Sam Seder (9:11)

What's the problem with xenophobic nationalism? Don't you think that's better for Americans in general?

Sarah Stock (9:15)

Like xenophobic nationalism is better?

Sam Seder (9:17)

We should have a coherent culture. Everyone should be a part of the same culture. We should have assimilation.

Sarah Stock (9:22)

Which do you get to choose what the culture is?

Sam Seder (9:25)

We already have a dominant culture based on European and Christian values and identity. That is the dominant culture. It's rooted in European identity.

Sarah Stock (9:35)

So your argument is that that has.

Sam Seder (9:37)

Been the dominant culture. Just to be clear, and we're not letting people assimilate to that. We're saying you should keep your culture. And this is why our culture's so divided.

Sarah Stock (9:44)

Your argument is that Trump is good for those who want a dominant white European culture.

Sam Seder (9:51)

I mean, that is what America is. It's rooted in European identity and Christian values. That's what it has been. Would you really disagree with that? What is it then, if that's not the identity of America?

Sarah Stock (10:05)

Well, I think the identity of America.

Sam Seder (10:06)

For the majority of time, America's been a country. You don't think that's been the identity?

Sarah Stock (10:10)

Well, actually, no. I think actually the identity of America has been.

Michael Knowles (10:17)

Okay, let's put a pause right here before he gets into what it means. I love how he's stalling. He doesn't know how to respond to her. Well, no, actually. But actually, what's her argument? She's using a provocative slogan, no doubt xenophobic nationalism. This is a scare phrase used by the left. And so she is provocatively throwing that phrase back at the left. But what's she saying? Xenophobic, meaning preferring one's own countrymen to foreigners. And nationalism, meaning preferring the nation to a kind of borderless liberal globalism. That's what most American voters voted for in November. Not exactly in those terms, not in such sensationalist rhetoric, but that is what people voted for. And then Sam Sater says, well, hold on. You're telling me you think there's a dominant culture in America? She says, of course there's a dominant culture. There's a dominant culture in any polity. Of course there is. Culture is defined by something, and whatever it is defined by is the dominant aspect of the culture. Okay, well, you're telling me that America traditionally has been defined by European culture and Christianity. She says, yes, but could you disagree with that? Would anybody seriously disagree with that? In 1960? She says, it has been, you know, at least until very recently. In 1960, 93% of Americans were Christian. In 1960, just under 90% of Americans were white. So descended from Europeans. America, really, whatever view you take of the Mayflower, great cigar brand and the American founding, you know, the Revolutionary war and the 19th century up through the 20th century, can you really argue it didn't come from European values, European institutions? We were a British colony. What is your argument? The American Revolution was influenced by the European Enlightenment, for better and worse. The founding of America at Plymouth Colony was a separatist movement from England. You know, America doesn't just exist in outer space or something like that. It's not just floating through the ether. It comes from historical movements developed by real people from real places. You might say, well, that's terrible. I hate Europe. Or you might say, that's terrible, I hate Christianity. I wish America weren't like that. You can make that argument. The left makes that argument all day long. But if you're this guy, if you're the liberal guy on this, are you really gonna be confused by the idea that America comes from Europe and that the religion that has dominated in America has been Christianity. I mean, John Adams says the principles on which the revolution was won were the principles of Christianity. John Jay goes further. He says, thank God that we all descend from the same stock and that we all have the same religion and we all believe basically the same stuff. And you can find similar writings threat many, many other founding fathers and framers of our Constitution. And you just look at the demographics, religious, ethnic, national, all the rest. We didn't have mass migration of the sort that we're looking at today until the mid-1960s. So things start to change. But even still, most Americans are at least vaguely Christian. And I guess the majority of Americans are still white. That's 60%. So it's obviously much lower than you. So I don't know, regardless of whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, how could this liberal guy be confused by that? He's really that ignorant of not just what his opponents believe, but of American history. There's so much more to say. First, though, go to PureTalk.com knowles if you're with Verizon, ATT or T Mobile, you could be saving a fortune every month by switching to PureTalk. That is Pure Talk, my cell phone company that cuts the fat from the wireless industry. For just $35 a month, you can get unlimited talk, text and 15 gigs of data with Hotspot on America's most dependable 5G network. I'm going to stop you right here because what you just heard is on a really good network. I didn't say on a really good network. I didn't say on a pretty good network. I said on America's most dependable 5G network, the average family of four saves over $1,000 a year when they switch to PeerTalk. Could you use $1,000 a year? I think we could all appreciate an extra thousand dollars a year. When you switch to PureTalk's super low $35 plan this month, you will get one year of Daily Wire plus for free. The only way you can get it is by going to PureTalk.com knowles ken a w L E S Switch to Pure talk@PureTalk.com Knowles Get a year of Daily Wire plus for free with a qualifying plan, PureTalk Wireless by Americans for Americans. Jubilee podcasts surrounded lib Sam Sater versus conservative Sarah Stock. Keep going.

Sarah Stock (15:14)

The identity of America has been, you know, for better or for worse, a melting pot in that regard.

Sam Seder (15:21)

Yeah, yeah, maybe since like the 1960s. Even then, like, even we had this idea of A melting pot literally means assimilation, too. It means melting. It means you're assimilating to the dominant culture. Is that not what melting means?

Michael Knowles (15:34)

Okay, so he says, no, no, no, it's a melting pot. And she says, yeah, yeah, that's how we view it since the 1960s. It goes back a little earlier. The term melting pot comes from a play by a playwright named Israel Zangville in 1908. And curiously, Teddy Roosevelt went to see this play and loved it so much, he said, Mr. Zangville, this is a great play. I love this play. And the notion of America being this melting together of different identities goes back earlier than 1908. So it had been building for some time. But then she hits the real point there, which is, well, hold on. A melting pot means assimilation. A melting pot is not a salad bowl, for instance. It's not that you keep your distinct identities. The tomatoes over here and the cucumbers over here and the lettuces over here. The melting pot means you all melt together. And Zangville, who wrote the play the Melting Pot, actually explained this five years after it was first produced. He said the process of American amalgamation is not assimilation or simple surrender to the dominant type, as is popularly supposed, but an all around give and take by which the final type may be enriched or impoverished. So he's saying it's not that you totally give up your identity. When the Italians came here, for instance, they didn't totally give up their identity. When the Irish came here, they didn't totally give up their identity, but they largely did, to the point that, just to use the Italians partially my people as an example, you can no longer predict an Italian American's political views and behaviors based on their ethnicity. You get Nancy Pelosi on the left, you get Antonin Scalia on the right, you get Andrew Cuomo on the left, you get Michael Knowles, who. That's the English name from my father's side, but, you know, got a lot of Italians on the other side on the right. You can't tell. The Italians have assimilated and they've added to American culture. You know, mob movies are a big part of our popular entertainment. People really love pizza. You know, certain Italian expressions have gained traction, but they've also surrendered a lot of Italian stuff. So what Sarah Stock is saying here, the point she's making, is almost entirely correct. She says, yeah, it's a. Look, we're not just a melting pot. Like, we come from a real culture. But even if we were a melting pot, that means that you do at least largely give up your identity. You contribute a little, but you give up your identity to assimilate to this new kind of identity, which is the American identity. And then they conclude on the, on the biggest head scratcher.

Sam Seder (18:06)

And now instead we're saying there's something.

Sarah Stock (18:08)

Wrong with xenophobia, culture. No, I mean, look, I gotta be honest with you. Like, I. You and I have a fundamental disagreement. We will never see eye to eye on this. It's a choice and people. I think what you're expressing, though, is really what the Trump movement at its heart is about, and I think that's problematic.

Sam Seder (18:29)

I disagree. I don't think Trump's like, anywhere close to being a Christian nationalist. That's ridiculous. Like, Trump's basically a Democrat from like 15 years ago in a socialist.

Michael Knowles (18:36)

So you don't. I love this point. And I think President Trump would agree with that. I think a lot of Trump voters would agree with that. Yeah, he's like waving the rainbow flag. You know, Trump is. He doesn't care that much about, you know, hard right wing, traditionalist social conservatism. That's how he got people like Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Rogan. And most voters to vote with him is, he's the center, Trump is the center. Trump is the mainstream. It's the left that is extreme now. But Trump is, you know, he's not Sam Sater saying, well, you know, this kind of extreme right wing rhetoric, that's why people vote for Trump. She goes, what are you talking about? He says, that's. I just disagree with you. I gotta be honest with you. Whenever someone says, I gotta be honest with you, as a preface to their statement, what they are admitting is that they are regularly not honest with you. They previously have been dishonest with you. So he says that. He says, well, I gotta be honest with you. I just don't agree that America. What? That America has a religion. You don't agree? You don't agree? We have in God We Trust, in our national anthem and on our money. We were founded by people who called themselves pilgrims, okay? The Founding fathers and the framers wrote extensively about the importance of Christianity to the country. And you're telling me we don't have a religion? We don't have a founding stock of people? No, not England. It's not the Dutch. It's not. No, no, no, it's Martians. I don't know what it is. There's no religion. There's no founding stock. There are no traditions. There's no common morality. There's really no geography. So what is America? Matt Walsh asked this question yesterday. It's probably gonna be his next movie that's gonna complete the trilogy. What is America? But the answer from the libs on the left and the right is, well, America's an idea, merely an idea floating in outer space in the ether. Except when they say that, they say America's an idea. You say, okay, what's the idea? At least the people who say that on the right, well, they'll say, well, it's the idea of individual liberty and it's the idea of free association. And they'll give you some answer from late 20th century Libertarian readings of the American founding. And it might be right, it might be wrong, but at least they'll give you an answer. You ask the left, what's the idea of America? They won't give you an answer because the left wing liberal project is about surpassing all limits. It's about maximizing individual autonomy. It's about breaking down anything that might circumscribe choice. So if you say, well, what's the idea? America's just an idea. Okay, what's the idea of America? They can't tell you because to say America is this idea is simultaneously to say that America is not that idea which contradicts this idea. And they can't do that. America's gotta be everything to everyone, for all times. America, the idea would have to contradict Aristotle's law of non contradiction, because it would have to be. It would have to include every idea. So to the left, America is not even just an idea. America is an idea of an idea. It is so radically abstract that it's nothing. And in practice, when the left governs, America is nothing. It has no border, it has no tradition, it has no common language. It's nothing. It's just. It's a vacuum. Now, you know, nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it up. I suggest you fill up the air in your home with the Smells and Bells candle from the Candle club. Go to thecandleclub.com Michael get that beautiful Smells and Bells candle today. Okay, I will move on from this jubilee episode, but it was fascinating and this guy in particular was a really interesting guest on the jubilee episode because the format it has seemed to be is you get one conservative to debate two dozen libs. The first guest was Charlie Kirk. Ben Shapiro went on there, Lila Rose went on there. I went on there. And without. I have no false modesty here generally seems to be the rule that the conservative is surrounded by two dozen libs, and the conservative beats all the libs. It seems to be the structure of the show. Okay, I'm not. Listen, false modesty is a form of pride. And so I will admit, not just for me, but for the other three conservatives too. They generally won pretty decisively. In this case, the lib facing off against the 20 conservatives. He lost. He didn't come. Even if you're a big fan of this guy or whatever you follow. I don't follow his stuff at all, but I've heard of him. At least I know he's a liberal commentator, and he did not do as well as the conservatives did against the libs. You saw the exchange with Sarah Stock? Here's another exchange. I wish I had this guy's name. I just started following him on X yesterday, but I don't have his name name off the top of my head. Another conservative comes up to debate religious fundamentalism. And here, Sam Sater's ideological confusion becomes. Or philosophical confusion becomes even more manifest.

Sarah Stock (23:46)

Hey, sir, it's nice to meet you.

Unknown Conservative (23:48)

Nice to meet you. Okay, so I would like to touch on the religious fundamentalist aspect. Are you an atheist?

Sarah Stock (23:54)

I'm a reformed Jew. I don't. I don't have any. A strong belief in the existence of God, but I don't think that religion in and of itself is bad.

Unknown Conservative (24:03)

Okay, so what's wrong with religious fundamentalists? So like when you said. You said trans rights and women's rights or something like that?

Sarah Stock (24:09)

Well, the problem I have with religious fundamentalists and really more, I guess it's really theocrats, is that they want to impose their morality that comes from their religion on the rest of us. And I don't. I don't.

Unknown Conservative (24:25)

But morality, from your view, is going to be a preference, right? It's not morality. It's a preference. What's so morality without a foundation is going to reduce you to a preference?

Sarah Stock (24:34)

Well, I have a foundation for my morale.

Unknown Conservative (24:35)

Which is what?

Sarah Stock (24:37)

It's a humanist vision of what basically creates as little suffering as possible for as many people.

Unknown Conservative (24:45)

Okay, so you're like a consequentialist utilitarian.

Sarah Stock (24:51)

I don't really bother myself with being a consequentialist or a utilitarian.

Michael Knowles (24:57)

Okay. What is remarkable about this exchange is not that Sam Sater is a leftist or that his interlocutor is a conservative. What is remarkable about this exchange is that the leftist taking on the two dozen conservatives doesn't know what he himself believes. What's remarkable about this exchange it's not that the leftist doesn't understand what the conservatives believe that we expect. The leftist doesn't understand the basic premises of his own arguments. He says, look, I don't like religious fundamentalism. He never really defines it. He's obviously confused about it. I don't like theocrats. He clearly doesn't know what a theocrat is because a theocracy is government by religious clerics. But here he's using theocracy to mean government by people who have religious views, which is all governments for all time. And certainly we have a self government and we're a people that have religious views. So he's totally confused about what theocracy means. So the interlocutor says, what is the basis of your morality? Is it just preference? Just whatever you feel like? Which is sort of what it seems like. And Satir says, no, no, it's not that. It's. And he's kind of stumbling around. He says, I want to reduce suffering for the greatest number of people possible. Okay, now that is a moral view. That is the view of Peter Singer, for instance, who is a professor at Princeton. And the interlocutor rightly says. He said, okay, so you're a consequentialist. Your ethics is a consequentialist ethics. And Cedar looks really confused. He says, you know, utilitarian utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialist ethics. And Sater looks at me and says, I'm not. I don't really. I don't think about. I'm a consequentialist or a utilitarian. But he. It wasn't like really a question to him. The interlocutor was helping him. He was saying, no, the thing you've just described by definition is a form of utilitarian ethics, specifically one advocated not even just by John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham, but most recently by Peter Singer. That's your view. And so the question then becomes, well, okay, well, why is that your view? I guess the grounding of my ethics is that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. That's different than his utilitarianism, which is just minimize suffering for the greatest number of people possible. It reveals a great distinction between classical political philosophy and liberal political philosophy. Classical political philosophy pursuing the greatest good, the summum bonum, the common good, recognizing that there is such a thing as a common good in society. Liberal political philosophy, beginning with Thomas Hobbes saying that basically there is no common good. We can't really understand a greatest Good. The only thing that we could even define as a common good is peace, to save us from the war of all against all, in which life is nasty, brutish and short. And so really what we're after is not pursuing the greatest good, but avoiding the greatest evil, which is death, suffering and death. That's kind of where that comes from. So it's an interesting political divide, and it could have been an interesting conversation, except the left. This guy showed up. He's supposed to be one of the better people on the left to articulate his views. He doesn't even know what he believes. Also, it's not like this guy is 22 years old. I think this guy's pushing 60. Okay? This guy's had a long time to figure out what he thinks. He doesn't even know what he thinks. I think this is true broadly with the left, and it's why our political debates are largely fruitless. And this is backed up by social science, by the way. I think Jonathan Haidt did a paper on this. It's not just that we're speaking past each other. It's not just that we have an irreconcilable first principles or something like that. It's even more basic than that. The right understands the left and the left doesn't understand the right. And so when the left is simply making arguments from ignorance, the basis of which they themselves don't understand. Now, speaking over confusion on what we believe, that's a whole. It's a great. You gotta watch the Jubilee episode. It's fabulous. Speaking of confusion over what we believe, Dylan Mulvaney, he's back. He needs a little press. He'd been out of the news for a year or so. And so he's got a book. We covered the book on the show a week or two ago, a little bit from the first part of it. Now he's doing the media tour. He goes on the View. And forget about Dylan Mulvaney, even forget about the transgenderism issue, which I'm sick of talking about. Just pay attention to how Whoopi Goldberg, a chief spokesman of the American left in pop culture, because she has the seat on the View for many years. Notice how little she understands about the View that she is proposing.

Whoopi Goldberg (29:49)

I'm not sure what's going on or why this is an issue. The same for me as when people say, oh, you know, I don't know how I feel about you. You do. God doesn't make mistakes.

Michael Knowles (30:02)

No.

Whoopi Goldberg (30:03)

And the challenge is not to the trans people, it's to the people who are not trans. That's what God is looking to see, how you treat people. Yeah, that's what that is.

Michael Knowles (30:18)

The argument is transgenderism is true. Men can be women. Men should be permitted to behave as women. Men should be permitted to undergo mutilations to radically change their bodies. Chemical procedures, psychiatric treatment, perhaps all the way down. Even to little children, they must be permitted to do that because God doesn't make mistakes. You catch the contradiction there. Listen, Johnny. Johnny, you're a boy. You got all the boy parts and the boy DNA, and you've been Johnny your whole life. But now you say that you're Sally, and you say you were born in the wrong body, and your true identity doesn't match the body in which you, the true you, were born. And so you must undergo very expensive, very painful medical experiments to change your body to better align with your perceived understanding of yourself. Because God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make. If you want to take that, God doesn't make mistakes. Obviously God in principle doesn't make mistakes, though that doesn't really tell us about the point Whoopi's trying to make here. But if you say God doesn't make mistakes, then you would say, yeah, transgenderism's fake. God doesn't make mistakes. You're a boy. Now, what is needed here really, is just a more thorough and coherent anthropology, because God does not make mistakes. God does not do evil, and yet mistakes are made in the world, and evil exists in the world. So how do we account for that? Whoopi's confusion. A lot of the left's confusion in political philosophy, by the way, comes from their inability to understand original sin. The fact that they took original sin, the Christian concept, Christianity, which built our civilization, and they just throw it out. They don't like the idea of original sin. But original sin is not some prescription about people. It's a description. It's just a fact of the world. It's a fallen world. So how do we make sense of that? Even little babies, they don't commit any personal sin. And yet bad things happen, and they do bad things even though they're not totally aware of it. How do you make sense of that? Well, there is original sin. Okay, so if you can make sense of original sin, where does original sin come from? It's because human beings have abused their free will. So it's not God doing the evil. It's not God making a mistake. It's man abusing his free will. And in the Christian understanding, then you would say well, look, maybe God didn't make a mistake in the evil that pervades the world, but he definitely made a mistake in creating the world because he created a world in which human beings would abuse their free will. And so that itself was a mistake, right? No, Christianity accounts for this, too, in the fact of the incarnation and the atonement that perhaps this is in fact the greatest possible world, because a world in which God himself takes on flesh and dwells among us, in which God sends his only begotten Son to be crucified for our sins and to be resurrected on the third day is an even better world than a world in which man had not abused his free will and fallen. You might say, well, that's all crazy, Michael. I don't believe in any of that. I'm not a Christian. I'm not saying you have to be, though I recommend it. I think you should be. I'm just telling you, Christianity accounts for that. Our traditional understanding of ourselves and our culture accounts for that. It makes sense of the world. Liberalism does not. Leftism, random humanist, utilitarianism, whatever the guy, whatever Sam Sater on the Jubilee show says, it doesn't. Whoopi Goldberg's understanding of transgenderism, it doesn't make sense of the world, even on their own terms. So you can tell me, well, I find Christianity unsatisfying and insufficient. Okay, what's better? Give me a better alternative. You can't. You can't. And that's where a lot of our confusion comes from. We threw out the systems that did make sense and that allowed our civilization to flourish. And we said, we know better. You know, we can recreate the world out of our tiny stock of reason, but turns out we're not that good at it. And things begin to decay as a result of that. Now at the Daily Wire, we bring you the facts. No filter, no spin, no corporate lage. Join the live chat during our Daily Shows. 100% uncensored and ad free and packed with fans who actually think for themselves. Get the news the way it should be. Honest, fearless, without an agenda other than my own agenda, which I'm open about. Your voice matters. Be part of it. Join now@dailywire.com subscribe My favorite comment yesterday actually didn't come from YouTube. It came in an email from a young man who hosted me one evening after I spoke at a university and had a really enjoyable dinner. After this university speech, a number of the students and people. But anyway, he wrote this in. He said, michael, I briefly wanted to push back on your outlook of boozing and zoomers. While I do partially share your sentiment, the rebellion against the system or your parents, which Joe Rogan points to as a reason young men have flocked to conservatism, I fear the problem is far more serious. We live in a recorded, judgmental digital world where a foolish night out sees young men faced with allegations that strip them of their dignity and where men do not even wish to approach women for fear of being seen as creepy or weird. A shocking 45% of men my age, 18 to 25, have never asked a woman out in person. That's a crazy number. I wasn't aware of that number. Meanwhile, online alternatives mean no more drinking in the parking lot, before a movie, after the football game or at a casual bar. Less hookups. Good. Less drinking neutral and less eudaimonia. Less happiness, less human flourishing. Bad. A great point. A great point. Cuz my view was it's hip to be square. The zoomers aren't drinking because, you know, they're on the straight and narrow or something. But that's a great caveat to it. And it takes a big, handsome, wise, delightful man to admit when he's missed something. And that's a very good addition. Getting back to some practical politics for a second. We got a fight going on, baby. This actually does link in with everything we've been talking about today because it gets to ideological confusion this time not on the left, but on the right. House Republicans have a continuing resolution before them, a bill that would avoid a government shutdown and fund the government through September. President Trump supports this bill. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress support this bill. All the Democrats oppose it. I think every single one. Maybe they're one or two strays. I think every single one opposes it. The Republicans overwhelmingly support it. Three Republicans are no or maybe no on it. And one of those Republicans is a hard no. Thomas Massie. What's really interesting about this is Thomas Massie is regularly considered one of, if not the most right wing member of Congress. But he says no. So first, what's in the bill? The continuing resolution increases defense spending by $6 billion. It decreases non defense discretionary spending by $13 billion. So non defense discretionary spending excludes things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, which the libs have been fear mongering on for decades at this point, saying Republicans want to throw granny off a cliff and kill your Social Security. Some Republicans have been open to it. Trump, though consistently for his entire political career, has said we are not going to touch entitlements we're not touching Social Security. We're not touching Medicare or Medicaid. Now, that's non discretionary spending. That's money that just has to be spent. So the 13 billion that's being decreased is out of money that is not spent on defense, and it's not mandatory spending. There is not a single earmark in this bill. Pork barrel spending, community projects, which is how members assent to give their vote to a lot of bills, is they'll say, well, look, I'll give you my vote, but you gotta build a $10 million bridge in my district. It doesn't even need to go anywhere. It could be a bridge to nowhere, but you gotta build it. And so there's a lot of federal spending there as a portion of the federal budget. It's not a huge deal. John McCain made it a big deal during the 2008 presidential campaign because he was a Republican who supported bigger spending projects, not just on defense, but also on entitlements. So the way that he could seem like he was tough on spending was to go after earmarks, which were a relatively small portion of federal spending. But in any case, this bill doesn't have that either. Immigration Customs Enforcement spending is slightly up to $10 million here. So my read on it is, as far as continuing resolutions go, it's pretty good. It freezes spending at 20, 24 levels, so the spending is at least not gonna increase. And it reduces spending in certain areas, which is good. And then Trump and Elon are reducing spending in the executive branch through their own power, not through the legislature. So all in all, it's pretty good. If I were a member of Congress, I would vote for this. However, I understand why some members might say, well, it's still a lot of money. And so you got Tim Burchett and Corey Mills, two Republicans who are saying, I don't know, I'm on the fence. But the one who says, no, I'm a no is Thomas Massie, who is a huge fiscal hawk. He's kind of like Rand Paul in that way. Rand Paul in the Senate votes against a ton of stuff, just kind of reflexively. Both of these guys are from Kentucky. Must be something in the water. But in any case, it's a principled stand. I don't know that I agree with it, but it's a principled stand. And Trump is furious. Trump is now threatening to primary Thomas Massie. He says thank you to the House Freedom Caucus for just delivering a big blow to the radical left Democrats and their desire to raise Taxes and shut our country down. Because the House Freedom Caucus, which is usually the impediment, they usually obstruct these kinds of bills. They've agreed, okay, we're going to support it. The Democrats hate America and all it stands for. That's why they allowed millions of criminals to invade our nation. Sometimes it takes great courage to do the right thing. Congressman Thomas Massie of beautiful Kentucky is an automatic no vote on just about everything. That's kind of true. Despite the fact that he has always voted for continuing resolutions in the past. He should be primaried all caps. And I will lead the charge against him. He's just another grandstander who's too much trouble and not worth the fight. He reminds me of Liz Cheney before her historic record breaking fall. Parentheses loss. I like how he has to give you a synonym. He destined to define what her fall was. It's a loss. She lost. The people of Kentucky won't stand for it. Just watch. Do I have any takers? All caps, three question marks. Anyway, thank you again to the House Freedom Caucus for your very important vote. We need to buy some time in order to make America great again. Greater than ever before. Unite and win. Okay, this is notable not cuz Trump is threatening to primary a Republican. That's happened before. He's threatening to primary one of the most right wing Republicans. How is the Republican base going to take this? Say what you will, Thomas, Massie is no Liz Cheney. He's got some real right wing bona fides. Will the GOP base take this? This will be a test of how much Trump dominates the gop. I suspect in a fight between Trump and Massie, even though Massie's a real tough guy, I think Trump's gonna win. I think he just dominates the GOP that much. But there's a real question. What do we believe? What do we want? What are we fighting for? Whose side are we on? What defines conservatism? What defines our politics? The Trump election, certainly the Trump reelection signals a seismic shift, a tectonic plate shift in our politics. The shift from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Obama. Sorry. To Clinton to Bush to Obama. It wasn't all that big. They all kind of basically agreed the same stuff. The shift to Trump was a big shift. Okay. The shift from Eisenhower and Nixon to JFK and LBJ and then certainly into the LBJ administration, that was a big shift. The shift into FDR's administration, certainly the shift into Woodrow Wilson's, that was another big shift. Wasn't just moving deck chairs around, you know, there was an actual change. We're seeing a change here. And so the question is, what will define the right in American politics moving forward? This battle between Trump and Massey is a pretty good example of that. Okay, there's a story I really want to get to. I don't know if I have time, though. Well, I will. I'll get to it. I'll get to it really quickly. The Financial Times has a Woman's guide to Wearing Ties. Woman's Guide to Wearing Ties. Ft Women should wear ties. The latest female power dressing flex is women wearing long neck ties. I can get to this story very quickly because my advice is very simple. Don't do it. It makes you look like a lesbian. Neckties are good. Men should wear more neckties than they do. I'm guilty of this. I don't wear a necktie on this show. I probably should. Neckties look good. It completes an outfit for a man, but it's for a man, not for a woman. The FT is admitting this when they say it's a power dressing flex. And power is traditionally understood as more a male virtue than a female virtue. Women have plenty of power in their own right, but it's a little bit different when the women try to be the girl boss in the boardroom. That is women consciously taking on virtues that are traditionally ascribed to men, not to women. Neckties for women are nothing new. They have popped up for over 100 years, but it's always by women who are trying to be more like men and who are probably disproportionately lesbian, if we're being totally frank about it. Okay, it's the suffragettes, for instance, wore neckties. Feminists of 150 years have worn neckties. Ladies don't do it. You have real power in your own nature. You don't need to. I'm not saying you can't go work in public. I'm not saying you can't do this. I'm not saying you can't do plenty of things that men do that you want to do, but don't. Trying to be a man is not expanding your power. It is limiting your power by saying that the only kinds of virtues that are to be pursued that have any value are the virtues that naturally attain to men. Okay, don't. No, you're a woman. I can't be a woman. Men are dressing like women. Women are dressing like men. It's very confused. Ideologically very confused. Anthropologically, very confused. It's Tee Hee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowleskin or WL ES at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.