Speaker 1: All right, when are the Russia hoaxers going to start
going to prison? Why are the lefty radicals losing their
minds over a hot chicken jeans? And did Marvel just
release Hollywood's most pro life movie of all time? All
that and more on the Kylie Cast. Hi everybody, and
welcome to the Kylie Cast. I am Kylie Griswold, Managing
editor at The Federalist. Be sure to like and subscribe
wherever you get your podcasts, and if you're just listening
to the show, go check out the full video version
on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalist channel on Rumble.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com. We always love to hear from you.
Once again, we're going to talk about the latest in
Russia hoax news because once again the corporate media refused
to and here's the bottom line, somebody's got to go
to prison.
Speaker 2: Someone's got to go to prisonman.
Speaker 1: No, Barack Obama is not in the Oval Office anymore,
and John Brennan, James Comy, and James Clapper are no
longer leading the Intel agencies, but their co conspirators in
the corporate media are still keeping the coup on life
support and ensuring that the whole enterprise gets away with it.
And in fact, Brennan and Clapper themselves came out with
an op ed in none other than The New York
Times on Wednesday where they purport to quote set the
record straight on Russia in twenty sixteen. The piece is
a straight up lie. Of course. They're just assuming that
all they have to do is say no, everything was fine,
totally above board, and everyone who reads the Times will
just move on. But that can't happen unless the Department
of Justice makes the perpetrators pay for their crimes against
the country. They will run the same play again and
again and again. How do we know this because this
is far from the only example of this type of
seditious cocaine conspiracy against the American people and our constitutional republic.
The intelligence community, media bureaucrats, and all three branches of
government have run a number of Russiagate like plays against
the American people over the past few decades and specifically
the past nine years, And every time one concludes, a
new one begins. Why because nobody is ever held accountable.
Just think about Russiagate, the hoax rested on two main pillars.
One pillar was that Trump conspired with Russia to steal
the twenty sixteen election, and this claim was based on
the fake Steele dossier, and it basically died the day
that Special Counsel Robert Moehler gave his congressional testimony. But
this pillar that Trump conspired with Russia was only possible
based on the other pillar, which is that Putin meddled
in the twenty sixteen election because he wanted Trump to
win and wanted Hillary to lose. Now, the newly declassified
documents from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA
Director John Radcliffe shatter that only remaining pillar. Those documents
reveal that the phony intelligence underpinning the entire hoax was
essentially ordered by Barack Obama and then manufactured by CIA
Director John Brennan and the other intel chiefs. Right before
President elect Donald Trump began his first term, Obama intel
officials scrapped reliable intelligence showing that sure Russia performed run
of the mill election medaling, but did not do it
to help President Trump, and instead they fabricated and rushed
intel saying the exact opposite that Vladimir Putin aspired for
Trump to win the election. Now, this kicked off the
hoax that would completely hamsterring Donald Trump's first term in office.
Like I said, this so called intel was completely bogus.
In fact, its central claim that Putin aspired to get
Trump elected was based in part on the Hillary Clinton
fundation and completely discredited Steele dossier. Now we also learned
from the newly declassified House Intel report that it was
also partially based on a single vague sentence fragment from
an unknown source with unknown credibility, which five different people
interpreted five different ways. According to the report, when senior
Intel officials warned CIA chief John Brennan not to include
in the final Intelligence Community assessment the claim that Putin
aspired to help Trump because they had no evidence for it,
Brennan ignored them and included it because, according to him,
it rang true. In other words, it supported Obama's sought
after narrative. The House Intel report also cites an FBI
analyst who divulged that leadership instructed them that they were
to use anything they had to propel the Russia hoax.
The analysts said, quote, we were to push this end
quote before the shoddy intelligence was ever even manufactured. However,
the intelligence community leaked their predetermined conclusions to the media,
and this set the Russia hoax in motion. Now Democrats
have run this type of playbook time and again, over
and over. Every time one dirty trick falls apart, they're
ready to deploy the next one, with their media enablers
on standby. It was July twenty fourth, twenty nineteen, that
Special Council Robert Mohler testified about his Russia report to Congress,
which was in many ways the final nail in the
coffin of the Russia collusion hoax. It was just very
disastrous for Democrats. The very next day, Trump made a
completely normal phone call to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenski, and
Democrats including Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi spun up the
call into a nefarious conspiracy to impeach the president, and
what do you know, The Ukraine impeachment hoax followed the
exact same script as the Russia collusion hoax. So called
whistleblower Alexander Vinman filed a complaint against Donald Trump, alleging
that Trump had committed various crimes during this call with Zelenski.
But this complaint wasn't based on firsthand knowledge and hard facts. No,
this complaint was based on third hand gossip from unnamed sources,
media reports, and outright lies, much like the Steele dossier.
A transcript of the call between Trump and Zelenski showed
just how ridiculous and false the complaint was. But the
media ran with it, Democrats ran with it, and for
months the whole country was taken hostage by Democrats impeachment circus,
which of course ended in Trump being acquitted in February
of twenty twenty. That acquittal was right after the first
case of COVID had reached the United States, and just
one month later we were deep into the next conspiracy,
run by career bureaucrats and amplified dramatically by the Democrat
run corporate media. Yes, the China virus was real, but
thanks to a coordinated fearmongering operation from bureaucrats, politicians, the media,
and big tech Americans were silenced, shut down, masked up
that capt home from school, kept home from church, kept
away from loved ones, and driven to isolation, mental health issues,
and despair, among many other problems. Pretty much the only
people allowed any freedom whatsoever were violent Black Lives Matter rioters.
Remember when CNN ran a death toll Chiron while Trump
was president and in the lead up to the twenty
twenty election that conveniently trailed off after Biden took office. Meanwhile,
US government agencies, with Anthony Fauci as the frontman, not
only blatantly lied about the origins of the virus, but
were actively funding the deadly gain of function research that
spurred the pandemic. If anybody wants to talk about collusion,
how about the Biden administration colluding with big tech companies
to censor content that rightly pointed out the inefficacy of masks,
for instance, and the risks associated with experimental mRNA shots.
Or how about when Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins
colluded to orchestrate a quote quick and devastating published takedown
quote of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was a document
written by world class scientists that resisted the devastating lockdowns,
a declaration that has since been thoroughly vindicated by the way,
and of course, Collins also gave the bad faith Washington
Post a bunch of quotes they could use to smear
the dissenters as well, and this whole COVID theater was
of course a pretext to rig the twenty twenty election
with a mentally and physically unfit candidate and able to
run a campaign from his basement, unmanned dropboxes, ballot dumps, quote,
indefinite confinement and thus voting from home, mail in ballots,
ballot harvesting, last minute rule changes and ballots accepted after
election day, and of course the corporate media complex smeared
as election deniers, whatever that means. Anyone who dared to
say that it wasn't the freest and fairest election we'd
ever had, What a joke. The gas lighting was truly endless,
and paired with the tyrannical COVID lockdowns, it was the
predictable perfect storm for the DC protest and subsequent riot
on January sixth, twenty twenty one, and thus the next
hoax was born. Elected Democrats, hand in glove with their
co conspirators in the media, produced prime time congressional show
trials with fabricated timelines and selectively edited video clips to
smear Donald Trump and his supporters writ large as violent
insurrectionists who carried out what Kamala Harris called quote, the
worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War end quote.
This is the same Democrat Party, of course, that had
nothing but positive things to say during the deadly Black
Lives Matter riots that ravage cities across the country for
months in twenty twenty, and their J six narrative was
despite the vast majority of protesters not agitating or entering
the Capitol and many others walking through the Capitol halls
peacefully after police officers let them inside the building. That's
what the video evidence shows. But the facts didn't matter.
The fabricated version of events became the bedrock of law
fair efforts not only against Donald Trump, but also against
innocent Americans who were just concerned about election integrity. And
the ensuing law fair followed the exact same playbook as
all the other hoaxes and hysteria I've already detailed. Prosecutors, judges,
and other Democrat partisans made up ridiculous reasons to go
after Trump and his voters, and the media laundered the propaganda,
once again, wasting Americans time and tax dollars and terrorizing
law abiding citizens with threats of political retribution. It's the
same song, different verse, over and over and over. Unless
you think this hoax playbook started with Trump, just think
back to the early two thousands and the inception of
the war in Iraq, which was essentially based on a
hoax about weapons of mass destruction. Not long after nine
to eleven, US intel agencies eagerly embraced made up or
thinly sourced intelligence about Iraq bioweapons and other stockpiles. Politicians
in the media ran with it, and the lies led
us into the two thousand and three invasion of Iraq,
which cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. In
many ways, it was like the Russiagate. Before Russia Gate,
nobody was truly held accountable for the WMD LI or
the Russia hoax, or the Ukraine impeachment sham or COVID
lockdowns and censorship or twenty twenty election rigging or J
SIXX persecution or get Trump law fair and on and
on and on, and if nobody was held accountable for
hoaxes past, we can expect many many more hoaxes in
the future. Thanks to Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe and the
years of diligent journalism. From a courageous view at the
Federalist and elsewhere. We actually now know who the primary
perpetrators of the Russia hoax are. We know how it
got started, and we know who's to blame, and it
is pastime for them to go to prison so that
this can never ever be allowed to happen again. All Right,
We usually have two pretty good reasons to talk about
Sidney Sweeney, but this week American Eagle gave us a third,
with an ad for great genes. Here to talk about
it with me are three Federalistas, Abigail Nichols, l Pernell,
and Ariel McDowell. Welcome all of you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you, Kylie hey Ken.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me. So I assume most
people by now have seen the American Eagle clip, which
I think is pretty close to a week old by now,
But in case you haven't, here is what has everybody
up in arms.
Speaker 4: Jans are passed on from parents to offspring, often determining
traits like her color, personality, and even eye color. My
jeans are.
Speaker 3: Blue, Sidney Sweeney, Kasburg Keynes.
Speaker 1: Okay, so there we have the little fun play on
words jeans g E n e s and jeans j
e A n S. Sidney Sweeney has great jeans and
great genes. Of course, people are all up in arms
about it. They're saying that this ad is fascist, Nazi,
it's playing into the history of you x and the
idea that white is right. What do each of you
think the core reason for this backlashes. Let's start with el.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I think, I mean, when's the last time
you saw a conventionally attractive blonde woman in a commercial?
Like it's kind of rare, And so I like, you've
had this this institutional capture in the advertising world where
like you're trying to show maximum diversity or maximum like
wokeness or whether and whether that's having like obese women
on the covered Cosmopolitan or like trying to jam as
many gender identities or races into a particular ad. This
has been what all of the like marketing teams of
companies have been encouraging their teams to do and then
like by extension, pushing on consumers. And so that's that's
a control issue. And so now what this ad is
showing is that those people who have been pushing this
stuff don't have complete control over like the marketing industry,
the marketing industry, fashion industry, and by extension and consumers,
and so that's why I think they're upset.
Speaker 2: I agree, that makes so much sense. I think the
left wing narrative used to be for so long. Just
leave us alone, leave us alone if we have a
fat person, leave us alone if we have a gay person.
Speaker 5: But now that's not even enough.
Speaker 2: Now, just the fact that there is one ad where
the beauty angle is so obvious and it's not someone
who obviously advocates any particular woke agenda, just that is
enough to enrage them, which is funny because it's not
pushing anything.
Speaker 5: It's just happens to be an attractive white model.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the idea is not people pushing anything.
Speaker 4: Is really interesting because I feel like the loud, woke,
knowledgeable people are so marinated in these like really extremist ideas.
They're like on the witch hunt to find and to
like out these meanings that aren't even really there, Like
the Nazi thing, it's not really there. They're they're just
trying to read into it and kind of take this
stuff that's just normal, like just.
Speaker 3: American ego jeans.
Speaker 4: It's this really cute gen Z woman is wearing them,
and they're just trying to spin into something.
Speaker 1: That's not but Abigail, she has blonde hair and blue eyes.
How could it not be a Nazi dog whistle?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean the majority of the American Eagle buyers
were also just gen Z women too, So you mean,
I think that's also kind of silly, But.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they certainly know their clientele for sure. I don't know,
l I don't think I've shopped much an American Eagle
since I was layering my lace camuseels on top of
each other with a sweater, which apparently is coming back,
is what I hear.
Speaker 3: We were having the funniest conversation among our Federalist staff
the other day where like you could tell the generations
be like who is in what generation based on what
everybody's impression of American egle one Like the gen xers
and early Millennials had like a totally different impression, whereas
like all of us, like older gen Z were like, oh, yeah,
I mean American Eagle is like when we were in
high school, it was indistinguishable from Hollister, like whether it
was the Polos with the big logo letters with like
ripped edges or whatever, so like, yeah, it's hilarious, but
like it's not that creative of an ad. I don't know,
Like it's not the first time that people have made
a pun on the word genes r not as creative
as like the Brookshields Calvin Klin ads in the eighties
that it invites comparison to.
Speaker 1: And is it the first time we've used attractive people
to sell products and even including American Eagle. Like I
remember when I was in middle school and we would
go Black Friday shopping at the mall and out front
of American Eagle, American Egle and Hollister were like shirtless
buff high school to like college age young men selling
American Eagle where and of course that was men instead
of women. But like we've always used people to sell clothing, right,
And I guess the misunderstanding.
Speaker 2: I guess the claim they must be making is it
says she has good genes. So if we're talking about
the part of the meaning of that word that refers
to genetics, the only possible interpretation is that the good
genetics have to do with being white. But if she's
known for being hot, why can't the good genetics just
refer to having good genetics? Because you're hot, I mean,
which is far less politically controversial, even if it's even
if you managed to.
Speaker 5: Find that offensive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I wonder if there had been somebody
with any other skin, hair, eye color combination who had
been in the exact same ads, a conventionally attractive person
with just a different skin, hair, and eye color, whether
there be any backlash about the fact that this person
has good genes quote unquote. I also think another reason
for the backlash might be. I mean, I think the
Trump era has truly broken so many people on the
American left, and especially you know, you just think of
the way that Trump and his supporters have been branded
as Nazi sympathize. There's neo Nazis, white supremacists, on and
on and on it goes. It's like Democrats have really
and specifically the Democrat media, have conditioned people to see
Nazis everywhere they look, apparently up to and including just
a super hot brand spokeswoman.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, so you have like the same people who
are calling Trump and all of his supporters Nazis. Those
are the people who are also calling the founding Fathers horrible,
you know, racist, awful people, or those are the people
who are who are burning American flags and waving like
Mexican flags or Palestinian flags or Ukrainian flags or whatever
other country like these. The ven diagram of the people
who use the term Nazi to like disparage anybody they
disagree with politically is an overlap with people who generally
hate America. And so like the Sydney Sweeney at especially
like the one with the classic car, it's very retro Americana,
and you have a lot of people who don't like
that because they would like to see that retro Americana
that a lot of people do like, and it doesn't
make you a Nazi to like it. They want to
see that replaced with this kind of like globalist culture
that erases what a lot of people see as uniquely American.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I also think this is so funny in light
of democrats desperate attempts to stop hemorrhaging young male voters
after the twenty twenty four election. I mean, they're reportedly
spending tens of millions of dollars to try to lure
this particular demographic back into the party on podcasts and
whatever else, like trying you know, the Tim Waltz shtick,
and like the Pete Buddhajet stick where they all pretend
to like be normal dudes even though it's very obvious
that they're not normal dudes. And then their side of
the aisle demonizes hot girls like Sidney Sweeney, and it's like,
have they ever met a normal American? Do they know
what the boys that they're trying to lure back into
the party are into.
Speaker 3: So, I mean, I think it sounds like the political
the new political divide is you have, like the Republican
Party is represented by Sidney Sweeney, and then who represents
the Democrat Party maybe like lam.
Speaker 1: Huh yeah, slightly different standards of beauty there. I would
say both models maybe, but slightly different standards of beauty.
I'm curious, Abigail and Ariel, what so you're both in
gen Z. What has have your peers reaction to the
Sydney Sweeney ad been? Like, So, I mean, we've seen
liberal meltdowns from like random TikTokers with septem piercings and
just having like outbursts about the Nazi coded nature of
this ad. But what are you seeing on your social
media and among your friends whatever group chats here and
like what are your peers saying about it?
Speaker 2: My peers, the ones I've talked to, are kind of
incredulous that it's even become a racial conversation because that's
obviously not what she's referring to when she says good genes.
Because I'm also around a lot of Christian women, they
all so take other problems with the ad, Like, if
you're going to find a problem with Sidney Sweeney or
the nuances of the ad, maybe the nuances of the
ad are not racially problematic, but problematic in some more
legitimate ways. So that's usually where I see the conversation
steered as towards the sexualization. But they're like, there's certainly
nothing racially problematic. You would have to pull that completely
out of the hat.
Speaker 5: Ludicrous. That's what I've heard from most girls my age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I would say that on Instagram reels, there's been
a lot of just people mocking the ad in general
and the way that Sidney's speaking, like the like sensual
tone that she has.
Speaker 3: But in general, I.
Speaker 4: Feel like on Instagram, I've yeah, I've seen a mix
of some people who think the ad campaign did have
these like extreme undertones, but also some people just thinking
it's like so stupid and silly. And then a few
of my other friends who are Christian gen Z women
also think the ad is just way too sexual. And
Sidney Sweeney, they already have problems with her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the bedroom voice for them, not the racial
eugenics undertones of it.
Speaker 2: I saw one video from a left wing influencer who said,
quote it was something along the lines of even talking
about having good genes is automatically talking about eugenics, which
is such a radical equivocation.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. Yeah, it's it's more like a bad dad
joke than it is a racial racial dog whistle. It
also just you know, it bears repeating that this is
just all part of the general distaste for conventional beauty standards,
and we see this across I mean, this is not
just about advertising. This is throughout American culture. It's why
modern art has in many ways become so ugly. And
you know, we used to have beautiful statues that would
commemorate great American heroes and then they're torn down and
replaced with like Medusa looking shrines to abortion advocates, or
like overweight a statue to an overweight black woman in
the middle of New York City or whatever it is
that we're erecting. That's just it doesn't actually reflect what's
good and true and beautiful. It reflects something much uglier.
And I think in many ways this ad is also
just like a knee jerk. It's just pulling America back
to where we already were for so long. You know,
it's like we slid toward toward glorifying morbidly obese people
like Lizo or you know, Bruce Slash Caitlin Jenner on
a magazine cover as like this is the model of
female beauty. And it's like, no, no, people are over
that that's not real. We all knew that was fake.
We were all just supposed to pretend it was good
and true and beautiful, but everyone knew it wasn't. And
so I do think that the Sydney Sweeney ad is
also just part of an ongoing vibe shift. And I'm
curious what each of you thinks about that. Do you
see the vibe shift? Do you think that the next
American Eagle ad is just going to be as woke
as as it was before? Do you think this is
actually trending in a right direction?
Speaker 3: Well, so about the your first half of what you
were saying about conventional beauty, that's something that requires if
you if you have an acknowledgement that there is such
thing as something beautiful, like objectively beautiful or conventionally beautiful,
you're kind of that requires a meritocracy of beauty, Like
that requires one thing to be more beautiful than another thing.
And so I think that's why conventional beauty. And we
can have a conversation about whether Sydney's Weeni is conventionally
beautiful or not, that's up free debate, But like to say, like,
oh yeah, we're going to recognize beauty in this woman
is to acknowledge that, like somethings are more beautiful than others,
some women are more beautiful than others, and there's a
million different kinds of beauty, Like not all beautiful women
look the same. But that also doesn't mean that something
you know, like legitimately ugly is like indistinguishable from something beautiful.
You know, if you have a woman who grooms herself
well and takes care of herself, like she's going to
look more beautiful than a woman who like doesn't take
care of herself and like willfully makes decisions that are
unhealthy for herself or so that you have to have
meritocracy if you're going to have recognition of beauty, and
that's I think that's why it makes them so angry.
The second part of your question remind you the.
Speaker 1: Cultural vibe shift? Yeah, do you think that this is
actually indicative of a shift? Or is this just like,
you know, are we just going along on a general
road down and we're just kind of like going over
a slight improvement that's like a hump that we're just
going to go right back toward our slide toward wokeness?
Or is this like are we are we coming back?
Are we back? Baby?
Speaker 3: So if we are coming back, I don't think the
corporations are any indication, Like corporations are going to chase
money when woke is in and delivers them money and customers,
they're going to go with that out, They're going to
go in that direction. So I mean, maybe I'm a
lot more hesitant than a lot of people to declare
cultural victory, but I certainly wouldn't look at the corporations
to do it.
Speaker 1: Although in some ways, and I think this isn't keeping
with what you said, but I do think the corporations
can reflect the trend in regular culture though, right, So,
you know, if America is kind of coming back and
willing to say the thing like no, Sidney Sweeny is hot,
whatever her face, m Hoff is not hot, and like
you can say that out loud, then it's like, Okay,
that's a sign that you know, maybe the corporations are
not the one leading the cultural charge, but they're reflecting
something that's happening that's very real in American culture. What
do you think, Carriel, You look like you have something
to say.
Speaker 5: It would be nice to see, you know, the culture.
Speaker 2: I mean, I agree with el like the corporations are
just going to do with the money tells them to do.
I don't think there are a bunch of executives over
an American eagle who are like, you know what, I
want to pursue the true good and the beautiful, Like
that's not happening. They just recognize maybe that there is
a cultural shift. But I think a cultural shift is
only significant in so far as we're going further from
you know, personally ungodly things towards godly things, and if
we're pursuing sort of a godless conservative culture that could
just go down its own type of wrong path, Like
if there are two different wrong paths, it could go
down either way. So I would like to see return
in a culture that like values good things, not just
beautiful things. If we're talking about the true good, and
the beautiful good matters as much as the beautiful does.
And there's nothing good about a sexual ad, so even
if there is something beautiful, So it'd be great to
see a cultural shift towards all of those things.
Speaker 3: You think Sidney Sweeney conservatism has the same pitfalls as
barstool conservatism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great point. That's a great point. What
do you think, Abagail?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I'm very hopeful as well. Hopefully this
trend can be used to, you know, be stead fast.
But yeah, the corporation's following the money, and the money
was telling them that the stocks are going down, and
then now we've seen a very spike in that after
these ads were announced, and we've seen some fluctuation. But yeah,
I'm hopeful that whether they're chasing the money or not,
like this will continue to be a reflection and the
customer base will continue.
Speaker 3: To just I guess we like this stuff.
Speaker 4: We like the more American like this is American eagle, like,
very Americana stuff, the vintage in the retro. I think
that's very trendy right now. I think there's some yearning
going on. It's like a term that a lot of
gen Z people are saying, you know, yearning for some
sort of deeper emotional connection. And hopefully this well kind
into just just to show this deeper yearning for more
just tradition and American culture.
Speaker 1: I saw some interesting tweets, and specifically this one that
I just kind of want to close out with here.
This is just this is just a perfect, perfectly epitomizes
this cultural moment. So if you're not watching, if you're
just listening, the tweet says, the same folks who are
outraged over Sidney Sweeney and jeans are the same folks
who want you to believe Dylan mulvaney is sexy and normal.
And on the one side, you have Sidney Sweeney wearing
her American Eagle Canadian tuxedo on on the other side,
you have Dylan mulvaney wearing I don't even know what
to call this a ridiculous, kind of scandalous half shirt
crop thing and a weird.
Speaker 3: Yeah, took an Infinity scarf from like twenty years ago
into a tube top.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It looks like he borrowed the scarf from his
middle aged mom and wrapped it around himself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, looks so like modest in those comparison like crazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, she looks way less sexualized there than she
doesn't in the way that tries to portray it. But yeah,
I just think you know, choose your fighter, right. Dylan
Molbany for budlet or Sidey, Sidney Sweeney for American Eagle
and you y'all made some really good points about the
sexualization of the ad and maybe that's not the good,
but I do think that this is a win for
recognizing what is normal and beautiful. There's nothing wrong with
putting a hot, hot chick on the on the front
of an ad trying to sell some genes. So that
is just classic good advertising, and it's it's really good
to see a win for the normies, shall we say,
if not for the Christians. So thank you all so
much for your insights. Really enjoy talking with you and
I can't wait to have y'all back soon.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Is college even worth it? Anymore. The Watched Out on
Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps
unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how
it affects your wallet. Young male college grads are jobless
at the same rate as non grats. If the conventional
wisdom is that it's easier to get a job, they
lied to you. There. Be smart with your choices. Whether
it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's
affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdat on
Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: All right, let's do a little bit of culture before
we wrap up here. There's really only one thing I
want to talk about, and that is the new Fantastic
four movie, Fantastic four First Steps. It's in theaters right now.
It came out last week. I saw it basically a
week ago because I went on opening night with my husband,
and I've been dying to talk about it. It is,
in a word, fantastic truly. If you haven't seen this movie,
you probably should make a plan to go see it,
or see it the minute that it comes out on
streaming whatever. You're into. It is a wonderful, wonderful film
for so many reasons, and shockingly so because Marvel in
the past. I mean, it ebbs and flows, but overall
not that great, especially if you're not into super hero movies,
which I am typically not. But I thoroughly enjoyed this
film for so many reasons. For starters, the nineteen fifties
futuristic aesthetic really charming, It worked so well. The score
was very fitting with that super triumphant. The characters were
incredibly well developed, and the script was good, good dialogue.
It had a very easy to follow plot, which is
a big deal for me. I get very annoyed at
Marvel movies typically because they tend to be very bad
at this, and maybe they're just they're bad at this
for people who are not really into Marvel movies, but
the fact that you need to have watched everything to
see the next installment. I mean, I had not really
watched any Marvel movies until I met my husband, and
I agreed to watch through them just so that we
would have new movies to see, because the vast majority
of movies nowadays that are in theaters or that people
are talking about are Marvel movies, and so we watched
through them and man, what us There is so much
you need to know, so many characters, so many storylines,
so many details, so much suspending disbelief to understand whatever
dumb sci fi thing is happening. There's just so much background.
And the great part about this movie is that, yes,
it will weave in with the rest of the Marvel universe,
but you can enjoy it in isolation. You don't actually
have to have all of the Marvel know how and
background to enjoy the plot of this movie, and the
plot itself does not have a ton of moving parts
and a ton of like obscure ideas. It's super easy
to follow. So if you're a non non Marvel person
like I am, then this is the Marvel movie for you.
It also had really cute humor. There's this scene at
the very end spoiler but where three men try to
put a car seat, a baby like car seat, into
the car and it takes them so long and they
are really having a hard time, and it's it's so
cute and it's so relatable for anyone who's watched a
man try to handle a baby like that. Just truly darling.
It also just nails the dynamics between friends and spouses
and extended family and colleagues, like each of the different
relationship dynamics are really well done, and so if you
can get past all of Pedro Pascal's off screen antics
with his co stars and such, he's really wonderful in
the role of Mister Fantastic. But all of these great
things aside, the best part of the film by far
easily is its pro life message, and it's not a
side story. It is the entire point of the plot.
Warning if you haven't seen a film yet, you're gonna
hear some spoilers here, so bear with me. In the
very first moments of the film, Sue Storm and read
Richard's the husband and wife astronaut duo that are mister
and Missus Fantastic. They learned that they're having a baby.
She gets a positive pregnancy test, and now they had
been trying for years to conceive they gave up. And
then she finally finds out that she's pregnant, and this
positive pregnancy test could legitimately have been some what have
a cause for concern because who knows what problems this
baby will have. Sue Storm and read Richard's have altered
DNA because on one of their missions to space, they
were affected by cosmic rays that left their DNA altered,
and so that's what gives them their superpowers. But it
also creates a big question mark as to what is
going to happen with their child. Will he be deformed,
will he be a monster? Will he just be a
normal person that doesn't have any superpowers, or will he
surpass them all. There's so many questions, and in any
other piece of modern entertainment, this probably would have immediately
developed into a serious conversation about whether to keep the
baby and the need to keep their options open and
to really really think through whether they could have a
child that would possibly be deformed or troubled or whatever.
There was none of that, none of that at all.
They were excited about the baby, and everyone else around
them is also excited for them. They share in their joy,
and there's just this posture from the very get go
of the movie that all of the main characters are
just gonna love and serve and protect this child. The
men immediately get to work baby proofing the home, with Herbie,
the robot sidekick, helping out there. They start tracking threats.
They're just doing everything they can to be prepared for
this child and to love, serve and protect him. But then,
of course the plot thickens dun dun da. As Sue's
pregnancy progresses, This other worldly herald called Silver Surfer comes
to Earth to tell them that their planet is marked
for destruction by Galactus. And Galactus is this giant, otherworldly
godlike being that basically exists by consuming full planets. He
has the sensatiable appetite and he consumes these planets, and
so Earth is going to be the next planet that
he's going to consume. So long story short read Richard's
tracks Galactus and the Fantastic Four with Herbie travel to
Galactus's planet to negotiate with him there before he can
descend on the Earth to destroy it, and the Fantastic
Four are captured and they have a conversation with Galactus
and he agrees not to destroy their planet in exchange
for Sue and reads on born child. And in response
to this, Sue and Reid refuse, so they barely escape
with the rest of the crew, and Sue ends up
giving birth to Franklin, their baby boy in the spaceship
on the flight home. When they return to Earth, of course,
their fellow New Yorkers are surprised and excited to see
that Sue now is holding a baby outside of her body.
She's no longer pregnant, and the Fantastic Four have become
the Fantastic Five because Sue has given birth. So they're
all excited, that is until they learn about Galactus's terms,
and then they turn on Read and Sue and condemn
them for not trading their son's life to save everyone
else and all of their children. So Reid comes up
with the plan to save Earth, and the plan is
to use this technology he's been working on to teleport
Earth far away from Galactys. That plan is foiled by
Silver Surfer, and so Reid instead decides that he's going
to lure Galactus to Earth and then just teleport him
to a distant galaxy instead. Now unfortunately, when Galactus gets
to Earth, he outsmarts the team and he captures Franklin
and so Sue, in a final last ditch effort to
save her baby, concentrates all of her power into a
force field to save her son, which unfortunately takes her
own life. That is until Franklin touches her, and his
as yet unknown power brings Sue back to life, which
I think is a really beautiful metaphor for how children do,
in many ways give life to adults by giving them
a higher calling of sacrifice, causing them to mature and
just basically become new people and infusing their lives with
new meaning. So, in case it wasn't obvious from my
rundown of the plot, the sanctity of life permeates every
aspect of the film. Like I said, Read and Sue
immediately resolved that they're going to protect their unborn child,
despite not knowing what problems he may or may not have.
Not only that, but several times throughout the film, several
different characters refer to Read and Sue's unborn son, not
as a fetus or a potential person or any other
us for a human life, but as a child. They
call him a child, which inherently recognizes his humanity. In fact,
there's this scene where Reed is giving Sue an ultrasound,
and because she has this invisibility power she shows through
her abdomen, she makes her abdomen invisible, showing Reid and
the entire audience her fully formed son in all of
his humanity while he's still in utero. I think the
film Unintentionally also does a really great job at fighting
back against the abortion argument that abortion is okay as
long as it's necessary to save the life of the mother, which,
of course, anyone who is pro life will tell you
that abortion is never necessary to save the life of
the mother, because when we talk about abortion, we're talking
about elective abortion. We're talking about the intentional taking of
human life. Whereas sometimes if a mother and a baby's
life are in conflict, the mother will get treatment to
save her own life and a baby will unintentionally lose
his or her life in the process. That is not
what we're talking about when we're talking about elective abortion.
We are talking about intentionally taking an unborn child's life.
But there's this life of the mother argument that just
comes up all of the time among pro abortion advocates. Well,
in the film, there's the moment when Galactus captures Franklin
and Sue knows that she is expending all of her
power to save her child, or not even to save
her child, but just a chance at saving her child.
She has no idea if she might lose her life,
and her child is still captured, but she is doing
everything she has at this potential that she can save
her baby's life, and it kills her, and she has
no idea that her son can revive her. And I
just think it's a beautiful, beautiful, like retort to this
idea that a mother's life is inherently more valuable than
the life of her not yet sentient child. So those
were each different moments in the film, but throughout the
entire movie, it's very clear that the Fantastic Four are
not just motivated to save the planet, but more fundamentally,
they're all motivated by a desire to save the child.
Every choice they make is about protecting him and caring
for him and saving his life. There's this other, really
subtle conservative messaging that's amazing. JD. Vance a few months ago,
if you'll recall, he was talking in an interview about immigration,
and he articulated that there's this Christian concept called the
Ordo amoris or the order of loves, where a Christian
has different orders of responsibility toward the people around him.
So his responsibility and his loyalty are first and foremost
owed to God, and then they're owed to his immediate family,
and then to his extended family, and then to his
church community, and then to his community at large, and
then to his state and blah blah blah, and so
it just goes out and out and out, and that
you cannot do everything for everybody, and so there's this
order of loves to a sort of a hierarchy, a
prioritization to how we love and care for the people
around us. Jadvance got into some hot water over this.
The Left blasted him. Conservaive were like, yeah, he's right,
but the Left blasted him, And I just love that.
In Fantastic Four, Galactus presents the Fantastic Four with the
trolley problem. They say, you know, you can save everybody's
life over here if you just take this track and
give me your son. And instead of indulging this philosophical game,
the Fantastic Four respond in actions, if not in words,
with the Ordo Amorris and I just love that. Jdvans
got blasted by this just months ago, and now a
major Hollywood blockbuster is accidentally promoting it. So long story short,
Fantastic four First Steps is the most pro life Hollywood
blockbuster in a very long time, maybe ever, if you remember,
Dune Part two was known for being pretty pro life,
and this just blows it out of the water. So
that's really saying something. I am sure that the Marvel
creators did not set out to make a powerful case
for the sanctity of life, but that is just what
happens when you make good art. Good art reflects reality,
and the reality is that life is valuable. Unborn life still,
human life, still immensely valuable, and we have a duty
to protect it. So the movie is unmistakably conservative, not
because it tries to be. It's not in your face,
but because it shows what is good and true and
beautiful for exactly how good and true and beautiful it
truly is. I have a piece about this on the
Federalist website, so if you haven't seen it yet, definitely
go check it out. And if you haven't seen a
movie yet, make a plan to go see Fantastic four.
First Steps. All right, that's gonna do it for me today.
Thank you so much for tuning into the Kylie Cast.
I will be right back here next week with more.
Until then, remember the truth hurts, but it won't kill yet.