Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Kylie Griswold, and I am thrilled to
welcome you to my brand new podcast. This is the
Kylie Cast. And here at the Kylie Cast, we're going
to talk about culture, We're going to talk about religion.
We're going to talk about politics. We're going to talk
about whatever it is that has me fired up on
any given week, from marriage to entertainment, to health to
the broken media. If I care about it, you're going
to hear about it every Thursday. So to make sure
you never miss a new episode, please be sure to
like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, or, better yet,
if you're just listening to the show, go check out
the full video version on my personal YouTube channel or
at the Federalist channel on Rumble. I would also love
to hear from you, so you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com. We have so
much to get to today. First of all, is David
French really the guy we want lecturing about toxic masculinity? Also,
it's a day ending and why so the lying media
are lying again and Hollywood has been Lilly Allen has
had so many abortions she can't even remember how Many
all that and more on the Kylie Cast. So in
prepping for this show, I was actually gearing up to
talk about something totally different, but I just had to
pivot when Jordan Peterson decided to release a podcast on
toxic masculinity with David French. And I'm no stranger to
David French, but if you don't know who he is,
he identifies as a lifelong Christian Conservative, and he's also
a proud never Trumper. So he worked at National Review
for a handful of years, and then he hopped over
and joined Jonah Goldberg at The Dispatch, which is that
never trump rag. And he sometimes writes for The Atlantic,
but now he's a columnist for the New York Times,
which pretty much tells you everything you need to know
about David French's trajectory and the evolution of his worldview.
Oh and of course, David French is a veteran and
an attorney, which is something he mentions every time he
opens his mouth. But the reason that French joined Jordan
Peterson's podcast was to talk about toxic masculinity, and specifically
to discuss a New York Times article that French had
written at the end of May about democrats twenty million
dollar Man Problem, which, if you didn't hear about it,
that was a piece about democrats decisions decision basically to
spend a boatload of money to try to lure back
all of the men that they scared away into the
loving arms of the GOP. And part of this effort,
of course, is to try to replicate the Joe Rogan,
Theo vaugh Andrew Schaltz magic that really resonated with men.
This magic, of course, is sometimes referred to as the manosphere.
It's all those podcasts, bros. Personally, I'm very excited about
this Democrat effort because we all know what it looks
like when Democrats try to manufacture a likability or a
trumpiness that their opponents are doing very naturally, very organically.
You've all seen this. I'm sure it's very unnatural. It
looks like Democrats cursing at really weird or inappropriate times,
or Elizabeth Warren awkwardly drinking a beer on camera, or
Tim Walls dancing around a stage in the gayest way
you've ever seen. But anyway, a lot of my thoughts
on the podcast actually don't have that much to do
with masculinity, because the observations on the podcast were honestly
pretty microwaved. Like, if you've listened to Jordan Peterson or
anyone else on the center right talk about disaffected men
or the crisis of masculinity, or deaths of despair or
men lacking purpose, you really don't need to listen to
this interview. There's nothing really new there on that front.
But there are a few parts about the interview that
are definitely worth mentioning, one of which was just an amazing,
amazing moment that basically it perfectly exposed French's conservatism as
the sham that it is. And Peterson he really teed
it up pretty masterfully. He teased up the question with
this little smirk on his face, just knowing full well
what he's doing, and it's just spectacular. Watch this.
Speaker 2: You have written for The Atlantic and for the New
York Times.
Speaker 1: Why do they allow you to write for them?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, they were actually looking for a pro
life person when they were trying to hire a new columnist,
actually looking for somebody who was conservative and somebody who
had you know, I'm also a veteran. I don't believe
there were any columnists who are veterans. I'm also a lawyer.
I don't believe at the time am I hiring, that
there were any other columnists who are lawyers. I'm a
constitutional lawyer. But I was very pleasantly surprised, I'll be
honest with you when I got the job offer. It
was definitely not something I was seeking out, but it
came to me and I was very grateful and thankful,
and I've had a really good experience there.
Speaker 1: Okay, first of all, did you catch that? I want
to make sure you know that David French is a
veteran and a lawyer, a constitutional lawyer. So I just
want to make sure you heard that. A veteran and
a lawyer. But seriously, no self respecting conservative is pleasantly
surprised when the corporate media come knocking. You know, typically
they come knocking for a comment request, or they come
knocking because they want you to correct an article with
more context, which is really just their spin and more lies.
But if the media comes knocking to you, David French
with a job offer, if anything, that should be a
wake up call that maybe you're not as conservative as
you think you are. The New York Times is nothing
more at this point than a propaganda machine. It's nothing
more than a public relations arm for the Democrat Party.
It's the equivalent of a conservative winning a Pulitzer Prize. No,
you know who gets Pulitzer prizes and cushy gigs at
the New York Times, David French, not conservatives. People who
get banned on Twitter for saying boys and girls are different,
those are probably conservatives. People who are on the New
York Times shortlist for a job offer probably not conservative.
This really isn't that hard for anyone who has spent
any amount of time watching the media. Here's another clip though,
that you really should see from this French Peterson interview
because it's really just perfect in its lack of self awareness.
So here French is talking about masculinity and specifically the
way the media talks about men and masculinity. And here's
what he had to say.
Speaker 2: Well, when we talk about this, when we raise this issue,
a lot of people in the commentary and the commentary
class and the academic class immediately denigrate a lot of
the evidence about the struggles of young men and boys
because they don't see in their milieu. They don't see
men struggling, because it's the big job, giant number of
people who are not in that sort of tip of
the spear, who are really struggling. And because so many
of us live in these bubbles, a lot of people
don't see it at all.
Speaker 1: They don't see it at all.
Speaker 2: And this is something that I think is endemic in
our commentariat, and that is a lot of our commentariat
lives and eats and breathes a very rarefied cultural error,
and they don't have any real world sense of the
way that people are living their lives and the struggles
are facing outside of that. Meliu.
Speaker 1: If you paid me a million dollars, I could not
write a more ironic thing for David French to say.
This is a guy who fancies himself as somewhat of
an expert on masculinity. He talks about it a lot.
You can hear it here. That's why he's invited onto
this podcast. He writes about it a lot, and he
writes about it specifically as it relates to how danger
and icky and horrible Trump's version of masculinity is. But
here he is pontificating about the out of touch commentariat,
and it's like, look in a mirror you are the
out of touch commentariat, David French's entire livelihood, And I
mean I don't want to pick on David French, I
mean I am, but he is a stand in for
so many other people in the media like him. His
entire livelihood is based on him sitting behind a screen
clacking out cookie cutter, never Trump, bitter clinger columns for
The New York Times about blessings of liberty and toxic
masculinity and his vast personal experience as a lawyer and
a veteran with zero sense of what real Americans are
feeling and facing. And he can appeal to his son
and to his son's friends as if like that gives
him some expertise on this. But he is part of
this out of touch commentariat, which is why he can
say with a straight face that the conservative thing to
do was to vote for Kamala Harris, and why he
can say with a straight face that sending billions of
taxpayer dollars to Ukraine is a moral imperative of struggling Americans,
and why COVID vaccine skepticism is actually a spiritual problem,
and why Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy
and masculinity. I want to pivot. David Markesy is another
guy from the out of touch commentariat at the New
York Times, and he has the same problem. And we
saw this recently in an interview he interrogated Andrew Schultz,
who is a massively popular stand up comedian and part
of the manisphere I mentioned earlier and Markaesy interrogated Andrew
Schultz on his problematic language and beliefs and basically scolded
him for not asking Trump when he interviewed him before
the twenty four election. He scolded him for not asking
Trump the same stupid left wing garbage questions that the
corporate media asked Trump. Any chance they get the thing
is if French and more Casey and the rest of
the commentary class, out of touch commentary class really wants
to understand American men. They need to go touch some grass.
They need to go talk to a millennial who desperately
wants to buy his first home but doesn't think he
ever can because he doesn't make six figures. They need
to go talk to the dad who doesn't want his
little girl seeing the blessing of liberty grown man in
drag gyrating at the local library or the flyover families
who really struggled to buy groceries thanks to bide inflation.
One more quick thing on masculinity. You know, David French
and Jordan Peterson are their right that we shouldn't tell
men they're toxic. Obviously, that strategy has been a horribly
destructive message for men. It's done a lot of bad
things to the culture, which even the New York Times
is starting to realize, which is why they recently ran
a piece called like where are all the good men
come back? You know, it's like it's really ruined even
relations between the sexes. But men also need to hear
more than just there's nothing wrong with you or you
don't have a problem, because there is something wrong with men.
They do have a problem, just like there's something wrong
with women. And just like women have a problem. And
if you're a Christian then you know this. This is
part of our entire worldview, and that's something wrong with men.
And the something wrong with women is an aggression or
competitiveness or strength or any other difference between the sexes.
It is so much deeper than that. And surprise, surprise,
the manosphere actually did a way better job of bringing
real clarity to this point. Back to Andrew Schultz. On
his podcast earlier this summer, he brought on theologian Wes Huff,
who offered a really beautiful and a far far better
countercultural message that we should be telling both men and
women take a look, that.
Speaker 3: There's no such thing as an innocent person, and that
I deserve hell. Me wes Huff, I deserve hell one
hundred percent of the time. That's the ages of sin
is death, and that's the language of Paul Uses in
that I'm like actively working at a job to earn
a wage, and that's sin and death, right. But the
second part of that line is the gift of God
is eternal life through Christ Jesus. So the answer the
question is that I think we are both worse than
we realize and have the potential to do much more
good than we realize. What the Bible says, particularly in
that creation story, right, is that you are created with
purpose and meaning and intention, and it is good. You
actually bear the image of God, and there's something about
that as special. So in one sense, you're more of
a piece of shit than you can imagine, but also
you're more loved and more capable of amazing things than
you can imagine. And that's the dichotomy of Christianity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jordan Peterson and David French did get a lot
right about masculinity in their podcast All Things Considered, But
Wes Huff just really hit the nail on the head
and really homed in on the most important message that
we can tell both men and women, and that's that
we are all much worse than we realize. We are
all pretty toxic. It's a bad word. It's been politicized,
but we're we're all pretty bad. But through the redemption
of Christ, we have more potential than we could ever imagine.
Speaker 4: Why has the housing market absolutely tanked? The watchdot 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. When is the right time to
buy a house? Market uncertainty is everywhere, including AI tariffs,
is the Fed lowering interest rates? Don't expect the housing
market to recover anytime soon. Whether it's happening in DC
or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.
Check out the watchdod on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, now we're going to do some bad news.
And by bad news, of course, I mean that Democrat
media is really good at doing pr for Democrats and
really bad at doing actual news. And I'm super excited
on this inaugural episode to be joined by my very
dear friend and colleague, Elle Pernell. Here's Elle, Welcome to
the show.
Speaker 5: I'm so excited.
Speaker 1: I'm so excited to have you. Elle, and I go
way back. She's amazing at so many things at the Federalist.
She's our assignment editor, but she's also the media criticism queen.
I want to start by getting your thoughts on something
that journalist Chris Bray has covered a few times this week,
and if you're not following, everyone should. He has an
amazing substack. He's an incredible journalist. His substack is called
tell Me how This Ends, So if you're not following it,
you should. But he is a California native, so his
work particularly on all things related to like Gavin Newsom
being the worst, the LA riots, the LA fires, like
he just he knows the actual scoop and so one
thing that happened this week was in keeping with Trump's
promises to restore law and order, get rid of, you know,
illegal immigration, close the border, all these things. He sent
federal agents in to clear a Los Angeles park known
as MacArthur Park. And I'm not a Californian, but it's
my understanding that MacArthur Park is actually really beautiful and
has the potential to be really beautiful. Like back in
the day, it was an actual awesome place, but it
has since become just a complete cesspool of crime. It's
ramping crime, drug abuse, homeless people everywhere, gang activity. People
will like go loot stores and then sell thousands of
dollars worth of stolen merchandise, like at this park. It
sounds like the locals just don't even go anywhere near
the park, like families and normies don't go near it
because it's not it's completely unsafe for any normal person
to be near. And to the point that like businesses
in the area can't even function normally because it's so
out of control. And so I read about one I
think he's a deli owner who's been this deli has
been in operation for eighty some years, and he's threatening
to close because the park has just made his business
completely unsustainable. And so anyway, this is like these facts
are not in dispute. Like everyone knows that this park
has been awful for a very long time, which is
why for a very long time leading up to this
raid on MacArthur Park, you saw headlines like this MacArthur
Park LA's most dangerous neighborhood, MacArthur Park grapples with drugs
and crime, the rise and fall of my MacArthur Park,
blah blah blah. Here's some more. MacArthur Park riddled with
drugs and crime, grapples with drugs and crime. I mean,
like everyone knew that this is the norm for MacArthur Park,
and so Trump since.
Speaker 6: Not just the crime, right, Like locals from there will
also tell you that MacArthur Park is specifically where a
lot of people who are here illegally will gather, like
to get fake IDs.
Speaker 5: So it's not just a hub of crime.
Speaker 6: It's not just a hub of drugs, but it's also
an illegal immigration hot spot, which is why it makes
perfect sense that Ice did a rd there.
Speaker 1: But sorry, go ahead, yes, no one percent. Yeah, it's
not just people who are like allowed to be here,
but aren't allowed to be doing who aren't allowed to
be doing crime. This is like people who are not
allowed to be here and who are also engaging in
rampant crime and like yeah, uh, pedling fake documents whatever, Okay,
great point. And so after this raid raid, which was
really just like federal law enforcement officers enforcing the law
in MacArthur Park, these were the headlines and so you
can see armed agents, heavily armed the mayor Karen Bass,
who's a psychopath. Ell, you can tell us all about
Karen Bass. She's calling it outrageous and whatever. My eyes
are too bad, I can't read it's on my screen.
But anyway, point being, these headlines are just painting this
as like how could anyone ever think of raiding this
park or doing the show of force in this park?
How like why would the ice agents need to be armed?
L This is just like let's all do kumbai ya
and ask these people to politely leave the park.
Speaker 6: And that's literally what these people on the left want.
Speaker 5: Like we saw in twenty twenty people arguing like let's.
Speaker 6: Abolish the police and let's replace them with these unarmed
social workers and that doesn't go well.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I mean they you can't send a social
worker in with I don't know, like.
Speaker 7: A no weapons to go, like keep these people who
are violent, dangerous, who are on drugs or.
Speaker 5: What have you from harming people.
Speaker 6: Like this is not a park where kids are playing
around and having picnics. This is like it's a park
in that it used to be a park, but it's
not what you and I think of when we think
of little park with the playground where right people just
you know coexist.
Speaker 1: Right at this point, park is a complete misnomer, like
it should be the MacArthur's Cesspool is like a way
better name for what's actually going on there. Right, So
it's like I hadn't really thought of it this way.
But basically Democrats, including Karen Bass, which I can put
up a tweet of hers because she's just I mean,
the woman is off her rocker, But they basically want
law enforcement if they do anything to like gentle parent
criminals into like maybe sort of doing the right thing
or self deporting or whatever. Here is a tweet from
Karen Bass hugging the children that were cleared from the park.
We will not be afraid, and we will not be divided.
We will stand together. All caps, Like.
Speaker 6: Going back, you mentioned this earlier a little bit, but
like the outrage over the fact.
Speaker 5: That these agents were armed, like they they have to
be armed. People are trying to kill them. Like I
think we'll talk about this probably in.
Speaker 6: A few minutes, but like there's these vigil lantes around
the country who are trying to murder ICE agents for
doing their jobs.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: If I worked for ICE, sure as hack, I would
want to be armed, like to protect myself and my
fellow agents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And that's a great segue actually, l to
our next media topic, which is these Antifa terror cells
carrying out attacks on ICE and Customs and Border Protection
and other federal officers who are doing I mean, they're
they're just doing their jobs. They literally have one job
and they're doing that job and they're being not only
attacked for it, literally physically attacked by Antifa terror cells
and other like radical radical democrats, but they are it's
like elected demicrats essentially calling for the blood of these
people like this isn't this isn't a bug. This is
the entire point. And of course the media contributes so
much to this environment of lawlessness and violence. And here's
here's just one example. So one of these attacks was
on an ice facility in Texas on the fourth of July.
So this is Independence Day. There should be a great
day of celebration for our country and for you know,
the restoration of law and order. And instead we had
a group of ten ANTIFA members, or at least ten
were arrested. There may have been more than that. I
don't remember that detail. But they ambush with.
Speaker 6: Attempted murder, and then there was an eleventh that was
charged with obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, so eleven people they ambush. They had a
planned ambush of this ice facility in Texas that involved
some members like pulling out law enforcement by creating a
diversion like they would. They spread graffiti and were shooting
off works to like get the officers to come out
of the complex. And then others were there with weapons
ready to take out the officers who came out of
the building. And so one officer was shot in the neck.
He's expected to survive, I think, but like that's a
serious injury, like you're talking, you know, maybe less than
an inch from taking this man's life. And this was
the headline from CBS News and of course they were
headlines like this all across the corporate media. Suspects used graffiti, firearms,
body armor, and fourth of July ambush outside in North
Texas ice facility officials saite. No mention here of a
police officer getting shot in the neck, no mention of
the fact that ten people were arrested and charged with
attempted murder of law enforcements. It's so bad that, like
you cannot find the biggest detail, the most outrageous, egregious
detail in the headline of the story. That's the entire point.
You should be able to read that and know what happened.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, so it was yesterday, it was whatever
day that like, because it happened on the fourth of July,
and then stuff came out Monday night, and so like
by Tuesday morning, we were like, Okay, where's the media
coverage of this?
Speaker 5: And I so I searched on the New York Times website.
I searched the terms ice.
Speaker 6: Ambush, and the only story that came there were like
two stories that I don't even know why they came up,
Like by ice it wasn't referring to immigrations and customs enforcement.
The only story that came up remotely about immigration was
one on like the ruthless ambition of Stephen Miller. It
was like, that's not what, like that had nothing to
do with this, that's obviously. So they just didn't and
like I think they did kind of cover it, and
they had maybe one article about what happened, but it
was just the bare details, like they didn't use the
word ambush, and then they like failed to follow up
as more details came out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's it's even worse when you can contrast
that with the way the media talk about any kind
of a right wing violence or even not right wing violence,
like there were so many people who were involved.
Speaker 5: In the right wing violence that they want you to
believe is.
Speaker 1: Wings yes, yes, exactly. You might have an actual peaceful
protest by right wingers where maybe you have a few
bad faith agitators that somehow get involved or not, and
it's an insurrection and it's you know, it's all of
these other like egregious things that we've never seen, this
unprecedented attack on norms and decency and democracy. And then
on the other side you have elected officials agitating and
like encouraging democrats to be out for blood. And then
you have these attacks and they're not even mentioned. They're
hardly mentioned by the corporate media, and when they're mentioned,
they are downplayed to such a degree that you don't
even know the heinousness of what was committed.
Speaker 6: Well, there's this total lack of curiosity where like maybe
they will string a few words together so that they
can say, we covered it. See here's the proof, But
like the coverage exists for the purpose of downplaying it,
and like the headline that you just showed on the
screen a few minutes ago is a great example of that,
Like they've only covered it insofar as like people are
now less interested in this story because of the headline.
Speaker 1: Right right, that's exactly right. Let's move on to another.
Really just incredible. It's not even a correction because they
didn't admit that they were wrong about it. But it's
just classic New York Times awful, awful propaganda coverage of something.
And then after the narrative doesn't matter anymore. Now we
can admit that maybe, just maybe some of the facts
Republicans were right about from the start, and so you
might remember this story or yeah, this story from before
the twenty twenty four election when there were reports that
violent Venezuelan gangs had taken over apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado.
But and this couple, yeah, just a couple, just a couple,
A handful, as Martha Raddits would say, yes, just handful.
And this became a big story because there were some
videos that were circulating online that other tenants of these
apartment buildings had taken footage from their ring camera or whatever,
you know, some some like camera that they had outside
of their their apartment of armed gang members or you know,
even if they couldn't confirm at the time that it
was gang members, later was revealed to be gang members
storming through the hallways of their apartment complexes with like
large weapons trying to find another Venezuelan tenant that they
were going to like drag out and hurt. And there
was so much violence. And at the time, well, let
me just play let me just play a clip that
you've probably seen before. But this is just remarkable. This
is the way the corporate media talked about this story
at the time. I'm going to stop you.
Speaker 8: The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment CONFLICTX
apartment complexes and as mayor said, our dedicated police officers
have acted on those concerns.
Speaker 1: A handful of problems.
Speaker 9: Only, Martha, do you hear yourself?
Speaker 4: Only?
Speaker 9: A handful of apartment complexes in America were taken over
by Venezuelan gangs. And Donald Trump is the problem and
not Kamala Harris's open border. Americans are so fed up
with what's going on, and they have every right to be.
And I really find this exchange, Martha is sort of
interesting because you seem to be more focused with nitpicking
everything that Donald Trump has said rather than acknowledging that
apartment complexes in the United States of America are being
taken over by violence.
Speaker 1: Amazing, do you hear yourself? Martha? What an incredible iconic moment.
But it's because of this story being so being used
as such a narrative. So the New York Times then
how the false story of a gang takeover in Colorado
reached Trump, because of course Trump talked about this at
the debate before the election, and it was all like, oh,
he's he's promoting conspiracy theories, and it talks about how
this like crazy notion that gangs had taken over the
supartment complex were elevated to the you know, soon to
be president of the United States and or soon to
be president again of the United States. And now we
have this headline from the New York Times. Democrats denied
this city had a gang problem. The truth is complicated,
isn't it always complicated? L Also democrats denied. It's like
you are the Democrats denying at New York Times, Like
that was you? You The New York Times denied that
this was a problem, and now it's like, oh no.
Speaker 7: See it.
Speaker 5: End of this.
Speaker 6: The other day too, with tariffs and like how tariffs
were going to affect prices. They ran this article after
like enough months had passed to show that prices were
still doing just fine, and they were like, experts predicted
that tariffs were going to high prices, and the experts
all gone it wrong and how did they do that?
Speaker 5: And we were like.
Speaker 6: The experts, give me the X, like it was you,
Like they were like half a dozen seeen in our
articles where the headlines were like, here's how tariffs are
going to make your you know, everything you own more extensive,
and it's like you're you're.
Speaker 5: Talking about yourself. It's the same thing here with the
New York Times.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, classic unnamed sources or just like vaunted economists,
you know, so they can outsource who's saying it, so
they can pretend they're not saying it. They did. They
do the exact same thing. Like when Biden was in
office and we were headed we were barreling toward a recession.
The economy was in the toilet, it was awful, and
it was all like, well, we can't actually say for
sure what a recession is because we don't actually have
a really good definition. And so when when we actually
got to the fourth consecutive quarter of negative growth or
whatever it is, it was like, what is a recession anyway?
And then we literally got headlines that were like, why
a recession is good for you actually financially. This is
such a pattern. It repeats itself constantly.
Speaker 6: It's not happenings, it's good that it's happening.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. And we saw the same thing too,
of course with Hunter Biden's laptop, which was a huge
piece of election interference because well, how actually you were
heading up the elections team at the time that this
was going on, So why don't you explain how that happened? Yeah, so,
I mean, so the Hunter Biden laptop story, so we
were afraid of it.
Speaker 5: That a shorthand, But like, the scandal was never.
Speaker 6: About Hunter Biden so much that there was information on
Hunter Biden's laptop that implicated Joe Biden, and so like
we call it the Hunter Biden story, and there was
a lot of stuff on the laptop that reflected very
poorly on Hunter Biden's character, a lot of salicious photos
and videos and whatnot, But like that was never the story.
The story wasn't about Hunter Biden being a terrible person
and a terrible husband, like he is demonstrably those things.
It was about the foreign connections and the ways that
the Biden family had made deals with foreign countries and
foreign businessmen in a way that.
Speaker 5: Could have compromised Biden's decision making.
Speaker 6: So one of those examples would be when Joe Biden
was Barack Obama's vice president, he was like the guy
in charge of Ukraine relations, and he bragged at the
time about getting a special prosecutor fired in Ukraine. Well,
it turns out that his son Hunter was on the
board being paid like gobs of money to be on
this energy the board of this energy company where he
had no energy experience, and the special prosecutor had been
looking into this energy company and then all of a sudden,
like the prosecutor went away, and so did the investigation,
and Joe Biden bragged about making the prosecutor go away, so.
Speaker 5: Things like this.
Speaker 6: People saw the Biden family business dealings that were evidenced
on the laptop and they were like, that's a major
problem for the president or at the time, the guy
who wanted to be president to.
Speaker 5: Have that kind of baggage.
Speaker 6: So what happened is the New York Co published an
article they got the contents of the laptop because Hunter
Biden dropped it off at a laptop repair story never
picked it up, and they dropped this incredible story about.
Speaker 5: The contents of the laptop.
Speaker 6: And Twitter at the time, Facebook, all these social media
companies which later we found out were being like prodded
to do so in prime to do so by the FBI,
said like, this is disinformation.
Speaker 5: We're not going to let you share this or we're
going to flag it this disinformation.
Speaker 6: And all of the corporate media outlets did the same thing,
Like I think it was NPR had this amazing statement
like gift from the journalism God's statement because of how
crazy it was. It was like, we're not going to
waste your time by reporting on this story because we
don't think it's true, or we don't think it's worth
finding out whether it's true.
Speaker 5: And the claim was that it was Russian disinformation, the
Russians planted this laptop and the information on it, and.
Speaker 6: Then you had like the fifty one intelligent former intelligence
officials going to let it go and I think it.
Speaker 5: Was fusion Natasha Bertrand who stright.
Speaker 6: Saying like, we think this has all the hallmarks of
Russian disinformation, don't pay attention to it. And so there
was this total media blackout of the laptop story which
came out like weeks before the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: And specifically before that pivotal debate, the pivotal twenty twenty debate,
like the fifty one former intel officials who signed this
US Russian disinformation letter, Like the entire point of that
being written and then also dropped at the time that
it was was so that Biden could get up on
the debate stage right before the election and wave this
piece of paper around and be like, look what he's
saying is a conspiracy theory, all of these all the
intel community knows that this is fake and like Russia, Russia, Russia.
Like that was That was the entire point.
Speaker 6: Because we later found out that Anthony B. Lincoln, who
was part of Biden's campaign team and then later was
gifted the position of Sectuary State, had gone to these
people who signed on the letter and said like, hey,
I'm as simpling a team, like I'm trying to get
signatures to you know, to get people to dock Biden
now so that he can like waive this at the
debate and you know, not have to answer questions about
his family and business deals.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. And then but in classic fashion, just like this,
just like this New York Times piece where you write
this really convenient narrative that just helps your cause and
helps you accrue power for Democrats, and then either as
soon as it works or as soon as it doesn't work,
you find out after the fact, in this case, after
the twenty twenty four election, and in the case of
the Hunter Biden laptop after the twenty twenty election, that oh,
actually Republicans did have the story right. And in the
case of the Hunter Biden laptop. Oh, actually the FBI
authenticated the laptop back in twenty nineteen, so actually the
intel community knew full well that this was completely legitimate,
that everything on the laptop was completely true and airtight,
and that all of these Biden family business entanglements were
completely legitimate. And so this playbook repeats itself time and
time and time again, and anytime there's a story.
Speaker 6: There's never any accountability. Like that's why you have the
same guys who were behind the Russia collusion hopes in
twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen, Like they're the ones, many
of them behind the Russian disinformation Hunter Biden laptop letter
in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: They just keep going yeah, yeah, and that's how you
end up with this, Yeah, Natasha Fusion Natasha perfect example
of that. Somehow she's back in the news still constantly
all of the time. We've seen her way too many
times in the past two weeks. Value say that again.
Speaker 6: Oh and I said, people take what she says at
face value, like they don't know that she's been an
instrument actual disinformation.
Speaker 1: Yes, actual disinformation. Yes, most people don't know, but our
listeners know because they know Fusion. Natasha is a complete joke,
and I'm sure she'll get plenty of Pulitzer Prizes in
her day because all the fake journalists get them. But
you should not listen to Fusion Natasha, because she is
the epitome of bad news.
Speaker 6: I'm waiting to see her made the head of the
White House Courspondence Association.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's coming. That is always the trajectory. People
always fail up into that role from the biggest conspiracy
theories and the worst narratives. So awesome. Thank you Elle
so much for joining me. So pleased to have you
in your vast wisdom on media criticism. This is el
pernow assignment editor at The Federalist, and I'm sure we'll
see her back many many more times to come.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me, Kylie.
Speaker 1: All Right, before I wrap, I've got to talk about
two clips I saw this week. The first is Lily Allen, who,
if you don't know who that is, she's kind of
a Hollywood has been. She's an actress and a singer
and whatever. The only reason that she's well, I think
the only reason that she's like front and center right
now is because she's having a split her marriages, breaking
up with David Harbor, who's very famous right now. I mean,
he's been in a number of things. You might know
him from a recent Marvel movie or from Stranger Things.
But anyway, their marriage is breaking up, and so he's
in the news, and so of course she's in the news.
But she has her own podcast, and on this podcast
with her co host, she was discussing her method of contraception.
As she's talking about contraception, she just mentions that she
used to get pregnant all the time, and because of this,
she said that she has had multiple abortions. Basically, she
used abortion as birth control, like that was her contraceptive,
was to just end the human life. And the real
kicker is that she's had several and she couldn't even
remember how many, so she guesses that it's like four
or five. At that point, her co host joins in
and says, yeah, she'd had about five abortions too, and
then starts gushing about how happy she is that these
two girlfriends could just chitchat about these things and have
it all out in the open, and it was just
such a happy thing for them. Really really disgusting clip. Honestly,
you might just need to see for yourself. Abortions. I've
had a few, but then again, I can't remember exactly
how many. Really, Yeah, why didn't this come up in
last week's episode? We were just talking about.
Speaker 8: Emotions because I was just letting you you run with it,
reveal everything I can't remember.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think maybe, like I want to say five,
four or five. Yeah, I've had about five.
Speaker 6: Two, Lily, I've never I'm so happy I can say
that and you can say it and no one came
to shoot us down.
Speaker 1: So around the same time as this Lily Allen clip,
Alex Cooper releases a recent episode of her Call Her
Daddy podcast with actress Charlie's Thoran, and they discussed a
lot of things in the typical Call Her Daddy way
where it was very crass and you know, unfiltered, but
specifically they talked about Theron's latest sexual conquests and her
what they characterized as her mature and so aware decision
to intentionally adopt two children into a fatherless home. So
Thoran is not married and she adopts two children and
is just like single mom in it. The older of
these two children, which surprise surprise. This is not surprising
given the fact that they have no dad is a
boy that Thoran has raised as a trans girl since
he was a toddler. Anyway, Thoran is talking about the
one night stance that she's had and the amazing sex
that she's had in this stage of her life. And
she talks about this twenty six year old that she
recently had sex with. And mind you, thehan is almost fifty,
so she's like double the age of this guy. But
my colleague el pernow that you saw just a few
minutes ago, she actually she phrased this the best in
a piece that she wrote at The Federalist. You'll have
to check it out. The forty nine year old multimillionaire
and mother of two approaches sex with all the maturity
of a beer chugging frat boy. These two clips, they're
totally separate shows. Lily Allen Charlie's Thorn, totally separate shows,
totally separate people. But they could not be need more
intertwined things. They're not separate things at all. Both of
these things are part and parcel of the same sexual revolution.
One is the cause and one is the effect. The
sexual revolution, of course, sold the lie that there are
no differences between the sexes, which is how you get
not only trans kids, but also homes where one of
the parents is completely expendable, and that sometimes manifests itself,
like in Charlie's Thorne's case, where you don't need a dad,
you can just adopt a child into a single mother home,
as if children don't need a father, that biological function
just doesn't exist, or you end up with a situation
where kids are adopted into a home with two moms
or two dads, as if that is the natural way,
or as if that honors the rights of children at all.
The same culture that liberates women into having meaningless sex
with random men is also the same one that pretends
that there's no risks associated with that sex, that there
are no consequences like getting pregnant or creating new life.
And that's how you end up with a culture where
a woman like Lily Allen treats abortion like birth control
and can't even remember how many of her own children's
lives she has ended. So if nothing else, ladies, find
yourself a better role model than Charlie's Theron or Lily
Allen or Alex Cooper. I mean, come on, thank you
everyone so much for joining this very first episode of
the Kylie Cast. I am truly so excited for everything
that's in store. There's going to be so much more
to come. Be sure to tune in next Thursday, because
I will be back with Barn. Don't forget the true
hurts that won't kill