Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist,
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. If
you'd like to email the show, please do so at
radio at the Federalist dot com. We'd love to hear
from you. Molly. Before we came on, you were just
being very pushy about Poland and wanted to speak about Poland.
It's not one of my favorite topics, but go, let's
hear it.
Speaker 2: Well, No, we're recording this on the day when the
new president of Poland will be meeting with Donald Trump.
And I just I think we talked about our visit
to Poland in May, and it was a country I
had been mildly interested in, just as one of the
many post communist countries, and I had had a long
time ago some interest in studying the economies of post
Soviet countries and how they engaged in their adaptation to
a market based economy. And Poland is doing very well.
It's very hot economically. It's like the twentieth biggest economy
in the world and has had a lot of growth.
They have a very strong skilled workforce, they have a
lot of different products that they sell internally and also
on the global stage. And it's also been interesting politically.
They are a country that has had much less immigration
than their European neighbors, particularly much less immigration from countries
that don't share their same values. So there is right now,
because they share a border with Ukraine, there's a ton
of Ukrainian immigration as they just try to help refugees
from that war torn country, but not a ton from
Africa or the Middle East. And they also have in
this new president a really interesting figure. He openly campaigned
against rampant mass immigration. He also highlighted that the government
party that he was in opposition to had been Russia
collusion hoaxers. Anne Applebaum, who's with the Atlantic and a
bunch of different outfits. Her husband is the deputy Prime
Minister and like a foreign minister, and she's a full blown,
full blowsies Russia collusion hoaxer. And so this new president
who was just elected in May, and by the way,
he was elected under very difficult circumstances. They basically the regime,
the powerful forces really did not want him to win.
They did all the things that you saw in the
United states with like law fair against people in his
political party, and he just eked out a win and
he's meeting with Trump today and he's not meeting alongside
those Rodek, Sikorski and Apple bomb type So I just
think it's interesting and it's a country that people should
pay much more attention to because it is thriving in
a Europe that has been a little bit. You know,
we're all looking at Europe, going, are you guys okay?
And Poland at least seems to be doing okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, certainly no expert, but I did read recently it
joined the trillion dollar GDP GDP club, which makes it
one of the richest countries in the world. Like you said,
Top twenty, it's adopted a lot of free market ideas.
Other states have done that, like Stony and Latvia have
done very well. Much smaller countries and countries that have not,
like Hungary, which was socialistic for a long time and
now has kind of a top down status kind of economy,
are struggling. So I just sometimes I think about countries
like the turn it around, like Argentina, let's say, or
even Ireland, which was once the POORESTKA Even though I
have a lot of problems with Ireland was once the
poorest country in Europe and now one of the richest ones.
It adopted a bunch of free market ideas, and why
people keep rejecting those ideas when it comes to growth
is confused. You know, I'm confused by it. But we'll see. Yeah,
that's a great story in the immigration angle. Obviously, that
is a big anchor for a lot of these European
nations where they're just have an unassimilated rather large population
that is undermining not just all kinds of freedoms. As
you know, we'll probably talk about that later in the
episode as well. Quickly wanted to turn to a topic
that is depressing, but we were on last week, and
while we were on, we didn't get to talk about it.
Newsbroke of another shooting in Minnesota, this time a transgendered shooter.
I will never mention the name of these shooters, and
I wish that the media didn't because a lot of
the times, of course, they thrive or act because they
think they'll be famous post shooting. I don't really know
a way around the reporting, but anyway, shot through a
window killed two young children.
Speaker 3: What's the and many many seriously.
Speaker 1: Yeah, seventeen people were hurt seriously, So it was an
ugly event. I want to just talk about the coverage
of the event, which I think points to a cultural shift,
I guess, and how people because of social media, frankly
with how people view this. But I'll just read the
New York Times headline, Minneapolis suspect knew her target, but
motive is a mystery. Now. I mentioned this in a calumn.
I wrote, but you know, we overuse the word orwellian.
But man, I don't know a better way to describe
that headline. I guess I had to ask you, Like,
there's obviously a lot of the media coverage mentions she
even though it was a he, and some didn't. Some
just called the shooter a he without mentioning that he
had uh, you know, preferred pronouns of she. It's like
some of the some of the coverage was like, we're
going to continue on this road and pretend that this
is a normal thing, and others are like, we get
to decide who's transgendered and who who's not, and if
they do something evil, then we get to pretend that
it didn't happen. Do you know what I mean, so
it was like all kinds of coverage that is weird,
and then it says that the motive is a mystery.
This person's gun had all kinds of scribblings on it.
One of them is like six millions not enough, you know,
kill Donald Trump. The person shot at Catholic school children
who were in mass I think that the ass anti
Western bent of this person and the kind of like
trendy ugly anti religion, anti West, anti freedoms, you know,
anti Semitic stuff is pretty clear where that's coming from.
It's on the edges of the left. Some of that
goes on on the right, but not to kill Donald
Trump part right. I mean, it was pretty obvious to
me anyway. What what'd you make of the coverage? I
just thought it was so misleading.
Speaker 2: Oh there's I mean, it's criminal how bad corporate media
coverage is of this stuff. One of the things that
was interesting about this man who killed all these kids
and shot all these kids is that he had a
track record, like a legal track record, of expressing a
desire to be referred to as a woman. His mom
signed off on a name change request on those grounds
when he was underage, but he also had on his
social media channels expressed a belief that he understood now
that he was not a woman, but that he felt
kind of trapped that it would be a failure to
admit that he is a man and that he also
feels weird as a man. So I think that's partly
why you saw some of the coverage referring because most
corporate media will use false pronouns and will lie in
defensive trans radicals. They will do that. They refer to
men who say that they feel like they are women,
they will refer to those men as women, and they
will use false pronouns like she and her and all
that to describe those people. But when they didn't do it,
I think partly that was because the absurdity of that
trans radical activism was particularly on display here, because he
had already said he felt like trans radicalism was had
brainwashed him and that it was not good. You mentioned
that he said kill Trump on the gun, and I
will also note that the media sometimes would say that
he had written the name Trump on his gun, which.
Speaker 1: Is ABC said that Trump was mentioned on the gun
without the context of killing Trump.
Speaker 2: Michael Malice says something like the media are factual but
not truthful. And that would be a great example. It
does say Trump on the gun, and yet you're still
lying when you report the news that way. And then also,
I am just sick, sickened beyond belief by how if Okay,
so there are these you know, mentally unwell people who
are killing children, and if that person has any identity
that can be pinned on the mainstream right, the media
will wait approximately zero point two seconds before doing so
and demanding that every single elected official on the right
renounce the cause of this person. And here we have
a series you know, trans people. Though it's a social contagion,
so it's growing among young people. They're really small percentage
of the population relative to the amount of violence they're committing. Right,
And if, like a white supremacist shoots up a black church,
people will immediately say to people who aren't white supremacists, like,
you need to renounce this ideology. But when a trans
radical in the name of trans radicalism, you know, when
a bunch of these people are killing children, nobody says.
Nobody asks a tough question of Democrats who support trans radicalism.
Speaker 1: Right, No, it's one hundred percent right. If there is
even a tenuous connection to any thing that even resembles
any kind of right wing you know, political rhetoric or whatever.
Immediately we taught we have to talk about Republicans and
they are you know, the way that they are inspiring
violence and so on, and if it's anything left wing,
we immediately have to talk about how Republicans aren't letting
gun control go through and fix this problem. It's funny
that you mention, so I don't know if the transgender
drugs or the process or whatever is. You know, I
don't know how big a part of that is with
these shootings. And maybe it's it is, maybe it's not.
I'm not you know, I don't know. But the funny
thing is when I do mention that it's something that
at least we should explore that perhaps these people, because
of their ideology or the drugs they're taking, or being
led to this kind of thing. I'm told that most
shooters are white men, as if white men being white
and a man is an affliction, not just the kind
of genetic thing that happens to you by chance. Right.
So I hate it's such an identitarian way to look
at the world. One of these things as an idiot
comes with an ideology, comes with the sort of mind
warping drugs in a way and reality warp being process
where the other ones just white. I had nothing to
do with a lot of other white men. We don't
share a philosophy or you know, or anything. So anyway,
it's just incredible the way that they kind of warp reality.
But the biggest myth that happens with the with the media,
I still is that whenever they talk about this stuff,
they make it sound like Republicans are the standing in
the way of stopping this problem, when there is none, no, no,
nothing that Democrats have come up with would have stopped
this shooter other than banning guns outright and going house
to house and collecting them all, which is not going
to happen. Gun free zones are batting zero, you know,
point zero zero, never stop anyone. Universal background checks. Most
of these shooters, like this person did not commit crimes,
so they can pass, you know, a background check, which
happens even if you band assault weapons not a real thing.
Over eighty percent of these shooters use handguns. It's just
an aesthetic choice that they use. The ars and so on.
I mean, I watched a lot of this coverage, and
they did not bring on a single person who's like,
what would because the mayor of Minneapolis is like, we
have to you know, we need universal background checks, but
this person bought their guns legally, So what do you
do then? Obviously, I think it's a cultural problem and
we have to start thinking about young people who are
acting in certain ways and try to intervene as a community.
You know, these kids don't go to church anymore, the
schools don't care, on and on. You know, there's a
lot of other reasons I don't parents.
Speaker 2: So can I say another thing that bothered me about
the coverage.
Speaker 1: Or the respond thank you for letting me rant?
Speaker 2: No, I mean, obviously an agreement there. One of the
really weird things was the return of something that was
very popular in twenty fourteen twenty fifteen on the left,
which was to mock.
Speaker 3: Christians for praying during times of evil and tragedy.
Speaker 2: So, as a Christian who prays, it is so weird
to see the just open disdain for one of the
most important practices of the Christian life. And it was
coming from really prominent people, you know, Gavin Newsom was
saying like it actually was shocking to me what he said,
because I usually think he's much smarter about how he
engages in the public square. So he, I think, retweeted
someone saying that they're praying for the victims of this shooting,
and he said, the children who were shot were praying
when they were shot. And so for a Christian, in fact,
the idea of being in prayer, in worship at the
time of like if you're going to be murdered, we
would say that would be the ideal place if you
if you had to go through that in that action.
I know that doesn't even make sense to talk that way,
but for us, like saying they were praying when they
were murdered is like.
Speaker 1: Yes, my wife, my wife said straight to Heaven for them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well she's Roman Catholic. So does that mean that
they get to skip the I? And so when he says,
in other words, their prayers meant nothing, it's very weird
to see a prominent American politician say that, because for us,
their prayers mean, as your wife said, like, it means everything.
It's this highest act of a Christian is to be
in prayer. And I don't know, it's just shocking to
see so many people openly mocking the acts of Christians
at the time when they are the victims of an
ideology that Gavin Newsom shares. Like the closeness between all
of that, Gavin Newsom is a trans radical, the shooter
was a trans radical. He's mocking prayer. The shooter was
mocking prayer. Like they're all, it's just weird to see.
And then also the media are like, nothing to see here. Well,
they did a Republican being like, I don't know, somehow
aligning themselves with the views of a mass shooter at
the time of a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: They're so invested in this idea that that is untrue
that Republicans send thoughts and prayers as a solution. I
guess people listen, I don't pray, but I guess people
aren't religious, don't understand the power of prayer or dismiss
it right, But I think, aside from the theological parts
of it, it's probably a very comforting thing to pray
when you are experiencing a tragedy. On a personal level,
I have I always ask them name me the person
who said that thoughts and prayers or a solution to
a mass shooting. I mean they can't provide me that person,
so in the end they just are mocking prayer. I
find it, I really, I find it demented, really I do.
And to essentially be mocking the children and the parents
of those children who were just murdered in a church
by some religion hating you know, nutcase who in essence
was searching for his own kind of religion in it,
and the emptiness that you know, he realized at the
end it was just an empty promise of transgenderism and
all that. So I don't know, it's just the debate always.
Every time there's a shooting, the debate is the same.
Chris Murphy, like a leading gun control guy, you know,
one said that called, you know, the mental health concerns
bs right, like he doesn't want to talk about that.
It's not even like they will are willing to talk
about how important it is for a cultural change and
how we deal with young people who do this. For him,
it's all about the guns. There are hundreds of millions
of guns in this country. People are going to get
their hands on weapons. Just in Europe, there's knife attacks
all the time. It happens. So I don't think anyone, well,
not anyone. I don't think they want to solve this
problem at all, and nothing happened.
Speaker 2: David, I feel like you're probably the wrong person to
talk to about this, but I'm just going to say
it anyway, which is I also found it interesting that
the shooter described himself as demonically possessed, drew pictures of
himself like looking in the mirror and Satan looking back.
You know, he was very open about his view that
he was demonically you know, that he was possessed, and
then he goes and shoots up a bunch of Christian
children while they are praying, and you look at I
think sometimes we look at these periods of time where
people would ascribe to evil principalities or like good forces.
You know, we'd say, oh, they didn't understand how the
world worked at that time, so they would say that
someone was a witch when really, you know, they just
had this mental health problem or something. And I think
we have so clearly gone to this other extreme of
just refusing to acknowledge evil, and throughout human history wise
people have understood that evil exists, and in fact, our
whole system of government is based on this idea that
human impulses are bad and need to be restrained. And
you know, like our constitution is even based somewhat on
this idea, and people who understand that all of that
things you could do, like ban every gun, or ban
freedom of speech, or have complete surveillance or pre crime,
like whatever you could do, will not actually solve the
problem of evil, because that is beyond human ability. And
then we get back to the efficacy of prayer, of
understanding that there is something non materialist in play here. So,
like I said, you're probably not the right person as an.
Speaker 1: I would just I would just I would just say
I think last week you actually mentioned I thought it
was a good point. I'm starting about serial killers, and
you're like, well, we don't have them anymore, but we
have mass shooters. I think that evils always with us,
however you want to describe it. In fact, I think
that we are so horrified by these sorts of events
now that perhaps were more moral than people used to
be in a sense, like we're more shocked by it
because there were far more murders when we were born,
you and I were born in the United States, there
were far more. Even if you think about mass shooting
as for people being shot like murder rates were higher
in the in the medieval times or going back, there
were wars that you know, there were genocides all the time,
they were murders all the time. It was you know
place was the world was a much more violent place
than today in many ways. And evil is always around.
I don't know, you're never going to stop it, but
you can. You can do things to try to mitigate
the problem, right, I mean, make Gunfrey's zone strip parishioners
and teachers of the ability to defend themselves for instance,
Like why do we do that we have a Second
Amendment if you can't defend children in a school or
parishioners and children in a church school. And what's the
purpose of the Second Amendment? Really? I mean, how good?
How functional is it? Things like that. And I'm not
saying that's there's no panacea for this sort of thing,
but there are things we can do. I don't know.
I don't know why people are evil, but I know
that there've always been evil people, right, and and I
feel like if we stop school shootings, they would filtrate
into some other way to kill people. I don't know,
you know, I don't have answers for that, but I
do think mocking people who finds who are praying to
God when something terrible happens to them is I don't
even know. It's evil itself in a way. Right, And
whether you believe or not, I just you know, and
most listeners know that I am not a believer, But
this antagonism towards faith and the ideas of faith and
people who practice faith who are usually better people than
those who don't. I'm sorry, I believe that or you
know that. To me, it's like an attack on Western
culture in a way that this person who's the shooter
adopted to a radical extreme, but it's from the same
strain of idea, right. I'm just thinking this through as
I talk.
Speaker 2: This is Molly Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, etc. Every day you get in depth
interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive, thought
provoking questions on all of the important news and issues
of our day. The expert guests are in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology,
and apologetics. Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues,
et cetera.
Speaker 1: But since we're on I guess the transgendered issue, which
is such a it's such a it is a contagion, right,
but it is not like an over it's still a
small minority of people, and it's somehow become this foundational
idea within the progressive left. It's such a weird, destructive thing.
Like so anyway, there's this comedian, this Irish comedian named
Graham Graham Linhan, who I think is super talented because
he is the creator of the show It Crowd, which
I think is.
Speaker 2: One of the love of the it crowd, don't it?
I lie, I lie, I lie, and then I lie.
Speaker 3: He sorry.
Speaker 2: That's one of my favorite lines from that.
Speaker 1: Have you ever watched Black Books? It's another show he did.
It was only on like two seasons, very funny. It's
about an owner of a bookstore who hates his customers.
And then he did another show I did not watch
called Father Ted, which was an earlier show in the nineties.
Never watched it. I don't know if you have. But
he is a funny guy. He's Irish, That's important for
our story. When he was recently in the United States,
I think Arizona, he tweeted out a couple of anti
trans tweets. I wudn't even call it anti trans tweets.
I'd call it reality jokes about reality. When he returned
to England, five police officers were waiting for him at
the airport, arrested him, took his bags, look through them,
and he spent hours detained because he had made jokes
on Twitter. Now it's important to say he's Irish. He
made the jokes in the United States and in Britain
they arrested him for it. He points out that in
Father Ted he makes jokes about the Catholic Church and
he's thankful that they didn't have a special police relationship
in the UK, where he would have been arrested. I listen.
I wrote a book called Eurotrash's a whole chapter about
free speech dying in Europe. I've saw some people from
Britain mention that this happened because Elon Musk bought Twitter,
and now people can say the most horrible things to many,
many people and it just simply can't be allowed. But
in that book I document that this is not a
new thing. That iman in twenty eighteen you had the
British authorities looking into people who were tweeting things they
didn't like. Indeed, people in London who were preaching the
Bible in parks were arrested because they were allegedly engaged
in hateful speech. This is not new. It is heartbreaking
because Europe is falling, but Europe is falling in Britain
is especially heartbreaking because they essentially are the invented free speech.
They essentially invented our rights, in my view at least.
I mean, I think Britain is where we get our ideas.
We perfected them I think in the Constitution. But they
certainly come from there for the most part, not just
the English, but the Scottish as well. Of course, I
mean that's the birthplace of the you know, the Enlightenment,
you know, happened there large part.
Speaker 2: So anyway, so what speech rights do they have, if any?
Speaker 1: In Britain. There is a kind of First Amendment actually,
now that they're out of the EU. The EU has
a First Amendment with a lot of addendums for things
that you can say. But Britain, you know, I don't
exactly remember, I think they have something approximating of First Amendment.
But as Scalia pointed out, those things are irrelevant when
the people don't actually care about them, and they do not.
I don't know, what did you see the story? What
was your reaction?
Speaker 2: So I think it's first off, you know, important to
look at what he actually said, because it's important to
know how speech rights can be abridged. So they didn't
say that they were coming after him for speaking things
that they didn't like. What they said is that he
had incited violence against a protected group. And so he's
making all sorts of jokes related to like in the
the context is kind of key. So he they say,
recommended that people beat up trans people, okay, sort of
but sort of as a way of pointing out that
trans people aren't the identity that they claimed to be.
So he said something like, if you're a woman, link
threatened in a bathroom because there are men in there,
Like a trans woman is in there, just kick that
trans woman in the cojones to be safe. So, like,
the joke is about the colonies, the woman having a
sensitive external genitalia, which a woman doesn't have, and that's
how they go after everybody. I actually was just meeting
today with a social media, big tech type group and
they were claiming that they practice free speech and I scoffed,
and you know, just kind of explored the contours of
what they think free speeches. And one of the things
they were saying is that you are allowed. You won't
have your content removed by this big tech company if
you dead name someone, so long as the dead naming
was accidental. It was an example of the free speech
they accepted. The propaganda term dead naming, which is the
using a previous legal name for someone who has changed
their legal name. Yeah, as long as it was accidental.
If you were doing it to hurt that individual or
falsely assert that they are not the sex they falsely
claim to be, well then we'll remove your content. And
it's all in this inciting violence claim made by the
censorship industrial complex that has real significant legal consequences in
Great Britain, but also in a number of other contexts
as well.
Speaker 1: So, just to go back a little bit, I looked
it up. I thought this was true. But Article ten
of the Conventions of Human Rights, that's an EU constitution,
essentially protects free speech, and the British took that and
made it part of its own law. The funny thing
about it is that it is paragraphs along so the
first paragraph says everyone has the right to enjoy freedom
of expression, and then it goes on and on giving
you reasons why perhaps you.
Speaker 3: Cannot why that might not be true if.
Speaker 1: You cause anything to do with national security, territorial disorder, crime.
It just creates a false sense that there is a
kind of protection for speech.
Speaker 2: I just want to say one other thing about the
social contagion aspect and how much power trans radicalists have
over our society given what a small percentage of the
population they are. You know, trans radicalism requires lying, So
the power is partly just because for them to exist,
you all have to agree to lie about what a
woman is or what biological reality is. But in many
ways it goes back to the BLM color Revolution that
took place not just in the United States but globally.
I remember the moment the BLM riots. So BLM started
based on like false stories out of Ferguson, Missouri in
twenty fourteen, I think, or maybe even earlier twenty thirteen,
don't really remember, and I'm sorry, but the movement really
gets going after the George Floyd killing and the day
that BLM became like a big story. I went to
their website and looked at what the issues were that
they cared about, because I wrote a note to my
neighborhood lisser about it, because they were encouraging everybody to
show solidarity with the BLM movement. And though the name
of the movement was Black Lives Matter, that was just one, frankly,
not very big part about it. It was very much
focused on trans issues and support for Palestinian activists, and
I noted that, and also just instruction of the family unit.
The Claremont Institute has a very helpful database that I
encourage people to look at. It shows how corporations were
extorted to transfer one hundred billion dollars of wealth into
BLM associated causes, which, as we just discussed, is not
just the DEI racial equity radicalism, but also support for hamas,
trans issues, destruction of the family unit, all that kind
of stuff. And every time, you know, there are all
these corporations that were engaged in the widespread suppression of
speech of conservatives over the last half decade or so,
and now they're a little bit scared because the regulatory
environment is slightly different with Donald Trump being the president
and being so hostile to censorship of American speech and debate,
and so they'll meet with you. And the first thing
I do is just look how much money did this
company transfer to the Democrat Party's causes and so, you know,
in the case of one that I met with today,
it was one hundred million dollars and a lot of
dough And it's a lot of subsidizing of trans radicalism.
And when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
And with every corporation wanting to do that, you know,
it has very serious consequences. They're cutting off the healthy
body parts of children, They're encouraging some violent ideologies that
lead to dead kids, and so it's not nothing. You know,
I think we should take it very seriously what these
corporations have done in their effort to frankly, you know,
destroy a lot of the values that make this country great.
Speaker 1: Now. I just don't think that people would care very
much about this issue at all if one it weren't
for a couple of things that's particular. One is the
mutilation of children and the indoctrination of this. What I
would say is, like you say, a lie, anti science,
anti morality, anti anti decency, and taking confused children and
mutilating them for the rest of their lives. And the
second is encroaching on institutions that and spaces that women
have in the world, like women's sports, high school sports,
even younger professional sports. I thought it was interesting that
Malcolm Gladwell, who's were in a bunch of best selling books,
was on a show about I think it was about
sports science or sports analytics and said that he had
been ashamed of his performance on a panel from a
couple of years back twenty twenty two, where he had
said that he believed transgendered athletes had a place in
women's sports. He says, now, if you recreated that panel
he was on, believes most of the people would say
that that was not true, that they had been cowed
into saying that I like this. I was, I believe
in retrospect in a dishonest way, being objective. I was
being objective in a dishonest way. Don't exactly know what
that entails. But this is not a person leading the charge.
This as a person in the back end and the
rear guard. Right. So I think that's good for society.
I think people say this is a tipping point because
this is a new Yorker writer actual. I'm not sure
if he's there anymore, but was for a long time
very best selling author. Do you think things have changed.
Do you think it's temporary because Donald Trump's president, or
if people come to their senses, or do people just
travel in a mob and now they see that the
mob doesn't have the power anymore, that they can be
honest about it.
Speaker 2: I was talking to Kennedy at Fox about this the
other day, and I think it's that Twitter was bought
by Elon Musk. So when you think back to the
ship industrial complex, I mean, the reason why people were
lying and saying that they believed men could become women
or vice versa was, in fact because it was an
in terms of a speech sense, an existential threat to
you having a voice in the public square. Our own
John Davidson learned this because I think he tweeted out
a Babylon Bee story or something, or maybe he had
his own maybe just had a comment about that man
who was a public health official for Biden, Rachel Levine
I think was his name. He just accurately noted that
that was a man, not a woman, and so Twitter
said that in order for him to continue to use
their social media platform, he had to delete his tweet
he had a lie basically and falsely alleged that this
person was a woman because he claimed to be a woman.
John refused, and so he lost his access to social
media for well over a year. And when Elon bought Twitter,
among the changes he made was that you could speak
truthfully about the trans issue. So every other social media company,
including the one I spoke to today, still requires you
to lie, but because Twitter doesn't, or you know, in
some way maybe they've eased up a little bit on
the force of lying, but not completely. And Elon enabled
you to speak truthfully. And I think that was huge
because it does require, like for trans radicalism to work,
it requires censorship and suppression at an almost complete level.
But those of us who spoke out I think also
made a difference, meaning well, I don't I don't know
how much I should can or should say, but you know,
it takes courage to not do this, and you have
to be willing to lose jobs or face other serious repercussions.
And so those of us who did that I think
helped also.
Speaker 1: Well, Like I have to say, just thinking back, my
policy was like initially when this first became an issue,
is that I would not concede that men could be
women ever, but that I wouldn't go out of my
way to kind of try to, like, you know, to
be honest with you. I feel like it's a mild
form of mental illness, right, like you know, That's what
I viewed it as, and that's what I view it now,
and typically innocuous, right so when you're growing When I
was growing up, there'd be drag shows or whatever, and
they were like kitchy, they weren't like serious. But I
think when people started with the pseudoscience and inflicting us
with their quackery, I think then it was important to
start saying, hey, we can't you know, I can't be
nice about this anymore. I don't want to make people
feel like, you know, I don't want people to be
targeted or hurt just because they are experiencing a mild
mental illness. But when you try to make that the
norm and inflict and invade schools and put you know,
girls in awkward positions or in dangerous positions, sometimes then
we can no longer be nice about the issues. So
I can understand why people initially you aren't you know,
years ago, weren't thinking about this. They thought it was
just a rare thing that would never happen to them
before the contagion. Because when you look at the graphs
now over the past few years, you know, it's just
taken off. It's a different story there is.
Speaker 2: I also just kind of hate how we've lumped all
things gender bending into trans radicalism, meaning there is a
difference between drag and even cross dressing. I think, like
drag as an art form versus cross dressing as a fetish.
There's a difference between autogiinophilia and legit gender confusion. I
think auto gynophilia has not received the kind of critical
analysis that it should have received. And there are a
lot of prominent men in DC who have this disorder,
which is different than you know, a kid being like
I don't feel like a girl. I want to do
more boy stuff. You know, there's like a there's a
whole range of behaviors and mental postures here and we
lump it all into one and it's a little unfair
for sure.
Speaker 1: And I think there are many gay men who like
drag or whatever that don't think that way either. From
what I've seen. I don't like to get too deep
into this topic because much expertise, but I will say
that there is.
Speaker 2: And I just you had the funniest, albeit wrong view
on whether to use false pronouns for someone. Do you
remember this, No Oh, you said that if a man
had you get seing like more than three, if you.
Speaker 1: Could fool me, if you could fool me, then I'll
go with it.
Speaker 3: Then you'll use the false You got to put.
Speaker 1: The effort in. That was my It's my.
Speaker 3: Anyway, things get serious.
Speaker 1: Sometimes, and yeah, you know, and it changes the calculus
and how we talk about things. I mean, this happens
with other issues as well. I wish I could have
forced like listen, I mean, I think that normal people
try in this country more than they're given credit for
to make space for people who are who they view
as weird, right, Like, you know, it's not I think
that it actually is a good thing about our culture.
We have a lot of people who aren't. You know,
there's all kinds of people in this country. And I'm
not talking about colors and creeds. I'm just talking about
things that they do and things that interest them and
the fetishes they have or so on. And I just
think that we are letting, let let live and let
live in many ways, but there becomes a point where
you're you're now not letting other people live the lives
they want, and that is that is a big problem,
especially when it comes to children. From my view, the
things that are done to confuse children is just completely evil.
I think that store to use there, that's the appropriate word,
and it needs to be stopped. Oh, can I just
one state intervention and cultural intervention.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one final thing on the Malcolm Gladwell thing. I'm
genuinely glad that he has admitted his error and that
he was bullied into saying false things through cowardice. Like
that's actually good for him to acknowledge, and it's good
the other people who have gone before him to do this.
You know, I have more respect for a Megan Kelly
who did it when it was still pretty pretty hot
topic than for a Malcolm Gladwell, who's like now at
the very end of you have to be pretty deranged
to be still committed to trans radicalism, and so now
he's joining. You know, there's like a variation there. But
I also think that people should note, they should notice
who was bullied and who was not, And when there's
a pattern of being bullied, it should affect whether you
trust these people or not. And just by way of example,
you know, I noticed that in the Year of Our
Lord twenty twenty five, the free press still uses false
pronouns for people. And yes, you are censored if you
speak truthfully, but if you don't have the courage to
speak truthfully about biological reality, you probably don't have the
courage to speak truthfully about anything, right, So you have
to think through your own habits of who you pay
attention to and who you listen to. You know, the
Dispatch made a very big show of hiring a middling
economist who he's a man, who says he's a woman,
and they were like, we support this man, and of
course they said, we support this woman, you know, and
so like, maybe just pay attention to whether the Dispatch
is tru I mean, not like you need that to
know that they have trouble, but just they lack courage,
and people who lack courage or not people that you
normally should pay a lot of attention to.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about the middling economist part of
that claim. I think the person's talented, but I get
what you're saying.
Speaker 2: He's fine.
Speaker 4: Are more people learning how to game the system?
Speaker 5: The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how.
Speaker 1: It affects your wilet.
Speaker 4: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal one point one million
Americans have become disabled in the last three months, over
two hundred thousand alone in July. Is America really as
disabled as the data shows?
Speaker 5: Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Let's do culture enough with that other stuff. How to
go this week for you? Culture wise?
Speaker 2: Well, I've been busy once again and traveling a lot,
so I have basically nothing to report. I was supposed
to go see Spoon and the Pixies at Red Rocks
last night, but it was something I dreamed of because
my husband's never been to Red Rocks and I just
think it's one of the most wonderful concert venues in
the world, and he loves of course, Spoon and the Pixies.
But then we couldn't make it because if we had
too much stuff with beginning of school year for the kids.
Speaker 3: So that's what I.
Speaker 1: Didn't thank you for letting us know what you didn't do.
Speaker 2: He did go to a concert at wolf Trap that
what is it Tadashi Trucks. You know that band Susan
Tadashi and her husband something Trucks. He is a very
good slide guitarist.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I didn't go to that, so I can't really
talk about that, And so my only cultural thing that
I can talk about is that I am, for some
reason watching a very bad Netflix show called Untamed.
Speaker 1: Oh I watched a couple episodes. That's in the Yellowstone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, it's in Yosemite, Yosemite.
Speaker 2: Sorry, And I grew up near Yosemite and did a
lot of camping in Yosemite and in fact also had
so the premise is about like rampant crime in Yosemite
and Federal Park Ranger Investigative Unit is looking into stuff.
And I had a really good friend growing up, or
my family did, who was a woman who's a park ranger.
But was I think actually that or like FBI, but
was deployed as a park ranger and she was great,
it should be good. It's an excellent cast. I mean
the do you know who's in it? I'm very bad.
Speaker 1: I do Eric Bana, right, And who's the other guy's name?
He's also but anyway, the two stars are both Oh
Sam Neils. I'm always like, why can't they find Americans
to do these very American shows? But I mean, I'm
fine with it. But as long as they ask, they're
very good.
Speaker 2: And the lady cop is particularly weak.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to say I have a high
tolerance for inane television shows, and I could not last
more than an episode and a half. I was like,
where is this going? Yosemite? I was there when I
was younger. I thought was one of the most beautiful
places I'd ever been. I mean, just gorgeous. I don't
even really think they give us a good enough taste
of the place on the show. They're always kind of
on a cliff that probably doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: Well, Mark said, it's all taped in Canada, and I mean,
if Yosemite is a major part of it, they will
do these distant shots of El Capitan or Half Dome
or other well known Yosemite sites, but the actual filming
is not even in the good old United States of America.
Speaker 1: They do a lot of the shows in Canada. Toronto's
always a stand in for New York. I think Vancouver
quite often is the place they do it. Probably we're Atlanta, right,
It's in Georgia, the other big place they do these shows. Yeah,
I did not enjoy that show, even though I think
I like Eric Bana or however you pronounced that Sam
Neil is always good? What I'm looking for my list? Sorry?
Oh right here, I have two one show I really
actually I liked both of these shows quite a bit,
and I would recommend both. The first that I really
liked was called murder Bot, and it sounds really dumb,
but it was excellent. And it's on Apple science fiction
about this security robot who hacks its own system and
just wants to be left alone. It's very funny. The
story is good enough. Is a guy's name Alexander Scarsguard?
Do you know that is?
Speaker 2: I mean, is he related to all the other Scars Guards?
Speaker 1: Yes, he's the murder Bot and so it was really
well done. I enjoyed the whole thing. I would recommend it.
You know, it does have some violence and some slight
sexual content in it. I shouldn't even say slight. They
don't show anything. What they say things that if you
have kids, you wouldn't want them to hear. The other
show that I enjoy quite a bit, it's almost on
the opposite end of the entertainment spectrum. I'd say it's
called Fisk. It's a show. It's an Australian kind of sitcom.
I would call it. It's comedy about a lawyer who
has gone through a divorce and starts up in a
new place. Very funny. I think it's kind of mellow
and just well done. I would recommend that as well.
That's all I have. It's all we have. It's light.
It's light. If you'd like to reach the show, please
do so Radio at the Federalist dot com. We like
to hear you.
Speaker 2: I just want to also say we had some really
good email this week, including people pushing back on some
of our views, and I just love it, so please
keep sending it in. Maybe not this week, but you know,
next week.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I did not enjoy the emails on Intel that
push back against my position because I think they were wrong.
But maybe we'll get into that ownership issue again, and
we'll go through some of those points, but send your
emails anyway. Maybe we'll talk about them, maybe we won't.
We'll be back next week, and until then, be lovers
of freedom and anxious for the friends.
Speaker 3: With love with you all, my brothers.
Speaker 5: A few