal yesterday. Let's listen to that. Excuse me. Regarding Venezuela, the president said yesterday that Secretary Hagst had denied that that second strike, that reported second strike on an alleged drudge vote on September 2. The Secretary said to the president that that didn't happen. But to clarify, I just wanted to clear this up. In his social media posts, Secretary Hegseth didn't go into details about that strike. He just said US Operations in the area were lawful and he said that the story and media reports were fabricated. So to be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?

B (28:41)

The latter is true. Abe and I have a statement to read for you here. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war with respect to the strikes in question. On September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. And I would just add one more point to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place. Because this administration has designated these narco terrorists as foreign terrorists organizations. The president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate, which is what they are doing. And under the previous administration, there was enough fentanyl trafficked into our country to kill every American man, woman, and child many times over.

A (29:48)

Notice the big sigh she gives before she answers the question? I don't think you're supposed to sigh like that. But I don't blame her. She's a big, you know, she's actually very good at what she does. But sometimes something slips. Way better than. Think about the contrast between her and Karen Jean Pear. It's, you know, quite a contrast. But I don't know why anyone would want to do this job. I don't know. I don't know how they find anyone to do. The White House Press Secretary, to me, seems like the worst job on the planet. Now, I would enjoy it under the accepting the fact if I was able to do it, and I just knew I'd be fired in a day. Let me just go out there, give me a day, and then that'll be it. That would be fun. But to have to actually do the job and take it seriously for an extended period of time just seems awful. Anyway, so she says that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth did not order the second strike on the boat. Now, I've already said that I personally don't really care if they hit the boat a second time. I don't know. I'll admit that I think I'm probably not alone. Does anyone care? Well, they hit it a second time. They hit. So I'm not even making a legal argument here. I'm just saying I don't personally care, and I don't think anyone cares. The idea that one missile is okay, but a second is a human rights violation strikes me as entirely arbitrary. We want to kill the narco terrorists, right? That's the objective. That's why you hit the boat with a missile. The idea was to kill them. The idea was not simply to stop the boat. That's all it was. I mean, if you want to stop a boat and you didn't want to kill anybody, then there's. There are other ways of doing it, right? But they wanted to kill the narco terrorists for good reason. And so they hit him. You know, they hit him with a missile, and they saw that not all of them were killed, so they said, well, you better hit them again. It's like, okay, so. But. So that's. That's way out of bounds. But if they had just, like, left them to drown or get eaten by sharks, then that's better. I mean, I don't quite get it. And I think you can make a legal argument, too, because you could say, well, these guys, you know, they would have got picked up by the next narco terrorist boat and then been right back on the battlefield, so to speak. So they're still enemy combatants in that sense. I don't know. I think you can make it legal, hard. But all I'm saying is, you know, that you want to stop the boat, but you also want to kill the narco terrorists themselves. If you're going to actually go to war against the drug traffickers, then this is what it means. It means going out and killing these guys. And if we're at war with drug traffickers, I think it'd be perfectly valid to snipe them while they're eating breakfast again. Does anyone really. These people, these are the worst monsters, some of the worst monsters on the planet that are responsible for killing thousands of people. Americans. Criminal enterprises that are shipping poison into America, killing Americans. Is there anyone who's like, well, no, that's too far. Those poor, innocent drug dealers. Does anyone feel that way? No. Go out and kill them. That's what. If you're going to go to war against them, that's what it means. Hit their cartel compounds. As long as you aren't targeting women and children, of course, and as long as you're killing narco terrorists and not innocent civilians, then to me, it's fair game. There are no innocent civilians on the drug boat in the middle of the night. Right? There's no innocent civilians there. So I don't. I don't really see what the problem is. But that's not a legal argument. As I said, that's the law. Does not hinge on what Matt Walsh personally finds acceptable, although it should. Let's be real. That's how the law should works. Should work. I mean, wouldn't that be a lot easier? Wouldn't it be so much easier if we could all agree that the law should just Be whatever I want. Wouldn't that be so much easier for everybody? At what point are we just gonna admit that? At what point will everyone in America admit that, you know what? The law should just be whatever I want? But all that aside, what's really happening here is that. And the reason why we're hung up on this. Was there a second missile? Oh, no. Second missile. Oh, what this? Oh, my gosh. The only reason we're hung up on this is that the media is, of course, trying to find some way, some reason to object to the killing of drug traffickers. They're looking for a pretense, and that's not easy. Right? In fairness to them, in fairness to Democrats, they're constantly trying to find ways to defend indefensible positions. And so they're doing the best they can. I mean, this is the. You're trying to find a way to object to killing narco terrorist drug traffickers who are poisoning them. They're just shipping poison into America by the ton and have been doing it for decades. You're trying to find some way to object to that. A thing that any normal person would look at that and say, yeah, oh, yeah, of course. Why have we not already killed them? That's my only question. So you're trying to find some way to object to it and not easy to do. And this is. So this is what they come up with, is this sort of thing they have to get hung up on, like, procedural things and technicalities and this and that. And because going out there and saying, won't you think of the drug traffickers? Won't someone think of the drug traffickers? That is not a very compelling argument. It's just not. So they're doing the best they can. Speaking of not compelling, Wajahat Ali is one of the more vile humans in the media, which obviously saying quite a lot. He went on a rant the other day that was gross and slimy even by his standards. Okay. Even by the standards of a guy with the moral sense and IQ and personal hygiene of a slug. This was. This was something else. Even by those standards. Watch.

C (36:43)

You have lost. You lost. The mistake that you made is you let us in in the first place. See, that's the thing with brown people. And I'm gonna say this as a brown person. There's a lot of us, like, a lot. There's like 1.2 billion in India. There's more than 200 million in Pakistan. There's like 170 million in Bangladesh. Those are just the people there. I'M even talking about the folks who are expats or immigrants. There's a bunch of us and we breed. We're a breeding people. And the problem is, is you let us in in 1965. There was a few, there were a few of us beforehand. But once you let one of us in, you know what happens with brown folks? Our grandmother comes, our grandfather comes, our uncle comes, our aunt comes, our cousin comes, our second cousin comes, our third cousin comes. Then we have kids, a bunch of kids. And then guess what, some white women, you know, the western civilization women, the pure women, the American women, quote, unquote, the Rust Belt women, the real women, they like some of us brown folks, we don't take them. They come to us. So we're embedded. We are everywhere. We are everywhere. I've traveled this country. I'm gonna speak as a brown person. Brown people are everywhere. There will be a Patel motel or there will be a Desi restaurant everywhere. I want you to realize this. You have lost. Your story is a story filled with misery. It's filled with bland chicken. It's filled with terrible, terrible dry ass meat. Your music sucks. All your culture sucks. Nobody. That's why the kids listen to black people in their music. That's why the kids love Latinos. Your parties suck because they're monochromatic. Our parties have better food, better music, better looking women.

A (38:08)

Now. So this is obviously cheap rage bait. And anyone can see that. I can see that. Anyone can see it. And that's basically all political commentary these days. I mean, this guy is, I guess this was his podcast that he was doing this on. Nobody watches his podcast. Nobody cares about it. No one is. You walk up to a thousand people randomly and say, what's your favorite podcast? None of them are going to say Wajahat Ali. My favorite podcast is Wajahat Ali. No one's going to say that. If they did say that, you wouldn't have any. No one else would have any idea what they're talking about. You would think they would have. They're having a stroke or something. Wajahad Ali. What is that? And so that's almost all political podcasts, you know, almost all the time is just rage bait, which, which is why the whole space is dying, to be honest, collapsing in on itself because everyone is just clip farming and rage baiting all the time. And I know people will say, well, that's what you do. But I mean, I'm just being myself. I, you know, and, and actually I start every show with like a 25 minute written monologue which is the opposite of clip farming. For better or worse, it's the opposite. And no one in this space does that. Everyone else is just turning on the camera and speaking extemporaneously. And I'm the only idiot putting hours of writing into every show. My final show of last week was a 30 minute rebuttal to a Ken Burns documentary. And so for better or worse, that's what we're doing over here. Anyway, the point is, this clip from Wadjihat is clearly meant to provoke a reaction. And when you're a boring guy with a name that sounds like a Star wars character, that's all you can do. When you're a bland nobody that no one cares about with a name that sounds like the bad guy from Dune or something, then that's all that you have. And yet in this case, I'm regrettably going to give him what he wants. Because I do think that a lot of truth is. Well, a lot of truth is said in jest and a lot of truth is said in rage baiting. So that might have been his intention, but he was like he was saying it to get a reaction. He was saying that he was saying it to get attention. But he also thinks that. So Wajahat admits to several things here, things that up until 12 seconds ago we were called racist for saying. First of all, he admits that brown people basically weren't in this country at all until the late 20th century. That was quite an admission. That's not something they will ever admit until just now. But he's right, because up until now these same people have insisted that immigrants from the Muslim world and immigrants from the third world helped to build this country. And now he admits that that was always a lie. I mean, I just wasn't. I just in an argument with one of these people, who was it? Mehdi Hassan. And his argument was that, well, Muslim immigrants helped to build the country. And now here we have Wajah saying, oh no, actually we just got here. We weren't here at all until a couple of decades ago. Until a few decades ago. No, they didn't come here. They didn't build the country. They came here after everything was built. They came here because everything was built. They came here because they wanted to take advantage of a well built country because they weren't able to build up their own countries. And he finally admits it. There were not any Wajahats fighting in the American Revolution. There weren't any Wajahats on the American frontier. Okay, There weren't any Wajahats. In the Civil War, there weren't any Wajahats traveling across the, you know, American wilderness out West. There weren't any Wajahats here doing anything or contributing in any way to anything until like 10 and a half seconds ago. They did not help to build the country. They came here because our country had been built. And he admits it. Those are his words. He said it, he admitted it. And most of all, he's admitting that the Great Replacement is real. So we see the familiar trajectory here. For years they told us that the Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory. For years they told us that we are racist for suggesting that there was any kind of plot to replace the native inhabitants of the United States who are white people. White people are the natives of the United States of America. And they said that there was no plot, like, to suggest that there was any plot to replace them with non white foreigners was racist. And now here he is admitting it. Everything he described is exactly what the Great Replacement is. And so we've officially entered the actually it is happening and it's good stage. We know this is how it always goes, verse, we on the right, we say that something is happening, and they say that's not happening. That's crazy. You're racist for saying it. That's conspiracy theory. And. And then eventually they get to, okay, actually it is happening and it's good. So before you were, you were racist for thinking that it's happening. Now you're racist for thinking that it's bad that it's happening, which is a very different argument. And he's right. It works exactly as he described. This is why mass migration is a mistake. It's why third world migration is a mistake. It's why H1B program is a mistake. It's why it should be abolished. It's all right there. As he said, we bring in third worlders and they bring in their extended family, they breed, they're breeders. That's his word, said we are breeding people. And they. Which in and of itself, by the way, is not like we should be breeders. We should all have kids. I have six kids, so I'll wear that, that badge proudly. But what he's saying is, okay, you bring us in and like, supposedly we're here on whatever. We're here to work a job or whatever, and next thing you know, right, there's 20 more because we're bringing in. It's not just breeding, it's like bringing in, oh, now we're going to bring the aunt and now the uncle and now the cousin and the second cousin, third cousin, and on and on and they try to turn our country into the countries that they fled. This is again, I'm just, I'm just summarizing what he said and he happens to be right. But he's only wrong about one thing really, which is the most obvious thing. He says that white culture, that this is what he's referring to. He's talking to and about white people specifically, and he's saying that, well, we're inferior in every way and everything's better for them. He says white people suck and are lame and bad and his culture is so much better. Well, not only is he wrong about that, but he doesn't believe it because that's why he's here. So that's always where it breaks down. They say our culture is so much better, it's so much more. It's so much, it's superior and everything. Why are you here then? Why did you come here? Like why did you come to the country that was built, by and large, the vast majority, by white people who you hate and you think are lame and terrible and have nothing to bring to the table? Why are you here? And that's always where it breaks down. So. But everything else, everything else he said is true. And even if he's just looking desperately for attention, which is all this is really about for him, I think in this one particular case, we should pay attention. Our Cyber Monday continues with our best deal we offer all year. 50% off all Daily Wire plus annual memberships. That gives you everything, every show, every film, every investigation and the first chance to watch the epic seven part cinematic series, the Pendragon cycle. Rise of the Merlin. All Access members watch episodes one and two on Christmas Day. Everyone else, January 22nd. You'll not see this price again for a full year. Join now@dailywire.com subscribe all right, finally, Business Insider has this article. Headline is Gen Z is obsessed with renting. From dresses to strollers to wine glasses, renting lives in Gen Z ers heads rent free. So the article, unfortunate pun there in the headline. But so the not really unfortunate. I think you should put a pun in any headline where you can fit it in. I'm a big believer in puns. So the article describes this phenomenon that I hadn't heard of it. Well, I hadn't heard of it to this extent and maybe they're exaggerating in the article. Who knows? But I didn't know this is a thing people, lots of people apparently, especially young people, they're talking about are renting not just apartments to live in, we knew that, but also everything in the apartment, especially clothing. So there are these clothing rental subscription services. Everybody, you know, everyone has a million subscription services now. And here's another one that's a subscription service. And you rent clothes from other people, secondhand clothing rentals. So you can wear a pair of pants that 27 other people have already worn. That's the pitch. You can wear a pair of pants that contain, frankly, the fumes of 27 other people embedded into the fabric. Not to get too scientific, but that's what's being offered. People are also renting, apparently, accessories, home decor, jewelry, glassware, I don't know, utensils, furniture, I assume everything. Now, the analysis you'll hear from most people about this, and I think this is kind of the argument the article makes, is that, well, the economy is in such rough shape, the economy's in the toilet. And so that's why, you know, you've got. That's why renting has become so popular. This is why Gen Z are. They're a generation of renters. They rent everything because they can't afford to buy anything because everything's so expensive and the economy is in the toilet. But that's not really what's going on here. That's not actually what's going on. Now, it is true. The economy's in rough shape, everything's too expensive. All that stuff is true, but that's not why you've got all the renting going. That's not why. That doesn't explain this phenomenon that we're talking about here. Because there is no way in hell that renting clothes from a clothing rental subscription service is in any way cheaper than just buying them secondhand or from a place like Walmart or wherever and keeping them in your closet and wearing them multiple times, as people have always done. That's the normal thing to do. You know, I have shirts in my closet that I've worn like, I don't know, a thousand times, ten thousand times. And that is definitely cheaper than renting without any question at all. And this is what you see sometimes. You see these, you see this kind of phenomenon. Gen Z, they're renting everything. And the explanation is always, oh, well, it's because the economy, it's because they can't afford. Well, yeah, but you're doing something that's more expensive. So that doesn't make any sense. What's actually happening is that people are spending more. They're actually spending more with the excuse of a bad economy, low income, all that sort of thing. What's happening is people are spending more on these kinds of things and they're doing it so they can get the designer outfit and post a picture on Instagram. That's what the point of this really is. They rent the, I mean, the article talks about, they rent the home decor and the glassware and then post a picture of the table spread for Instagram, which is basically the whole point. And it's much, much more expensive than just buying these items and using them thousands of times. As again, almost all people have always done, since forever. But the effect is this. And here's why. This is why I hate this. Well, three reasons. First of all, this is consumerism, materialism, wastefulness, cloaked as being thrifty and living affordably. And it's really the opposite of that. And there's a lot of this kind of thing going around. This is supposed to be, oh well, you're renting it so it's cheaper. I'm being, I'm being wiser with my money. No, this is not that. This is the opposite. And people think that just because they don't own anything, they don't buy anything, they only rent, that they're somehow living a more humble and affordable lifestyle, but they aren't at all. And the second problem is that it's performative. This is life as performance. It's about getting things so you can post about on social media. And that's not real, that's not authentic. You cannot be a happy or well rounded or good or interesting person if you're not authentic. And I don't mean authentic in a kind of shallow, self help, mumbo jumbo sort of way. I mean authentic as in honest, just living a real, honest life, which this isn't. And third, most importantly, it's very bad to have so many people who own nothing. And that's where we are. I mean, think about it. Think about the life of someone who subscribes to one of these clothing rental services. And I don't know how many people do, but think about their life. We can assume they don't own the home they live in, right? They don't own their land, they probably live in an apartment. They don't own their car, they don't own the clothes on their back. Many of them don't own their furniture, their utensils. They have a lot of stuff, okay? That's the point. They possess a great many things, but they don't own any of it. So they have a materialistic lifestyle without the ownership that used to come with that. So it's really the worst of all worlds to be surrounded with crap, with stuff, to be incredibly materialistic, but to not own any of it. It's really the worst combination for a person. Because if you own very little but also possess very little, well, then at least you reap the spiritual rewards of, you know, an austere, humble, minimalist life. And on the other hand, if you have a lot of stuff that could be very materialistic, but if you own it, well, then there are rewards that come with owning things. Like, this is mine, I have it, it's own. This is my thing, right? And depending on what it is, this is something I can pass down to my family. And there are real rewards that come from that. This is the worst of all worlds. And I think this is kind of the disconnect between Gen Z and boomers, because they're always locked in this debate, this contest where Gen Z says that, well, they have it so much worse than the boomers did. And then boomers say, oh, well, you ungrateful brats, you have the easiest lives anyone's ever lived. You don't know how good you have it. And it goes back and forth. And the truth is that it's kind of a third option, which is this, that Gen Z are correct, that they have to deal with things that no other generation of Americans really had to deal with, at least not to this extent. A country overrun by third world invaders. They have to compete against the entire world. It's worse now than it's ever been. So no one has had to deal with that at this level. They're in massive debt from getting worthless college degrees that they were, you know, they were cajoled and coerced into getting. And everything is way more expensive than it should be. All of that is true. The quality of everything has gone down. We talked about that last week. Even when it comes to, like, restaurant food, the quality, it's, like, more expensive, but the quality, everything's. It's all frozen food and not fresh and coming off the back of the same Cisco truck. All that is true. And in this war between boomers and Gen Z and millennials, I'm millennial, so we kind of. I don't know, we're sort of in the middle of it. But this is something that I think often the boomers are not willing to acknowledge all those points. However, it's also true that boomers lived much humbler lives for the most part, when they were the age that zoomers are now, they had less stuff. They had a lot less. We talk about how they could buy homes. Boomers, when they were 24 years old, just got married, they could go buy a home. A lot of them could. And that is true. They were not big homes. They were not living in palaces though. They were living in like small houses. And you know, if the average zoomer had to live like the average boomer lived in 1973, they would probably treat it like solitary confinement in prison. I mean, they wouldn't know how to live such a minimal, non materialistic life. So, you know, you've got Gen Z saying, the economy is destroyed, we have to compete against the whole globe country is bankrupted. And then boomers say, hey, when we were your age, we lived much humbler and less extravagant and luxurious lives than you kids do today. We worked really hard and all that kind of stuff. And then zoomers say, yeah, but you owned a house and you had a car that was paid off and you could buy a week's worth of groceries for 98 cents at a toothpick. And then boomers say, yeah, well you kids have TVs and video games and phones and subscription services and way more luxury and material possessions than we ever had. And the truth is like, they're both right. Which is the worst option? Actually, I'd rather it be door number one or two, but it's kind of door number three. It's the worst of all worlds really, where the economy's in bad shape, people are broke, but it's also a very materialistic culture and people have many more things than they need and all this kind of thing. So that's where we are. That's the bad news. The good news is that everyone is kind of right in a way. The bad news is that what they're right about is pretty awful. And I think that that's a very light and positive and uplifting note to end on. Thanks for watching, thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. A Stranger Things star is grateful her parents aborted her sibling. A Republican senator wants to end dual citizenship. And the FDA admits the Fauci actually killed kids. Check it out on the Michael Knowles Show. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info and more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans, or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock. Com. Podcast terms apply.