transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Let's be honest, the cost of living isn't just high, it's exhausting. If you've been leaning on credit cards lately just to cover the basics like groceries, gas, and utility bills, you're essentially paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. Why keep handing your hard-earned paycheck to big banks when you could keep it for your own family? My friends at American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their equity to pay off high interest debt with mortgage rates currently in the fives. On average, American Financing is saving their customers 800 bucks a month. That's nearly $10,000 a year back in your pocket. It's not just a loan, it's a total financial reset. It takes just 10 minutes to find out what you could save. There are no upfront fees and no obligation to talk to a salary-based mortgage consultant. Here's the kicker, start today, and you could even delay two mortgage payments. American Financing, America's Home for Home Loans, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711, or visit americanfinancing.net/walsh.

Speaker 2:
[00:56] It's not even just the Indian guy pretending to be a hot maggot chick. Did you see the hot maggot chick who is on the Sugar Daddy's website at DHS? Did you guys catch this?

Speaker 3:
[01:04] Yes. Yeah, I did. I didn't see that story. I didn't see that story.

Speaker 2:
[01:07] I don't want to knock. I don't look Friendly Fire. I don't want to knock someone who's on the right, you know, working for the admin, doing a good job. But that would seem to be a security risk.

Speaker 3:
[01:18] We're working it for the admin. Am I right? She's in IT. What are you doing?

Speaker 4:
[01:23] Definitely a fault for cutting out their funding. She had to make a living.

Speaker 3:
[01:27] She's working IT. She's working it for the admin. So, Matt, did you know that's it? Matt, the story is that there's a staffer at Counterterrorism who was basically trying to catfish sugar daddies into paying her bills by posting scantily clad photographs on the internet.

Speaker 4:
[01:48] And she works in counterterrorism, kind of like Forty Grin.

Speaker 3:
[01:52] Yeah, she works in counterterrorism. So she was honey, maybe it was a honeypot operation.

Speaker 2:
[01:57] Yeah. I just want to know.

Speaker 1:
[02:00] Only hiring the best.

Speaker 2:
[02:02] There's so much money out there, guys. There is money to be an Indian AI scammer. There is money to go on dates with old men from the government. There is money to just say the n-word a lot online and you'll be paid $3 million from the biggest left-wing group in America. And I'm not getting any of the money. So maybe, maybe, I'll say some racial slurs as this show goes on to fill my pockets. This is Friendly Fire. Gentlemen, before we get to the really important stories that everyone wants to talk about, we have a great guest coming on, Emily Austin. Before we get to Sabrina Carpenter and Madonna and all the stories that everyone really wants to talk about, I guess we have to cover the fact that after years of debate, it turns out the SPLC, as it was just indicted, it looks like they've been propping up white supremacy and neo-Nazism in America. The left is the biggest funder of neo-Nazism in the country. And I guess it turns out that Democrats are, in fact, the real racists. Is that right?

Speaker 4:
[03:14] I always called the SPLC a hate group, you know? I always called them a hate group, but now they're actually a hate group. They actually are the hate group. I thought they were hate groups for calling us hate groups. I thought that was hateful. But it wasn't hateful enough. They're actually paying people. They could have been paying us. They could have been paying us. If we were hateful, they could have been paying us.

Speaker 3:
[03:31] Well, this has been Matt's point for a while because Matt's been a big target of the SPLC is, like, if you're going to be the target, you may as well be the person who's getting paid. But it does demonstrate once and for all that for so many of these 501C3s, they have to generate the fentanyl in order to fund the methadone clinic. There's not enough racism in America in order for them to raise money to fight racism. So what they could do is they can subsidize the racism in order to get their donors to fight the racism. You see this over and over and over in the non-profit space. The problem is, if you solve the problem of racism, what do you do? You can either go out of business or you can find the next thing to raise money off of. Or I guess you can just go spend $3 million funding the KKK so you can fight the KKK. It actually is pretty wonderful. Those donors, it's sort of that meme from the last Gaza war where you would see the Hamas rockets go up and then the Israeli Iron Dome go up and it would say, my money, somehow also my money. And it's like that I guess for the people who are funding the SPLC, it's like my money, the white supremacists, also somehow my money is like fighting the white supremacists.

Speaker 2:
[04:32] It's pretty astounding though because we're not just talking about this left-wing group. One of the most prominent that there is, we don't even know how much money they have, but it's at least, what, $800 million? It's a little unclear. Almost a billion-dollar organization. Not only are they giving a little money here or there, going to an event, infiltrating a group, we're talking like a million dollars to a single person over the course of some years. We're talking about leaders of the neo-Nazi groups are just working for the left. We're talking about Unite the Right, which was the preeminent neo-Nazi rally that Trump had tied around his neck for years and years and years. A whole big hoax comes out of Charlottesville. That thing was organized by the SPLC.

Speaker 3:
[05:18] Oh, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[05:19] It's just like everything else. It's like everything else online. Everything else ends up devouring itself. If you start out, you're a conspiracy theorist. You ultimately have to have a conspiracy about the conspiracy. So the guys who start out saying there's a conspiracy against Trump eventually have to say Trump is part of the conspiracy because you run out of conspiracies. Everything devours itself. The left starts out. If you're a gay guy for gay marriage, you're a hero, then you're the villain because you're not for people pretending to be men when they're actually women because you're not attracted to them. So everything on that line just ultimately devours itself. There'll be nothing left except make-believe blonde women supporting Meghan.

Speaker 3:
[05:58] My favorite thing.

Speaker 1:
[06:00] I was going to say that this does give me a strange, it gives me a strange respect for Jesse Smollett because he actually funded his own hate crime hoax. He didn't get SPLC to do it. He put his own money into it. So you really got to support your mom and pop hate crime hoaxers who are doing it.

Speaker 2:
[06:20] I was thinking about a new segment on the show. I do these different segments, Music Monday, Teehee Tuesday. So I was thinking I might do White Supremacy Wednesday, brought to you by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then depending on how big the check is, that will determine which racial slur I yell that day. But it's really annoying because I generally look askance on racial epithets. I try not to slur too much. But if I'm going to do it, I'm not going to do it for free. I mean, we've got $3 million out there on the sidelines. Let's bring it in.

Speaker 1:
[06:49] Also think about the excuse that we're hearing from the left and from Democrats, and I guess from SPLC themselves, which is that they weren't—no, this was not them funding the organizations in some sort of cynical attempt to prop up these organizations so they could fundraise off of them and then also use them as a pretext to crack down on conservatives. That's not what they were doing. They were paying for informants, they claim, to go in and investigate these hate groups. And even if we were to accept that excuse, which I don't because it's BS, but even if we did, well, that just speaks to the degree to which these left-wing activist groups essentially function as these quasi-government agencies. Because even if they were doing that, well, you don't have the legal authority to go out there and pay for informants, to run these elaborate investigations of domestic terror group. You're the SPLC. You're not the FBI, you're not actually a law enforcement agency. So even if we accepted that excuse, it still speaks to the corruption at these kinds of... We consider that we're under the tyranny of unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges, and we are. We're also under the tyranny of unelected activist groups that have been empowered especially under the Biden administration to act as though they are bureaucrats and law enforcement agents.

Speaker 2:
[08:06] Well, speaking of the government.

Speaker 3:
[08:07] There are a couple of details that sort of jumped out at me in the story that were pretty astonishing. One is that the SPLC listed one of the people it was funding on its hate site. So if that person was supposed to be just an informant giving information, would you list that person on the hate site while simultaneously funding the person? Because you're inherently lying either to the public or to your donors or both. So that I thought was fairly astonishing. And then I also found it astonishing. I looked it up or our producers looked it up for the show today. The New York Times quoted the SPLC data about white supremacy in its articles about Unite the Right. So, once again, it was the SPLC that was helping to make Unite the Right rally happen. One of the people at that rally, one of the organizers for it, was paid $270,000 and actually helped organize rides to the rally. And then the SPLC was quoted by the New York Times about that rally. Which is like, wow, this is sophisticated CIA level crap here happening from the SPLC. So well done, I guess, SPLC. And then again, the compliance of the legacy media and this whole narrative is the real one told part of the story. Because without the legacy media, basically laundering the SPLC as a legitimate organization for decades, none of this ever would have been possible. So once again, thank you goes out to the New York Times.

Speaker 2:
[09:25] I also, I want to make a point to the people on the right who are given to despair, which is the right, it's always the right, the right always, because we have this tragic view of the terrestrial world and human society. We never want to take the win and we're always kind of angry and I get it, especially right now, but three years ago, the SPLC was working with the DOJ. The SPLC was telling the DOJ how to go out and spy on Catholic churches, telling them to categorize Catholics as akin to domestic terrorists, was working with the Biden administration very, very closely to identify enemies and go prosecute them. Now the DOJ is raiding the SPLC, is getting indictments from grand juries to prosecute the SPLC. That is a complete 180. It's a massive win for justice. And it shows you that elections do matter. And you don't always get exactly what you want. We got about 700,000 formal deportations last year, depending on how you count the self deportations, which I think are pretty serious, up to a million or a little over a million. So okay, call it 2 million. And then you don't have the 3 million illegals coming into the country that you had under Biden, so that's a net win of 5 million illegal aliens who aren't in the country now, who would have been otherwise. Do I wish it were 10? Do I wish it were 15? I do. Do I wish that we, the economy were juicing even more than it is? Sure. Do I wish this, that and the other? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I wish all of that. But guys, had Kamala won, the SPLC would be working with the DOJ right now to go prosecute you and your friends and your leaders and everybody. And that's a big win, and it means we gotta keep winning elections.

Speaker 3:
[11:02] This is right, and by the way, I will say that the immense horse's assery of our friend Tucker Carlson going out and saying that he has deep regrets about it and he apologizes to all the people he told to vote for Donald Trump. Well, okay, well then the only other alternative in that election was Kamala Harris. So I would like an explanation as to why Kamala Harris, even from Tucker's perspective, would have been better. because I think that would be kind of fascinating to find out, frankly.

Speaker 2:
[11:27] And in fairness, the other alternative, which I don't agree with, but the other alternative people say is there is a political quietism. So I'm going to sit it out. This is really no better than the alternative. But I don't buy that either. Obviously, I don't buy that either.

Speaker 4:
[11:40] And again, Tucker's just doing the same thing.

Speaker 3:
[11:42] Again, I did that in 2016.

Speaker 2:
[11:43] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[11:44] I did that in 2016. So I understand the logic of that thing. But I also understand that Donald Trump was a known quantity. And this idea that Donald Trump is doing wild, out of the box things that he has never said he was going to do before, and thus you ought to feel betrayed by him doing precisely the thing he said he was going to do for 50 years is totally crazy. It's totally crazy. And it bespeaks a different motivation, in my opinion.

Speaker 4:
[12:04] Also, you have to explain why he's also for Sharia law, as you know. It's just that Tucker, all these guys who are depending on clicks, who are not speaking out of some principled core, they have to keep shocking you. They have to keep throwing you a new thing. They have to be the only authority. So any other authority, they have to devour him. And that's what Tucker is doing. Tucker is turning on himself. I mean, the stuff that's coming out of Kansas' mouth. At this point, you watch the show, you just expect two guys in white coats to come on and catch her away while she's talking. But they all have to do this. They all have to just up the ante all the time until they're devouring the people they were once praising. It's just the same system all the time.

Speaker 2:
[12:41] Yeah, I do wonder like when, because we love on the right. We're always like talking about the right because it's quite interesting. And it interests me much more than the left, which is hegemonic. And it's not to say that there aren't like legitimate and worrisome things on the right. But then you do remember every once in a while you say, oh, wait a second, the left partners with groups, with the government to invade our churches and arrest us. Or the left runs as moderates and then redistricts their state to disenfranchise virtually every Republican in the state. And like, oh yeah, they're playing a different game than we are. They're spending 3 million bucks to invent Nazis so that they can persecute your grandmother at the abortion clinic who's just praying for the babies. They are playing such a different game than we are. And I do hope that people get down to the brass tacks of like, hey guys, you can't just sit out elections. Hey guys, you can't endorse Democrats. Hey guys, you can't let your feelings of disappointment or whatever stop you from engaging in the real political structures because the SPLC isn't just gonna go away. The Democrats are so on the move right now. We'll get to what's going on in Virginia because that was a little bit of a black pill last night. First though, gentlemen, should we talk about something that really matters? I'm talking about Sabrina Carpenter and Madonna. Should we have you guys, do you know we have a special guest? I'm very excited to bring on this guest, Emily Austin, an actress, a sports broadcaster, Miss Universe judge, most importantly host of The Emily Austin Show. Emily, welcome to Friendly Fire.

Speaker 5:
[14:15] Hi, I was dying to jump into your last conversation, to say one thing and one thing only. Matt, I don't know what it was you mentioned, but have you guys seen, and I can't stand his politics, that Seth Rogen movie where he's pretending he's a Nazi to go get information from the Nazis and they find out that he's an opp and they throw him out the window. Did you ever see that movie?

Speaker 2:
[14:35] The Schindler's List. No. Right?

Speaker 1:
[14:36] Was that? No. Which one is that?

Speaker 5:
[14:40] He's a political consultant for somebody. I think she's running for president, but he was a journalist and he went undercover and he put on a Swastika tattoo but then they found out he's a Jew from LinkedIn. Anyway, great movie and it actually reminds me exactly of what you guys were discussing or-

Speaker 1:
[14:55] Did you just make that movie up? I feel like you invented that movie.

Speaker 5:
[14:58] No, it's real. I promise.

Speaker 2:
[15:01] Is this what mad libs do? Yeah, it was a movie starring Seth Rogen where he said, and you know what Matt, that Nazi really reminded me of you. It really reminded me. I don't know what it was, but.

Speaker 1:
[15:11] Except I'm unpaid. I'm an unpaid one.

Speaker 4:
[15:16] You're doing it for free. It's silly.

Speaker 2:
[15:18] So Emily, what happened? None of us watched Coachella really. I did see the one bit where I found out that Sabrina Carpenter hates Muslims, which I thought that was pretty funny. I found that charming in a way. But what? And then Madonna is about 362 years old, but she's still kind of naked or what? What is the significance of all of this for a bunch of old stodgy men?

Speaker 5:
[15:42] I mean, I'll update you. First of all, I'd like to say that none of this is new. I think it's shocking at how the media has been covering it, but Madonna being very slutty and making out with men half her age and sexualizing, everything religious, that's common things to see with Madonna. But Sabrina Carpenter, I've been following closely because she's very outwardly liberal. She's trying to be like this woman of the people and cultural, but she was performing a quiet piano intro to one of her songs. In the middle of this intro, and I quote, you hear the following. You hear, and everyone's cheering and Sabrina's like, what is that? She screams, it's my culture. It's a cheer of celebration. Sabrina obviously didn't hear that and goes, that's your culture? I don't like it. It's weird. And she is getting slammed by the left. They're calling her Islamophobic. They're calling her racist. They're calling her anti-Arab. Now, I'm against what I've learned is called the Zagruta, because usually when I hear kooloolooloo in videos, it's accommodated by Jews being beheaded or babies being kidnapped. But the reason I thought it was very inappropriate at Coachella, it's just because it was quiet. And somebody, whether it was clapping or screaming or Zagruta or yodeling, whatever it was, it wasn't appropriate for that time. But I'd be lying to you if I told you that I don't enjoy every lefty killing Sabrina Carpenter online, I'm living for it, I'm eating popcorn.

Speaker 2:
[17:19] She's secretly right-wing. I'm not joking, I'm not being cute. She's secretly right-wing. I've said this for like a year now. And she doesn't even know it. Exoterically and probably at a conscious level, she is left-wing. And she does stuff that's a little obscene or more than a little sacrilegious. No, she does that stuff. But I just mean at a deep level, her pop music, one is musically a throwback to the 70s. It's not looking forward, it's not even like the 20 teens. It's kind of got these funky little 70s cutesy beats. And then the way that the sexes relate to each other in all of their songs, it's always this girl who wants, she's not some wimpy guy, she's not a lesbian. It's always her wanting some beefy real guy to engage in normal relations, even if they're a little bit naughty between the sexes. She's got this deep level of conservatism. And then here's the final proof, and I'm totally vindicated on this, when she's sitting there playing and there's this kind of foreign Muslim thing comes out. It's not that she thought, okay, well, I'm gonna tell people how much I don't like Islam. It just poured out of her. It was just like a reflex. The doctor hits your knee and your leg goes up. She just goes, ugh, ugh, what's that? That's your culture, ugh, Icky. I hate that.

Speaker 1:
[18:36] Michael, Michael, what about-

Speaker 5:
[18:37] Maybe part of the 3 million went to her.

Speaker 1:
[18:40] Okay, I confess I have not followed this story, and I only vaguely know who Sabrina Carpenter is. But I mean, I know the name, but I assume she was the younger one on screen there with Madonna. What? We didn't get to the part of the story, I assume, where she issues a groveling apology that has happened. Has it not? I don't know.

Speaker 2:
[19:04] I haven't followed it since the issue.

Speaker 4:
[19:06] Okay.

Speaker 5:
[19:07] That's the expert, okay? As the pop culture expert, no. She came out and she said, I apologize, I didn't know what the Zagruta, it's called, was. I thought it was yodeling. Going forward, I accept all cheers, Zagruta's and yodeling at my concerts. With that being said, I'm officially starting a GoFundMe to sit row one at Sabrina Carpenter's concert, and I'm going to Zagruta as loud as I can, and I dare her to make any comment towards my cheering during her silent piano intro.

Speaker 2:
[19:38] No, but listen, even that, I know she made the gravelling apology, even that though is deeply based in a way in the sense that-

Speaker 3:
[19:44] Oh my God, Michael, Michael, Michael.

Speaker 2:
[19:46] Let me just-

Speaker 3:
[19:46] Get this part out. Hold on.

Speaker 2:
[19:49] The way that it's deeply based- No, I'm just- the way, because if she were like, no, I actually hate Islam and let me tell you about Sura 4 and this is why I don't like what Muhammad said and Ali, and no, that's like too lib coded. She just wants to be an entertainer. She wants to be pretty, dance around with guys that's very conservative.

Speaker 3:
[20:08] Michael, this is your gayest take.

Speaker 2:
[20:11] You mean because I was sort of moving around like this on the screen.

Speaker 3:
[20:13] I think, yes, I'm pretty certain you could have watched that entire segment with the sound off and just watch Knowles and said that was easily his gayest take. Maybe the only thing I have to add to this conversation is that, if I had said what Sabrina Carpenter said, I also would have been in serious trouble, mainly because my wife is of Moroccan-Israeli extraction and this also happened at Sephardic events. At Sephardic events, my kids do this. Because they are half Sephardic, which means that they are half Moroccan-Israeli, that means that my very white-looking children will drop. They will drop that also. That is the thing that has happened. Yes. If I were to say I don't like that culture, I would have a real problem on my hands. By the way, I believe that Kalshi markets are already trying to analyze who will headline Coachella in 2027, I believe. I guess right now, Olivia Rodrigo is the favorite, followed by Billie Eilish and then BTS, which is what, a Korean boy band or something. I don't know who any of these people are.

Speaker 2:
[21:17] The new chick on YouTube. I think it's going to be Marfa.

Speaker 3:
[21:23] Billie Eilish is the one who is unlesbian, correct?

Speaker 2:
[21:26] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[21:26] Is this?

Speaker 1:
[21:27] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[21:27] Billie is not lesbian? And she is significantly happer?

Speaker 2:
[21:30] Beiber unlesbian.

Speaker 1:
[21:32] No, that wasn't Billie Eilish. That was actually, no, this one. No, no, that was wasn't JoJo Siwa was the one that became.

Speaker 3:
[21:39] Yes, you're right. You're right. Billie Eilish. Billie Eilish is still lesbian.

Speaker 1:
[21:42] I don't know why I know that.

Speaker 2:
[21:43] Beiber out there the other day and unlesbian to Eilish too.

Speaker 3:
[21:46] Matt, let me just say, Matt, that was your gayest moment. Congrats.

Speaker 1:
[21:50] Well, I don't really know Sabrina Carpenter, but I know JoJo Siwa. So, I know she's the base one.

Speaker 6:
[21:57] Can I push back for a moment?

Speaker 2:
[21:59] You can. Good luck. Pushing back on the right-wingedness of Sabrina.

Speaker 5:
[22:02] I'm pretty confident in this one. Have you ever read Sabrina Carpenter's lyrics?

Speaker 2:
[22:08] I've been presented with them on Music Monday a few times, yes. Okay.

Speaker 5:
[22:12] Yeah. I need to come on your next Music Monday. I will read you the lyrics of Bed Camp, which my mother, my sweet dear mother, so innocently sings these words in the car, while my brother and I are nauseated in the backseat because she has no idea what she's singing. It is the farthest thing from being a conservative, and then lastly, I would love to hear your thoughts about her music video giving someone a BJ at church and how conservative that was.

Speaker 2:
[22:37] Yeah, I heard, look, I didn't watch that one. I heard that she did a thing in church. I don't like that. That's bad. I didn't watch it. And then her new one where it's her, it's basically like softcore porn with some TV ladies or something, and which I actually thought relative to most media wasn't even that obscene, but then there was a little sacrilege when I said, okay, we gotta turn this off. So yeah, she's not having dinners at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. She doesn't wear tweed and bow ties. I agree with that. I'm just saying she is not an ideological leftist. She has this aversion to, I mean, notably this aversion to Islam, though to Ben's point, she might also have an aversion to Jews, which mostly codes leftist, but maybe right, I don't know. It's very confusing.

Speaker 5:
[23:21] Wait, Michael, I don't want to know when she tweeted it. Sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 4:
[23:25] This is a shocking conversation. I have to say, first of all, Ben's children, I agree. I've never heard of that before. I've heard of eulalating, but they're eulalating. I have no idea that Jews eulalated at all. That's the first thing. Knowles has obviously got a thing for this woman, right?

Speaker 2:
[23:42] I do not. No, we actually had a debate. No, we had a debate in this office with my team, Professor Jacob in particular, who's a young Zoomer guy. He's not married yet, and there was a kind of debate that came up in the chat over the attractive contest between Sabrina Carpenter and Sidney Sweeney. And people concluded that-

Speaker 5:
[24:01] My God, Sidney Sweeney bodies her.

Speaker 2:
[24:04] Well, so but here's the issue, Sabrina Carpenter-

Speaker 4:
[24:06] I'm with Emily, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[24:07] Professor Jacob is of the opinion that Sabrina Carpenter is like the hottest, hotter than a $2 pistol. But I said she's very pretty and everything, but she's pretty in the way that Dolly Parton is pretty, namely, she's pretty in the way that homosexuals really like. So I don't know what that says about my producer Jacob. I'm putting that to the side.

Speaker 3:
[24:26] What does it say about you, Michael?

Speaker 2:
[24:27] No, but I'm just going to say-

Speaker 3:
[24:28] I'm defending her. Set that calendar back.

Speaker 2:
[24:30] I'm not saying I want to go on the beach with her.

Speaker 3:
[24:33] It's okay. It's good enough for me. Set that calendar back to days since Shapiro was right back to zero. Just go right back. I'm proving my point right now. Out of your own mouth, it's been said.

Speaker 1:
[24:42] Can I ask a question? So we did three minutes on SPLC and now we're doing 45 minutes on Sabrina Carpenter.

Speaker 2:
[24:50] The important story.

Speaker 1:
[24:51] I have an issue with the programming of this show.

Speaker 4:
[24:53] We're shallow, Matt. What do you want?

Speaker 2:
[24:56] Drew Coyne, the term, jubilate. That's a great pun. That's a great pun. What do you want to talk about? Do you want to talk about Virginia?

Speaker 5:
[25:04] No.

Speaker 1:
[25:06] Not really.

Speaker 5:
[25:07] I want one more Sabrina point and then you can kick me off the show. Matt, you say you don't know her, but do you remember the incident, it was so deliberate, where the White House used her videos for a deportation ad and it was a fire ad, and then Sabrina tweeted towards them, don't use my music for your inhumane agenda. Then the White House replied to her with another song, with another deportation video, and she lost her mind. I thought everyone saw that. It was so funny.

Speaker 1:
[25:33] No, I remember that as well as I remember the Seth Rogen movie that you mentioned before. No, not at all.

Speaker 2:
[25:40] Sabrina loved that though. She loved that in the way it's like, White House, you better not. It's like when a girl talks to her college boyfriend, she's like, you better not do it. It's like, White House, you better not use my music. It's like, we're using your music. Oh, you're so bad. I hate you. Kind of leaning in.

Speaker 3:
[25:55] I hate you.

Speaker 2:
[25:56] I love you. Anyway, that's why she's in the Republic.

Speaker 4:
[25:59] This show is just disturbing. I'm just disturbed to be here.

Speaker 3:
[26:02] We're getting to full Knowles here. The full Knowles. No one needed the full Knowles.

Speaker 2:
[26:06] This is the story I care about. You never go full Knowles. All right. Matt, you want to talk about Virginia? You want to talk about boring?

Speaker 1:
[26:14] Actually, no. Actually, I don't really want to. I mean, that's just depressing. So I don't know what there is to say about it. Let's go back to Sabrina Carpenter, actually.

Speaker 2:
[26:23] Yeah, fair enough. Emily, do you have any thoughts on Virginia? Do you want to stick around for Virginia? You want to get an Emily shaped hole in the wall running away from us?

Speaker 6:
[26:30] Yeah, I'll do that.

Speaker 2:
[26:31] You're out. Emily, excellent to see you. Actually, you should go follow Emily right now. Go follow Emily Austin.

Speaker 3:
[26:38] By the way, I should say at this point that if you don't want to be a man like Michael Knowles is a man, but you want to be a man, we have a brand new series that is out at Daily Wire Plus called Be A Man With Me with our friend Pavel, who is awesome. And thanks to members like you were able to produce some pretty awesome never before seen content like Be A Man With Me. Again, Pavel Wajdauski is hysterical. If you haven't seen any of the episodes yet, you definitely should. We have a clip from this. You are not going to want to miss it. It's pretty wild.

Speaker 6:
[27:08] Did I mention I hate heights? My name is Pavel. When I was growing up, I wanted to be a real man. So I'm going to hit the road, meet the men that are manly, courageous, and strong. The men that I wanted to be like when I was a kid. Daddy's coming with some food.

Speaker 1:
[27:30] I don't know if there's more noble cause or better people to work with.

Speaker 6:
[27:35] I'm going to see if I can be just like them.

Speaker 2:
[27:38] We don't see ourselves as heroes.

Speaker 5:
[27:41] We honestly just think it's doing our job.

Speaker 6:
[27:44] If you want to be a hero, if you want to be a badass, be a man like these guys. Eight episodes.

Speaker 3:
[27:51] I am so deep.

Speaker 6:
[27:52] Eight life lessons. My name is Pavel. Be a man with me.

Speaker 3:
[27:59] Deep breath in. So yeah, that's basically Pavel being... Yeah, there he is. Pavel being tortured for money. So there are already six episodes out and there's plenty of Pavel being a man and also being tortured for you to binge. So go sign up at dailywire.com. Head on over to YouTube, slash, at symbol, be a man with me. No spaces so you don't miss a thing. Okay, are we going to talk about depressing crap like Virginia now? Is that where we're going?

Speaker 2:
[28:23] I guess we should. When you said that a guy did his show being, which was just him being tortured for money, I assumed you were talking about Matt on Friendly Fire. Or really, actually maybe multiple people on Friendly Fire. But this is torturous because Democrats got absolutely, sorry, Republicans got absolutely wrecked last night in Virginia. Virginia went 52-47 for Kamala over Trump in 2024. This referendum last night to so-called restore fairness in the districting was 51-49. I mean, it was almost perfectly evenly split. And as a result, congressional representation is going to go 91% to Democrats, 9% to Republicans. Obama's hailing this as a victory for democracy. They've just disenfranchised half the voters in Virginia. And I don't think anything is going to happen to fix it.

Speaker 3:
[29:13] Okay, so I have a heterodox take here. Okay, are you ready? Because I have a feeling that we're all going to yell at the Democrats. We're going to talk about how unfair all of it is. And obviously, it is and they're terrible. Also, this is how gerrymandering works. Meaning that the party in charge typically tends to gerrymander. And also, I'm just going to point out for the sake of intellectual honesty, that the Republicans started this, okay? The Republicans did start this in Texas. Gavin Newsom did try to retaliate in California. The Republicans did not retaliate in Indiana. But the Democrats did retaliate in Virginia. Republicans will likely now retaliate in Florida. And so this says to me two things. One, we are going to increasingly polarize as a society because there will no longer be such a thing as a purple state because in every purple state, nine out of the ten states will go to whichever party has the slight majority in the state legislature. And two, this should be a lesson to Republicans that Democrats should have learned a long time ago. If you break the glass, the glass does not unbreak. So Democrats learned this lesson when they smashed the judicial filibuster and that led to the appointment of three, count them three Trump justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. And so I think Republicans might want to take like just a hot minute and think about all of the calls right now to kill the Senate filibuster entirely as Democrats are about to take the House and are aiming toward 28 and 30 toward taking the Senate and the presidency.

Speaker 4:
[30:29] You know, I want to, I'm going to say about what what Knowles was talking about before. It really is true that we are no longer talking about a Democrat party that is in any way connected to the founding of the country. I mean, they really are hostile to everything this country stands for. Most importantly, the idea that people should be free of individual liberty. So it's very hard to imagine how the country comes back together again, except for the fact that I think even in the Democrat party, these guys are the minority. They're just the passionate minority. So they carry everybody along with them. I mean, it was a pretty close vote in Virginia. But still, it's just the hatred of Trump and the way that I feel about the Democrats. I have no way of reconciling myself to the people actually running the Democrat party. So the division here is really sharp. It's not the old division where we talked as if the Democrats were communists but they really weren't and the Democrats talked about us like we're fascist, but we really weren't. This is like Republicans are still noodling around somewhere right of center and the left has gone insane. I mean, this is not the Democrat party that I remember at any point in my life up until now.

Speaker 1:
[31:40] Yeah, I was going to say, Ben, I was agreeing with you up until the last five words you said and what you said there. So I agree with the premise but I come to the opposite conclusion because I also have trouble complaining or getting angry at the Democrats or something like this. When they have power, they're going to use it to advance their interests. They're going to use it ruthlessly as part of the story with the SPLC also. Now, that's totally corrupt and people should go to prison for it. But the lesson is kind of Knowles' point also earlier is that when they have power, they're going to ruthlessly use it to advance their own agenda. If they're able to gerrymander, they're going to do it. If they're able, whatever they can do to advance their agenda, they're going to do it. That's the lesson here. For us to sort of impotently sit back and say, no, you shouldn't, that's not fair. It's totally pointless, they're going to. Our message instead should be to the Republicans, hey, this is what the Democrats do when they have power. You have power right now. We still control Congress and the White House. You have power right now. So go and use our power to advance our agenda, which, like I said, leads me to the opposite conclusion. This is why I want to kill the filibuster. I mean, the SAVE Act has not passed. It's not going to pass. This is one of the most important things we could do to protect our elections going forward. And if we're not going to kill the filibuster, and then we're told that, well, we can only advance our agenda if we have a filibuster-proof majority. That's never going to happen ever. That's just not ever, ever going to happen. And so what that would mean is that we're never actually going to advance our agenda in any serious way. I mean, we know the Democrats already are going to do everything they possibly can when they have power to advance their agenda. So they don't need the pretense or the excuse that we offer them by being aggressive ourselves. They don't need that. They're going to do it. And so I think this is the situation we're in now, is that when you're in power, you just do everything you can. You push the ball forward as far as you can, as aggressively as you can, with the understanding that you better hold on to power for as long as you can also because the other side is going to get in there and they're going to try to reverse a lot of that. But that's the situation we're in now. That's the game now. And I think you got to just play the game aggressively within the confines of the law.

Speaker 2:
[34:00] Well, this brings up a couple of questions for Ben, which is, one, I mean, as you say, the country is just getting more and more polarized. And so if the country is getting more and more polarized, then I guess that means you're probably never getting a filibuster proof majority. If you're not going to get a filibuster proof majority, then you're not going to advance your agenda. Now, the upside of that is that your opponents are not going to advance their agenda either. So are we just hoping for the status quo being preferable to these kind of crazy swings election after election? One, and then two, when the Democrats do get power in the Senate at some point, hopefully not in this midterm, but at some point they're going to have power in the Senate again, are they going to nuke the filibuster? If they're going to nuke it the next time they're in power, should we nuke it now or should we hope that everybody cools their jets a little bit?

Speaker 3:
[34:47] Yeah, so I mean, obviously, I think that there's a lot of merit to, the counterargument to what I'm saying. I actually agree with many of the things that Matt is saying. It's sort of a prudential, as you might say, Michael, call as to what to do. I think the problem is that once that glass is in fact broken, whether we break it, whether the Democrats break it, once the glass is broken, I do believe at this point that destroying the filibuster is basically the end of the country. Because then the federal government is just going to decide on a pure majoritarian basis to make extraordinarily wide ranging moves, including things like stacking the Supreme Court. So all the checks and balances will basically be broken. If there's one vulnerable point in the federal government where if you just put your finger on it, you shove, the entire thing just collapses into dust in terms of the checks and balances orders, it right now is the filibuster. Because again, if somebody breaks the filibuster, shoves a bunch of their friends onto the Supreme Court, they can do anything and there's no one there to stop them. And if we turn into a pure majoritarian country, defeating all of the designs of the founders, then it's basically an amat argument, which is the preemptive argument, which is like they're going to do it. So we should do it first because otherwise they're going to do it. And we'll basically sat there. And what do we have our sort of moral suasion behind us? I definitely hear that argument. I thought an elegant solution that was proposed by our friend Jeremy Boring a while back, which I actually passed on too soon, was that we ought to pursue a constitutional amendment to enshrine the filibuster permanently in the Constitution. And if Democrats won't go for it, then you nuke the filibuster. So you basically say, listen, either we're all in this together or none of us are in it together, but we're not going to do this on the basis of good faith. I thought that was kind of an elegant solution. But I will say that just on a pragmatic level, the Republicans, number one, do not have the votes to destroy the filibuster right now. Number two, if the Democrats do destroy the filibuster, then these things do have a way of turning around and clocking them both ways. So let's say that the Democrats destroy the filibuster. And let's say that the Democrats are capable of shoving a couple more states into the Senate. I'm old enough to remember when Alaska was admitted at, well, I'm not quite that old, but Alaska was admitted as a Democratic state in the Union. Hawaii was admitted as a Republican state in the Union. And so everyone always thinks that whatever is happening in this moment politically in any of these given states is sort of the final status of those given states. And I don't think that's the case. And I do think that if you push too hard in one direction, which is why I'm using the example of this redistricting, if you push far enough in one direction, people tend to snap back very, very far in the other direction as well. And so Abigail Spanberger is getting away with this right now, but I'm not sure she's going to get away with it for long. I mean, her approval ratings are really, really bad in Virginia. Yeah, I agree with this.

Speaker 4:
[37:15] I think this is a third way here, which is so antithetical to the way conservatives think, that I'm almost afraid to recommend it. But we could have faith that the structures of the country are still strong enough to take radicalism and just hurl it out by popular appeal. You know, the idea that at some point, I mean, I can see a future. I've lost a lot of faith in JD Vance. I just want to say that to see if Knowles' hair catches fire. Yeah, I've lost a lot of faith in JD Vance. But I've gained a lot of faith in Marco Rubio. And I can see a future in which a new party called the Republicans forms around Rubio that is incredibly attractive to what I believe at this point is 60 to 70 percent of the country who are moderate. I mean, they're moderately on the right, they're moderately on the left. I mean, Alan Dershowitz, of all people, just announced that he is leaving the Democrat Party because of their hatred of Jews, which I think he's right about. But I had Dershowitz on my show a while back and I said to him, has it ever occurred to you that the hatred of Jews is now in the Democrat Party comes from premises that also support other things that you like in the Democrat Party, like abortion and other things like that? And he went, no, no, no, no, no, that can't be right. But it obviously is. And at some point, I think people start to catch on to this. I think that there is a party that Trump in some ways is creating as we speak. Because Ben was right about Trump when he said that Trump's policies are actually kind of moderate, they're actually middle of the road. There's a party that could form around Trump that would actually be a Trumpian party without Trumpian stuff that could attract a massive majority in the country. And if before that, we destroy the structures that are holding the country together, we may lose that moment. So I don't know, I always feel like patience is a virtue, things turn around over time, and I do not believe that the majority of this country is on the left.

Speaker 2:
[39:05] Matt, are you as chipper about it?

Speaker 1:
[39:08] Of course, as always. That's what they call me middle name, chippy. One other point I want to make though about the filibuster thing is when we say that, well, we keep the filibuster in place, that means that neither side can advance their agenda. And yeah, if you had some kind of solution, like it's enshrined in the Constitution, then that means that no one can advance it. It seems like a clever idea. But the problem is that that's not exactly how it works, because it's not a fair fight. It's stacked against us, because the left, even when they're not in power politically, they still own all of our institutions. They still own, they still now, even in this what's allegedly the Golden Age and wokeness is dead, they still own academia and the public school system and the media and Hollywood, the entertainment industry. I mean, all of it. And they still have things like SPLC and dozens of others of these sort of, as I said, kind of quasi governmental agency, NGO things running. And so they still have all of that. And so even when they're not in political power, they can still advance their agenda that way. Now, if we're on the right, I mean, when we have political power, this is kind of all we got. Like this, you have the power that we really don't have any power in any other institutions. So if you're not going to use it here, you don't have it anywhere else. So that's just another reason for when you have the opportunity, you advance the ball. And the last thing I'll say about that is, like I'm not an accelerationist, whatever that term means exactly. But if we ended up in a position where the filibuster is gone, and then we have these wild swings one way and then the other, that's not ideal. I don't want that. I'd like the wild swing to the right. I don't want the wild swing to the left. And yeah, that could happen. But then the result you could hope for is that, okay, well, if that happens and Democrats get in there and there's no filibuster and they can just impose their agenda on us with no pushback whatsoever, well, now the country really sees what that's like. Because now there is no moderating faction. Now it's like we're all going to live under this. And then maybe after that, you have a massive backlash against the Democrat Party when everybody has to experience what that's actually like, and then they become like a permanent minority party. I'm not saying I necessarily would predict that, but that could be the next step after nuking the filibuster.

Speaker 2:
[41:34] Matt, I love that you opened that up.

Speaker 3:
[41:37] That's an extraordinarily high-risk, high-reward scenario. I think that typically speaking, when Democrats gain unified control of government and use it to ratchet down whatever they want, you end up with California or New York. And so I think that your first argument is the better argument, which is that they're going to use it anyway, so you may as well use it. I think that if we're going to get into the situation where basically it's no longer a matter of preemptive pragmatism, it's a matter of principle to nuke the filibuster, then I'm looking for a limiting principle. I'm looking for like, what should Republicans not do if it means forwarding their objectives? If the president just decides unilaterally to ignore Congress and pretend it doesn't exist and just starts using the military to enforce his will, because obviously if Democrats gain control of the government, they're going to be able to use not only the formal but the informal institutions of power. If the idea is that we're out of power even when we're in power, then I don't know what the limiting principle is, and then I think you're talking about legitimately the end of the American experiment in total.

Speaker 2:
[42:34] I just love the introduction that Matt made here.

Speaker 4:
[42:37] Can I be optimistic for one more moment, and then I'll stop, I'll go back to being a pessimist? You know, one of the things about the left-owning institutions is it didn't happen yesterday, it didn't happen in a revolution, it happened over a slow time. I remember it happening, I didn't fully understand it when it started, but I saw it, I noticed it, that they were moving into Hollywood, that they were taking over all these places. We're doing that now. And the thing about conservatives is they have a tendency to panic because part of being a conservative is understanding that any thread that you pull can make the whole suit fall apart. And so conservatives do have this tendency toward pessimism and panic. But if you act slowly and actually take things over slowly, there's a possibility that you can win back even the cultural institutions. I mean, I'm seeing schools being built with classical education, I'm seeing people starting to think like, you know, I can make a movie in my home with a credit card and an AI. I'm starting to hear from artists who are doing their own thing. And I think, again, again, this is an imaginary future, but I still think I can see a world in which the culture belongs to us because we actually are the majority. I mean, The Daily Wire, I would say, is actually the majority. If you took the four of us, you'd actually have something like 60% of the country on our side. And I just think that there is a real possibility that we just trust in the institutions and keep them strong and fight to keep them strong, that they'll work for us over time because we're in the right and we're also in the majority.

Speaker 2:
[44:04] Yeah, I'm not an accelerationist, to use Matt's point. It's always great when you open up with, look, I'm not an accelerationist. I just think that the internal contradictions of neoliberal capitalism will advance to the point that the entire society will collapse around us and that'll be a good thing. But I'm tempted by that, which is just burn it down, burn the universities down, burn it all down, man. It's starting new, or even by this idea that since we're not getting everything that we want, we should just let the Libs win and then live in under Bernie Sanders for a few years, people are going to see how bad it is and they'll come to the light and then they'll vote for Republicans. I don't think the law works that way, though. I don't think politics works that way because I think politics and the law are teachers. And so when the Libs get power, when we get power, that builds on itself. And there can come times when there are big swings, but it doesn't happen all that frequently. Even, you'll get one in Hungary right now. It just happened. You had Victor Orban was in power for 16 years, and Brussels finally was able to boot him out of power. But they didn't boot him out of power with a Lib. The only way that they could boot him out of power was by getting a guy who was ostensibly even more right-wing than Orban. I don't think it's really going to play out that way, but at least that's how they ran it. Orban had so succeeded at moving this post-communist country, previously dominated by the Soviet Union, into the right, that even the liberals had to play a different game. I think that's kind of where we are. So I'm with you, Drew, on the institutional point, which is, to Roger Scrutin's idea that it's much easier to destroy than to build, to Edmund Burke's idea that it's much easier to destroy than to build. I think there's a lot of good capital built up, and if we can just go in, rip out the parasites that have worn these institutions like in suits and turn them to our benefit all the better. But if we tear it down, I don't think people are sufficiently rational to just come to the conclusion that, golly, we should have voted differently 10 years ago.

Speaker 3:
[46:01] Yeah. I mean, actually one of the things that- Yeah, go ahead, Matt. Sorry.

Speaker 1:
[46:05] I just want to clarify one point. My argument for Nuking the Filibuster is not that it will destroy everything and then it will accelerate the rebirth of the country. That's not my argument for it. My argument for Nuking the Filibuster is that they're going to do it anyway, we got to advance the ball as much as we possibly can. That's what I'm going for. My point is that if the result is that when the Democrats get in power, that they're able to do all these terrible things, then at least my hope at the other end of that is that maybe the result would be a backlash against the Democrat Party, that would just be my hope at that point. That's not my argument for it, just to clarify.

Speaker 3:
[46:39] Yeah, for sure. Well, I mean, one of the issues here obviously is the continued legitimacy of the Supreme Court, which again, another institution being undermined. So, our sponsors over at Kalshi are taking a look on when the... There's a big Voting Rights Act opinion that's supposed to come down from the Supreme Court. And there's a Kalshi market for pretty much everything, including when that is supposed to happen. And I believe it looks like a heavy favoring of the idea that it's gonna come down before January, but not before May, it won't be in the next term. So, that is what Kalshi has to say about that. The one thing that I would add with regard to all of this is that I actually am, I'm with Drew in the sense that I'm actually weirdly more hopeful about the possibility of retaking some of these institutions than I was a few years ago. The number of people that I hear from in Hollywood, just to take like the most obvious example of a left-wing preserver for the past, my entire life, the number of people who I hear from in Hollywood who are legitimately like big names, but who have awoken to the fact that Hollywood has lost its mind, truly well and good lost its mind is pretty extraordinary. I think that there are moves that are being made in these arenas that are opening apertures that did not exist before. It's not just random creators in their bedroom making AI videos, it's people who are actually making films and who are finding new methods of distribution. It's the fact that Paramount Plus might be a warmer place in the very near future for creators who are not wrote down the line left-wingers. It's the fact that there is appetite at some of these other outlets for content that is not just kind of left-wing trash. And so I see movement in that arena. I see movement obviously in the media sphere where Daily Wire is active, but we're not the only ones. I see movement even in the educational sphere mainly because there I do believe that the entire system is going to crumble from within just because the cost structure is so out of whack with the benefit structure for the universities that it can't continue this way. And so, I'm actually more, in some ways, I'm more hopeful about the future of a conservative, you know, institutionally based grassroots move than I even am about the continuation of political power.

Speaker 2:
[48:45] That's hopeful.

Speaker 4:
[48:45] Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 3:
[48:46] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[48:47] That's too hopeful.

Speaker 3:
[48:48] I don't like that one little bit.

Speaker 2:
[48:50] Is there anything to be worried about? Is there anything we should be sad or worried about or can we go home?

Speaker 3:
[48:55] Yeah, we should be worried about your love for Sabrina Carpenter.

Speaker 2:
[48:58] Yeah, no, well, they dare not speak its name. I know. I know. That's really... It's like love is love. That's what I was told. Actually, that is kind of the point we were talking about a little earlier on how the... And this, I guess, ties it all together in a little bit of a bow. But the Libs have these massive institutions, something like SPLC, almost a billion dollars. And when they achieve their objective, then they can either go away or they can invent new problems to go solve. This is exactly what happened 10 years ago with the gay marriage movement. You had that group, the Human Rights Campaign, the most euphemistically named trash organization in the history of American politics. And their entire goal was to redefine marriage to include two men and two women. So they do it, they succeed, the ghetto burger fell from the Supreme Court, and they had a choice the next day, which was either close up shop, good job, lads, we did it, isn't that great, okay, see you next year. Or they could make a new problem. And they did, they almost single-handedly invented transgenderism as a national political issue in no small part to keep the gravy train coming.

Speaker 4:
[50:02] But oh, Burgerfell, I thought of Burgerfell on the moment it happened, that this is a disaster for gay people. Because once you call it to the constitutional right. Because marriage is awful. No, you unleash queer, you know, you unleash queer theory, you know, and at the core of gay activism is some deeply perverse and evil stuff that we saw filtering into our elementary schools with the porn that they were putting on that they would defend to the death until you read it out loud and then they had to silence you because it was so horrific. That is that core of activism. I mean, look, a gay person can be a lovely person, but the gay movement is inherently bent, you know, and it's going to be, it's bad for the country on the big scale. No, this is the argument that nobody will have because the news has become so feminized. That's kind of unfair, but it's kind of true this idea that like, you know, it's all a teardrop news that if you can show somebody crying, that he must be in the right, so you just have to choose who you see crying. But there's a difference between persons and ideas, right? There's a difference between saying a Muslim person is a lovely person and is Islam something that fits in with Western thought? You know, those are two totally separate questions. And I think that when you make something a right that is not a right, like abortion or like gay marriage, you're actually setting it up. It may take a generation to explode, but you're actually setting it up for a fall.

Speaker 2:
[51:20] Yeah, that's a great point. Cole Porter is great, but you know, the LGBT movement is bad.

Speaker 3:
[51:24] Yeah, right, exactly.

Speaker 4:
[51:25] No, if Noel Coward is not in heaven, it won't be heaven, but like, still.

Speaker 3:
[51:29] Well, yes. I mean, speaking of heaven, you're going to die. And because you're going to die, that means you need a life insurance policy. No, no, not right now, Drew, not right now. I think you can, you'll maybe last a few more hours.

Speaker 4:
[51:42] You scared the hell out of me, I'm sorry.

Speaker 3:
[51:43] Well, I mean, it wasn't a diagnosis, Drew. It was an ad read. Come on, dude, stick and move with me here.

Speaker 2:
[51:49] It was a prediction. We're talking about life insurance. Sorry, sorry.

Speaker 3:
[51:53] No, no, it's a, no, guys, come on. It's a life insurance ad. Come on, you didn't see that coming.

Speaker 2:
[51:57] Okay.

Speaker 3:
[51:58] Stick with me. Okay, so for all the stuff that we remember, we often forget something that's pretty important. What happens to your family financially if something happens to you or more likely happens to Drew? There's a responsibility of protecting. Your loved ones is heavy. Trying to navigate life insurance on your own can be a total mess. Our sponsors over at Policygenius make that process easier by acting as an online insurance marketplace, not an insurance company. So you can compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free. Their license team works for you, not the insurance carriers. So they care about your needs, your budget, your family, and they help you figure out coverage amounts, prices, terms, all of it. So there's no guesswork, just clarity. So listen, I have life insurance, which gives my wife peace of mind and means, you know, God forbid something happens to me that she's taken care of. I know the other fellows here also have life insurance. And some of it, for some of us, the policy was more expensive than others, Drew. But Drew would be the one who benefits most from shopping around at Policygenius because Policygenius handles your questions, handles the paperwork, advocates for you throughout the entire process. They've already racked up thousands of five-star reviews from people just like you and like me, protect your family with a policy that grows with your life with Policygenius. You can see if you can find one of your life insurance policies, starting at just 276 bucks a year for a million dollars in coverage. Head on over to policygenius.com/fire to compare life insurance quotes from top companies, see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com/fire.

Speaker 2:
[53:18] There's one question before I let you guys go. There's one question I want to know that's actually practical, that doesn't have to do with Sabrina Carpenter. And it's about the Virginia redistricting. So I've heard two theories on how we could get out of it. One is that the Virginia Supreme Court could rule that this is unacceptable. And then the other one is that the federal government could reclaim Arlington and Alexandria as a way to just pummel the Democrats in Virginia. What is the Kalshi prediction market odds that either of those things will happen?

Speaker 3:
[53:52] That General Trump leads an insurrection into Arlington and just takes it forcibly and reunites it with its sister city over in Washington, DC.?

Speaker 2:
[53:59] Funded by the SPLC, yes.

Speaker 3:
[54:01] Right. And Muriel Bowser is now the mayor of both places and it's, yeah, it sounds great. There's nothing I'm sure that the people of Virginia would like better than to be reunited with Washington, DC., the best governed area of the United States. I'm sure it'll go great.

Speaker 2:
[54:13] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[54:14] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[54:15] What about the court? The court, no chance?

Speaker 3:
[54:17] No, no, no. The court, no, no.

Speaker 4:
[54:18] Not the Virginia court, no.

Speaker 3:
[54:20] Yeah. No, no. No way.

Speaker 2:
[54:22] Well, on that happy note, hey, Matt, you got an episode of this show, right? You're still doing the history show, and so we can at least look back to all the happy moments in our past, even if we don't have many of them in the future. A reminder, folks, your membership allows us to make things like Real History with Matt Walsh allows us to put on some very important presentation for you called Friendly Fire. It allows us to report the stories that others will not say, what others will not bring you breaking news, uncensored live shows, member live chat, investigative reporting and unlimited access to everything Daily Wire. We need you as well as funding from the SPLC. When we get both of those, then we're really cooking with fire. Join now at dailywire.com/subscribe. While I'm promoing things, Matt, I'm a vaunted profilee on SPLC's Hate Watch. You have this series on real history that has done very, very well for some reason. I'm still trying to figure out on the back end. What are you talking about in the latest episode?

Speaker 1:
[55:23] Well, yeah, it's been some really well and we're thrilled by that. I mean, when you can actually make, these episodes are hour-long history lectures basically. We do a great job in the editing or I don't do anything with the editing, but the editors do a great job with it, so it looks great. But at the end of the day, that's what it is and people are responding really well to it. So I think that's a white pill a little bit for the future. Yeah. People are interested in content like this. It's always a white pill when people are consuming my content. So that's the one hope I find in the future of the country. Yeah. So the most recent episode we have up right now on Daily Wire is about the Civil War. So we did slavery, we did the history of the American Indians, and now we've moved on to the Civil War. This is another one where we're not giving you a cartoonish, re-imagining right-wing perspective on the Civil War, where we take all the exaggerations the left makes and just applies them to the other side. Without doing that, it's actually an objective kind of examination and discussion of the war. I think it's really interesting, and a lot of facts in there that if you went to public school you probably didn't hear, so you should subscribe and watch.

Speaker 2:
[56:37] One last thing, in honor of the SPLC funding racism, can we just, before we go, just go around the horn, everyone say their favorite racial slur? I'll start. My favorite one, I learned this like 15 years ago, square-headed shiptar. A square-headed shiptar, I learned this somewhere in the Internet, it refers to Albanians. Apparently, and when you think about it, Albanians do have square heads, and shiptar is the word in the Albanian language that just means Albanian. So anyway, I've been sitting on that one for like 20 years now and I'm really excited that I get to use it. I hope my check comes in from the SPLC any minute now. Does anybody else have any other slurs you want to share? Epithets of any sort that you want to share?

Speaker 4:
[57:22] Gormless Poultron, but I'm not going to tell you which race it's against.

Speaker 2:
[57:27] All right, all you gormless poultrons. Wonderful to see all of you here on Friendly Fire. We'll see you all next week or in two weeks or I don't know, whatever. On the next one. See you then.