Dr. Jordan B. Peterson (16:45)
This guy, he won't even own it. He says, my wife's fault. Blame my wife. Give me a break. Look, I'll be the one conservative out there who won't totally dogpile on James Comey, because I actually think there can be an innocent interpretation of 86. You could use the phrase 86 in a way that does not involve killing. Okay? And James Comey is a weirdo with artistic pretensions. Do you remember he posted after the Mueller report came out during the first Trump term, and Trump didn't go to the gulags? Comey was so upset, he posted a picture of himself in a forest looking up at trees, and it said, so many questions. I thought, what are you? Are you a Columbia graduate student? Are you one of these people with artistic pretensions? So sure, Comey could have had an innocent motive here, but you need to have the context of President Trump having almost been murdered twice, One time with a bullet hitting his ear, coming within, what, 1 20th of an inch of blowing his brains out. Don't you think in that context, you maybe shouldn't put out the message that could easily be interpreted to be a call to murder the president, especially as the leaders of your political party, up to and including Joe Biden, repeatedly justified the assassination of Trump by saying that he poses an existential threat to the country. Don't you think within that context, either James Comey is the dumbest person, dumb as the rocks that he posted on his Instagram, or he understood how this could be interpreted and just didn't care? I don't know. I'll let you decide which is the more charitable interpretation. Okay, one last story on death. We do one more on death. I know we've done death for 15 minutes, but one last. It's a slightly different story on death. Another leftist terrorist came out. I talked about him on the show a week or two ago. He burned down an IVF clinic. And you'd think because a lot of the serious criticisms of IVF come from the right, you'd say, oh, no, is he a right winger or is he a pro lifer? But no, pro lifers and right wingers just generally don't behave like that. The left is much more inclined to behave in this violent, unruly way, which is in part why we can't make common cause with them in coalitions. But the guy was on the left. He wasn't a pro lifer at all. He was a pro mortalist. This from the Telegraph. They've got a pretty good expose on this guy. Says he appeared to subscribe to an ideology that humans should cease to exist to prevent future suffering and that having children is fundamentally immoral because they could not consent to being born. So this is a radical example of an ideology that is common among liberals. The notion that humans could cease to exist. We might call for humans to cease to exist in order to prevent future suffering. The idea that the goodness of life is just measured by maximizing the pleasure that it brings and minimizing the suffering that it brings for the greatest number of people. That's just a form of utilitarianism developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, Very, very mainstream liberal philosophers. The notion that having children is fundamentally immoral because they can't consent to being born. Therefore, the idea that consent is the highest, if not the sole Moral criterion that is at the heart of liberalism, liberalism, which diminishes the role of virtue, which diminishes the role of morality, and simply places consent at the highest peak, consent predicated on a dubious definition of liberty that suggests that liberty is neutrality in choosing rather than willing, predicated on knowledge. And that's it sounds like a little bit of a word salad if you're not familiar with these philosophical debates. But the liberal conception of liberty, meaning just being able to pick whatever you want rather than forming a goodwill and intellect so that you can do what you ought to do, which is what the smart statesmen and political thinkers in our civilization have understood liberty to be. This is mainstream liberalism through and through, taken to its logical conclusion. One last line from the Telegraph says it primarily promotes suicide. This ideology, rather than terrorist attacks among its adherents, adding that philosophy itself is dangerous because it promotes the devaluation of life. So similar ideologies to this have cropped up over time. I don't mean to just place the blame solely at the feet of liberalism that has existed for about 300 years. There was an ideology, a religious movement in the 12th and 13th centuries and up to the 14th century really called Catharism or Albigensianism. And it was this heresy that spun off of Christianity, which said that life is bad, basically, this life is bad, the world is bad, the body is bad. And so it discouraged marriage, it promoted suicide. It was a death cult, and it would have destroyed Europe had the Catholic Church not led a crusade against the Albigensians and gotten rid of them properly. So these kinds of death cults, these kinds of ideologies crop up a lot over time. We're in one of those now. We're in one of those now because even you see the headline there. This ideology promotes the devaluation of life. Well, if the philosophy that undergirds it is utilitarianism, that's just kind of the basic liberal philosophy now promotes the devaluation of life. Oh, you mean like abortion? Would you say abortion. Cause abortion says life is less important than the choice of consenting adults. Would you say that promotes the devaluation of life? How about contraception? The premise of which is that life is a bad thing, a thing to be avoided. How about euthanasia? So called euthanasia. It's just suicide at the end of your life? Well, suicide is always at the end of your life. It's suicide primarily for older people or people who are suffering, people who are sick. But we all suffer, we all get sick, we all age. Wouldn't you say that that promotes the devaluation of life? There really does not appear to me to be much of a difference between the pro mortalist who blew up that IVF clinic and the mainstream liberal philosophy. It's just that this guy followed that philosophy to its logical conclusion. Whatever you're thinking, whatever I'm saying, we're gonna take a pause for a second so that you can text KNOWLES to 989898 this July there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The bloc of emerging superpowers that includes China, Russia, India and Iran are meeting with the goal of displacing the US Dollar as the global currency. They're calling it the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for US Dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollars in your savings. While this transition will not happen overnight, the Rio Reset in July marks a pivotal moment when bricks objectives move decisively from theoretical possibility toward becoming a reality. Learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard earned savings into a tax sheltered IRA in precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name Knowles Knlas to 9898 98. You know I'm a little bit of a gold bug. Got a decent amount of gold in my portfolio and especially these days I'm very happy that I do with an A rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Let Birch Gould arm you with a free no obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. Text KNOWLES to 989898 Today, speaking of IVF, a lady has just gone viral on Instagram for speaking out about the perils of conceiving a child through donor sperm. This lady, I guess is a lesbian. She posts a picture of herself and another lady and they have two little kids and she says as the headline here I wish I knew this before using a donor. A donor. What's a donor? She says. This goes on for a little bit, so I'll just pick the best parts. She says. Today is International Donor Conception Awareness Day. First of all, I am calling for a complete and total shutdown on made up holidays until we figure out what the hell is going on. We used to have liturgical feast days in the church, you know, based on Saint so and so and Saint this and that. And now we have like five of these holidays every single day. But it's for things like International Donor Conception Awareness Day Anyway, this lady has a really good point. She says, I'm endlessly grateful for my beautiful twins and how they came to be. Okay, are you? But. Here comes the but. There's also so much I wish I had known before using a donor. I was young and naive and excited. There were things I wasn't told and I didn't ask. I didn't understand just how unregulated the sperm donation industry is. In many places there are no enforced limits on how many families can use the same donor. So you end up in a world. In a world in which in one town you might have 50 half siblings. Which makes dating a little difficult down the road because as she says, there's no national tracking system, no centralized registry, no one's keeping count. I didn't know that donors can stretch the truth on their applications. No one is seriously validating their medical history, education or identity. So you go there, you say, I want the sperm of Mr. Gigachad, who's 6 4, blond hair, blue eyed, graduated from Harvard Medical, doctor and a lawyer and a triathlete. The guy could write it on his application. There's really no way of verifying it. I wish I had known. To listen to donor conceived adults, this is key here. Many speak openly about the pain, identity, struggles and emotional complexity that can come from not knowing who contributed half of their DNA. Even that phrase, who contributed half of their DNA. You mean who their dad is or who their mom is? In the case of homosexual men who do this. But in this lady's case, who their dad? Do you think dads matter? Do you think. Let me try to use the liberal language. Do you think representation matters? You know, they say we need more women to be involved in corporate America. We need this company to have half of its executives be women. We need this company to have half of its employees be women. Oh yeah? Well, what about the family? Should the family have half of its parents be women and half be men? If you think men and women each have something to contribute to the world, don't you think that would certainly be true of the bedrock political institution, the family? I love that this woman says the pain of donor conceived adults. Adults who are people who were conceived with the intent to deprive that person of his natural mother or his natural father. Awful. These are the closest relationships you're ever gonna have. Just about. I didn't think about the fact that sperm banks are for profit companies. Sometimes money is put ahead of ethics, transparency and long term consequences. I wish I had understood that. When you're Using a donor, you're not just making a decision about your future. You're making decisions that will have a lifelong impact on your children. So true. She goes on and on and on. Most importantly, my advice is center your future child in every decision you make. Good on this woman for looking at the issue at least somewhat honestly. The problem for her last piece of advice is when you conceive a child via a sperm donor, you are immediately denying the needs of your child because your child needs his mommy and his daddy. The moment you do that, you are neglecting the needs of your child, denying the needs of your child, putting your own selfish desires before the natural needs of a child. You're starting off on the wrong foot. And some people do it out of ignorance. Many people, I think, do it out of ignorance. But we're becoming more aware. We're discussing this novel technology in ways that finally involve ethics and morality. And it's gotta stop. These sperm banks, these for profit companies, which are just one aspect of the Baby Store Incorporated. Gotta go. It's deeply wrong. It is contrary to human dignity. It denies the legitimate rights of children. It is totally disordered, and it turns human beings into commodities. Gotta go. If even the lesbian moms who do this, who create babies in this way, are recognizing it, you should too. Speaking of kids, France, there's good news out of France. I mean, that's a shocking headline. There's good news out of France. France is expanding a ban on veils in public to children. France already has a ban on veils in public. Now, I actually kind of like the veils. You know, I know in the west everyone knocks the hijab. I think the hijab can look perfectly nice. I like it when women veil in church, in mass. And so I don't mind a little modesty. I think the west could use a little more modesty, actually, for all the things we're gonna knock our Muslim friends for. That's not one. But the burqa, the full dress, the whole thing, it's too much. Okay? It's too much. And more importantly, even it's not our culture. So if you look around, if you walk around Paris and everyone's wearing a burqa, you're not really walking around Paris, are you? Because whatever makes Paris Paris has kind of ceased to be. It's like you're walking around some city in the Middle east, and I don't want to walk around some city in the Middle East. It's like you're walking around a Muslim city. I don't want to walk around a Muslim city. I want to walk around Paris in France, the first daughter of the church. That's a Christian city because we're a Christian civilization and Muslims can come and visit sometimes, that's fine, but they can't take over. They can't totally change the standards and the norms. So previously the veil ban said adult women can't wear the burqas in public, but kids can. And that didn't make a lot of sense. So Emmanuel Macron, President of France, his political party has called for a ban on young girls wearing the Islamic veils in a new law against Islamist entryism after a government report showed that the Muslim Brotherhood has been waging a multi generational campaign to infiltrate Western institutions and reshape the west into an Islamic civilization. This gets back to my point earlier on coalitions, you know, and taking the side of, like Islamists, Islam has, and I actually have a grudging but reasonable amount of respect for Muslims in many ways. I can speak to Muslims about serious things much more easily than I can speak to Western liberals and secularists and atheists. So this is really nothing against the Muslims per se. It's not exactly hostile or antagonistic. But Islam as a cultural force has been attempting to invade and conquer the west for 1400 years. Immediately immediately after the founding of Islam in the seventh century, they were on the move trying to conquer the west, and they were largely successful. And they made it 150 miles outside of Paris by the year 732, the Battle of Poitiers. And only because Charles the Hammer, grandfather of Charlemagne, was able to turn them back did they not conquer the west. In the 8th century, they obviously conquered Iberia, controlled Spain and Portugal and all that area all the way up until the Reconquista in 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella finally put the final nail in the coffin of the Islamic Iberia. And then Christopher Columbus went and sailed the ocean blue and discovered America. But it's been a long time. And it wasn't just the Battle of Poitiers. It was the Battle of Lepanto, 1571. It was the Battle of Vienna. Largest cavalry charge in history. It was again and again and again. They keep trying to come in and conquer the west and. And now we kind of invite them in. We say, oh, yes, take over. Turn churches into mosques. Oh yes, change whatever customs you want. I don't think that's a good idea. You have to ask yourself, was it good? Even if you're a kind of centrist lib was it good that the west turned Islamic invaders away at the Battle of Poitiers and the Battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Vienna. Is it good that we resisted the Islamization of the west at those periods? I think most people, even many centrist libs, would say, yeah, that was good that we weren't overrun by Islam and Christianity wasn't blotted off the face of the earth. Okay, well, if it was good then, it's good now. And this kind of law in France is good. And we should see more of these kinds of laws. They're not a threat to free speech or free expression or the great wonderful liberal ideas that didn't build our civilization. They're a defense of our civilization, and it's a necessary defense at that. Speaking of dress codes and rights, finally we're going to get to the most important news story of the year. The Starbucks employees who are protesting their dress code this week. Do not miss the Daily Wire plus Memorial Day sale. Get 40% off an annual membership with code DW40. Stream all your favorite daily shows ad free from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Ya boy, Yours truly, and more. You will also unlock our full entertainment library and the premiere of Parenting, Dr. Peterson's brand new series premiering this Sunday only on DailyWire. Plus go to DailyWirePlus.com, use code DW40 to join now and save 40% on all annual memberships. My favorite comment Yesterday is from puffinstuff117. He says, Michael, what the hell are you talking about? Who paid you to try to convince us that less privacy is good? The only people that should have cameras on them 247 are criminals. Okay, hold on, hold on. I knew I anticipated some of this reaction from the liberal and libertarian wonderful people in our audience, but I said in response to the Nancy Mae story about how we need more privacy everywhere and you know, you're not allowed to have a security camera. Your boyfriend's not allowed to have a security camera in his apartment. I said, well, look, that's, that's one conclusion. But if you wanna look at the glass half full here, you should recognize you don't really ultimately have privacy. Because even if you think that you have privacy, God is watching you. Now, I would rather God watch me. God who is merciful. I would rather God watch me all the time than have the government watch me all the time or have some private corporation watch me all the time. But it is a fact of our culture that we just have cameras on us. Basically all the time. Everyone is a roving cameraman because of their cell phones. And there are security cameras everywhere. And if you don't want to be caught on a friend or a stranger's security camera, don't walk naked through their apartment because you're just going to know. And maybe that's not fair. Maybe you say, well, 20 years ago that wouldn't have been true. Yeah, but it is true today. And just to jar you out of your liberal perspective here a little bit, the idea of privacy is like the greatest possible good. That is a very modern liberal idea. Man is not primarily an isolated individual. We are social creatures. And when we in our civilization at least used to recognize that God could see what we were doing. And so character is the thing you do when you think no one is watching. We need to behave ourselves a little bit better. I think maybe we need to decenter Privacy is the greatest good in our civilization. And I think we need to maybe buff up virtue and behaving as you ought and manners and just propriety. I think we need to. I'm not saying we totally get rid of privacy. There's a place for privacy in certain instances. But maybe we put propriety over privacy. Maybe propriety is a little bit more than privacy, a little more important. What do you think? I don't know. That's gonna get me in trouble again. But so what? You're not here for me to suck up to you. You're not here for me to pander to you. No sir. You're here for the truth. You're here for me to tell you how much I hate to tell I told you so. Okay, speaking of threats. No, sorry. Speaking of dress codes, I have to get to this story. I've been teasing it all week. A couple weeks ago I played a clip of Starbucks employees whining and screaming about how they had a new dress code and how this was a terrible violation. And what was the dress code? The dress code said they had to wear black T shirts and normal looking pants. By the way, Starbucks employees wear a green apron over their clothing already. So it's not as though this was changing all that much about their appearance. And I love Starbucks. I'll be contrarian conservative on that too. Actually, the only thing I'm being contrarian in is admitting that I love Starbucks. Plenty of conservatives love Starbucks. They just don't want to admit it cause they think it's not fashionable or what. Starbucks is great. They've got the largest public bathroom program in the history of cities around the World. The coffee is pretty good. It's a little expensive, but it's just a well run corporation. Even when there are extremes from a small percentage of the baristas like these people who have now gone further to claim not only is the new dress code an imposition, it is a violation of all of their civil rights.
