Kamala Harris LIES About Florida’s New Slavery Curriculum





Liz opens the show by discussing a video featuring country singer Jason Aldean. The video captures his response to accusations of promoting lynching in the music video for his song, “Try That In A Small Town.”

Liz commends Aldean’s reaction and praises the power of country music fans in countering cancel culture. She emphasizes the importance of conservatives making their voices and values known through consumerism.

Next, Liz discusses Vice President Kamala Harris’s recent lies about Florida’s proposed curriculum, specifically relating to teaching history, including slavery. She exposes Harris’s misrepresentation of the curriculum and criticizes her dishonesty and divisive tactics. Liz points out the contradiction in the Left’s ideology, which claims America was built on the backs of slaves but also denies slaves had any skills to contribute.

Moving on, Liz addresses her ongoing beef with Andrew Tate, emphasizing that conservatives must have a clear definition of masculinity and offer constructive ideas rather than just opposing wrongs. She calls out Andrew Tate’s involvement in pornography, highlighting its exploitative and destructive impact on women and men. Liz argues that Tate’s immoral behavior is especially dangerous because he pretends to offer morality and lures young men into harmful practices.

Finally, Liz clarifies that Andrew Tate’s core message of health, hard work, self-respect, and self-reliance may resonate with some conservatives, but his involvement in pornography tarnishes his credibility as a role model. She urges conservatives to define true masculinity positively and offer principled guidance to young men.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

I want to start the show today with a video. It’s a great video. It’s not too long, it’s only a short, a little bit over a minute long, and I want you to listen to the crowd’s reaction at the end of this video. The context of this video is Jason Aldean was the subject of an attempted cancellation by the Left because his new, it’s actually not a new song, he released it in May, but he has a new music video for the song. Try that in a small town. And the Left saw this music video because the song’s inherently anti rioting. We talked about it on the show last week. The left accused him of being pro lynching that the song was supposed to be a modern lynching song. Jason Ali had a beautiful reaction to it on Twitter last week, but over the weekend he was touring at a concert in the Midwest. He was actually in Cincinnati, Ohio. And he responded verbally on stage to the backlash and to the specifically the attempted cancellation and what he said made the crowd roar. Take a look at this. 

Everybody having fun so far tonight? Well, I gotta tell you guys, man, it’s been a long last week. It’s been a long week and I’ve seen a lot of stuff. I’ve seen a lot of stuff suggesting I’m this suggesting I’m that, Hey, here’s the thing. Here’s the thing. Here’s one thing I feel, I feel like everybody’s entitled to their opinion. You can think you can, you can think something all you want to. It doesn’t mean it’s true, right? So what I am is a proud American. I’m proud to be from here. I love our country. I want to see it restored to what it once was before all this bullshit started happening to us. I love my country, I love my family, and I will do anything to protect that. I can tell you that right now. Here’s what I want say. A lot of things out there, and one thing I love, you guys know how it is this day and age. Cancel culture is a thing. That’s something that if people don’t like what you say, they try and make sure that they can cancel you, which means try and ruin your life. Ruin everything. 

One thing I saw this week was a bunch of country music fans that could see through a lot of the bullshit. All right? 

First of all, did that give you the chills? Because it gives me the chills when people start chanting USA. But the thing that Jason Aldean said at the very end, I thought, yes, this is the moment that we’re in in our culture right now, this very important pivotal moment. When Jason Aldeen started talking about cancellation, he talked about how country music fans reacted to the Left’s idea that we should cancel Jason Aldean for this song. Try that in a small town. And what did country music fans do? We made that song go to the top of the charts. This is different, right? This is, this is like Target and like Bud Light, it’s cancellation. Or I suppose preventing someone from being canceled, like preventing Jason Aldean from being canceled is the inverse of a boycott. But it’s the same power of the consumer for the first time in modern America, conservatives are making our voices and our values known through our consumerism. 

And I feel like we’ve discovered a new superpower. I feel like this is something that hasn’t been done effectively by us, by our side before, but for the first time, it is. And it’s not just the political right, if you will. It’s not just professional right? Wingers or conservatives or members of the Republican party. This is a movement that is a lot bigger than the people that are just in the political trenches every day. This is every day American men and women who may not care that much about politics, who object, are looking at what’s happening in our society right now. Whether it’s critical race theory, whether it’s queer theory, whether it’s, you know, the terrible cancel, cancel culture and moral relativism. And they’re recognizing that that’s bad, that that’s wrong, that that’s evil, and they’re doing something about it. Even if politics isn’t their favorite thing in the world. 

I find that to be so tremendously encouraging in our fight that I wanted to start the show with that today. Also encouraging the Left has gone too far and they’re receiving backlash in Italy in the Miss Italy beauty pageant. So last week on the show we talked about Miss Netherlands, how the beauty pageant, it’s a Miss Universe subsidiary. It’s the Netherlands version of it. The person who won was not a woman. The person who won was a man, a biological man masquerading as a woman, cosplaying a woman, not even a cute woman. We saw the picture last week and this sparked backlash all around the world. We talked about it, a lot of other people talked about it. And this is one of those things, you don’t have to be particularly politically active to recognize that yeah, that’s a dude. And a dude shouldn’t be winning a female beauty pageant regardless of how much makeup he’s wearing or whether he is wearing high heels. 

It’s fundamentally wrong. We all recognize this. Well, it’s not just that consumers or potential consumers of these beauty pageants are speaking out. The owner of the Miss Italy subsidiary of the Miss Universe beauty pageant has banned transgender individuals, meaning biological men who are masquerading as women from competing. The woman who owns Miss Italy is named Patric Mira Gani. And this is what she said. She said that it is absurd to allow transgender competitors to win. She said the purpose of it is just to make the news. She said lately, beauty contests have been trying to make the news also using strategies that I think are a bit absurd. My competition provides in its rules the clarification that you must be a woman from birth. And I read that and I thought, you know what? It is encouraging and invigorating. It’s energizing to see that our hard work, especially in the face of backlash from the Left all the time, day in and day out, that our hard work nonetheless is effective. 

That the Left has gone too far with the transgender ideology. The fact that the Left has the Left has made the transgender ideology their hill to die on, is actually causing the transgender ideology to be prohibited to die out in our culture. And this is a very, very good thing. It’s a shame that Europe has to be the leader on this. This is supposed to be the role of the United States of America to be the leader of the free world, to be the leader of the West, but at least sometimes good and right and beautiful truth and morals do prevail in. That’s what’s happening in Italy. So the opposites of truth and morals is coming out of the mouth of our vice president, Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris made the news over the weekend because she’s telling lies again, per usual. This is Kamala Harris’s modus operandi to tell lies. 

This lie is about Florida’s new proposed curriculum. So yes, this sounds, oh, this is in the weeds. This is nitty gritty. So Florida is proposing a curriculum that will be implemented in their public schools based on recent legislation that we’ve heard about legislation that calls for the education of children about the reality of communism or prohibits the indoctrination of children in j radical gender ideology and their new curriculum as it pertains to history, particularly American history, particularly the time in US history when slavery was legal in our country. Kamala Harris is wildly misrepresenting what This is what Kamala’s claim is. Let’s take a listen to that. 

Extremists, so-called leaders for months have dared to ban books, book bands in this year of our Lord, 2023 extremists here in Florida, pass a law, don’t say gay, trying to instill fear in our teachers that they should not live their full life. And now on top of all of that, they want to replace history with lies. Middle school students in Florida to be told that enslaved people benefited from slavery. High schoolers may be taught that victims of violence, of massacres were also perpetrators. I said it yesterday, they insult us in an attempt to gaslight us and we will not have it. 

Kamala Harris doing what Kamala Harris always does. This is how Kamala Harris even got to be vice president of the United States because she’s corrupt and she lies. So let’s start with her contradiction here. So this is the funny thing about the Leftist ideology is you don’t even, you don’t even have to speak in order for it to debunk itself. It will fundamentally cannibalize its own arguments. So for example, the 1619 project, what does the 1619 project teach? The 1619 project teaches that America, the United States of America, was built on the backs of slaves that the United States of America was built on the labor of slaves. So we’re supposed to believe if we listen to 1619 project, it was from the New York Times, but it’s now in curriculum in schools all across the country. We’re supposed to believe that America was built on the backs of slaves. But then Kamala Harris tells us that apparently slaves had no monetizable skills that they used to build America. 

Well, it seems to me that both of those things can’t be true either. Either America was built on the backs of slaves who had skills and labor that was monetized by evil slave owners, or they had no skills or labor that could be monetized. And therefore the whole thing cannibalizes itself. She’s contradicting herself. But this is what the democratic ideology always does. She’s also lying. What she’s using is the don’t say gay playbook, the Left, you’d think the Left would’ve learned their lesson because they were destroyed so badly in the court of public opinion that even Democrats in the state of Florida were supportive of the parental rights and education law, which the Democrats called, don’t say gay or the Democrat operatives. The Democrat elites, the Democrats in Washington called Democrats in the mainstream media called don’t say gay. The actual law was the parental rights and education law. 

And even Democrat parents in Florida supported it because all it did was prohibit the classroom instruction of gender ideology in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. It had nothing to do with what teachers’ lives were outside of the classroom, nothing at all. It simply prohibited teachers from talking about graphic sex and unscientific, poisonous communist ideology that pertains to sex in the classroom. But this is exactly the playbook that Kamala Harris is trying to use again. I mean, she even referenced it when she said, you know, oh, the don’t say gay bill. Well, we’ve all debunked that and no believed you. The actual language of the text that Kamala Harris references, this is what it reads, instruction for children. This is curriculum. Remember, instruction includes how slaves develop skills, which in some instances could be applied for their personal benefit. That’s the language of the bill. 

So it says nothing that Kamala Harris claims that it said nothing whatsoever, not even kind of close. That’s the phrase. Instruction includes how slaves develop skills, which in some instances could be applied for their personal benefit. That’s the literal comparison here. But, and the context makes it even more interesting because the context, what else is being taught? What else is up for instruction? Charles Cook over at the National Review, analyzed the entirety of this curriculum and identified every reference to slavery, to slaves, to any form of racialism. And you should go read it. It’s great. It it gives you a thorough picture of what’s going to be taught to students in school. But I wanna read you just a couple of these, a couple of these things that are taught about slavery so that you can see in the context here. Kamala Harris is accusing Republicans, particularly DeSantis of whitewashing history. 

That’s not at all true because this is what children will be taught. The conditions for Africans during their passage to America, the living conditions of slaves and British North American colonies, the Caribbean, central Americand South America, including infant mortality rates, the harsh conditions and their consequences on British American plantations, i e undernourishment, climate conditions in infant and child mortality rates of the enslaved versus the free, the harsh conditions in the Caribbean plantations, poor nutrition, rigorous labor disease, how the South tried to prevent slaves from escaping in their efforts to end the Underground Railroad. The overwhelming death rates caused by the practice, the many ways in which Africans resisted slavery, the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, the struggles faced by African-American women in the 19th century as it relates to issues of suffrage, business and access to education, et cetera, et cetera. 

As you can see, the full context here is not painting a pretty picture of slavery. Kamala Harris is evil. She’s lying deliberately because she’s so corrupt. She’s so deeply embedded, deeply tied to this ideology, this radical leftist ideology that she will resort to race, spading pitting citizens of the United States, black citizens against white citizens, white citizens against black citizens in order to try to achieve her desired political outcome. And you know what that tells me? It tells me that A, she sold her soul. Ad B, she doesn’t believe that her political ideology and her political goals would win if she actually presented them to the American people and the American people compared them to the alternative. Ka Kamala Harris is doing what Kamala Harris always does. She is lying. Okay, so we have a quick update on the beef with Andrew Tate, and I know some of you are probably thinking, Liz, I’m tired of hearing about this. 

We talked about this two different times last week, and I hear you, I totally hear you. But stick with me on this for a minute because I have one of the most important points that I have made yet to make to you tonight based on some guy by the name of Mike Krispy. I’ve never heard of him before this. Maybe you guys had heard of him. You probably have. He has a show on Rumble. Apparently he is a defender of Andrew Tate and he made a video totally destroying Liz Wheeler. After my interactions with Andrew Tate last week, Andrew Tate then retweeted this video of Mike Crispy. And I would like to address a couple of the points in this guy’s video. Not, not to get into a tit for tat, I’m not interested in that. But because this video embodies one of the existential questions that you and I are facing as conservatives in our modern culture today, in fact, in fact, I would argue that what I’m about to explain what this video is a perfect example of is one of the main reasons why conservatives and why the Republican Party as a whole. 

I like to separate conservatives from the Repub Republican party a little bit, but why we as a whole have been losing the culture war time after time, after time after time for decades now, it’s because there’s an existential question that we, within the conservative movement within the Republican party have not sat down and hashed out again, not in a tit for tat kind of way, not in a, someone totally destroyed someone else, but we haven’t sat down and had an intellectual conversation about this disagreement that I’m talking about, the root of this disagreement between some conservatives or some red pilled people who might not be as political, but who, like Andrew Tate and me. The root of this disagreement is because we don’t have a clear cut definition on what is a real man, what is true masculinity. Andrew Tate offers his version of it. 

I’m offering a version that differs from Andrew Tate, but it comes back to this question, what is masculinity? What is it? Why do men exist? What is the purpose of men that differs from the purpose of women? And this takes us to e an even deeper question, if you will indulge me being philosophical for a second. What is the definition of right? Because it’s pretty easy to look at something and say, oh, it’s wrong. We can look at a drag queen story hour and we can all say, yeah, that’s wrong, that’s immoral, it’s gross, it’s perverted. But what is the definition of right? I’ve noticed even among people who are generally in agreement on political and cultural issues, that there is not a consensus among us on what the definition of right is, even while we agree mostly on the definition of wrong. So for example, it comes to Andrew Tate. The biggest problem with Andrew Tate, of course, is pornography. In fact, you could frame this conversation as being primarily about pornography and about the culture that pornography creates among young men who consume it. 

You’ll notice that Andrew Tate defenders, including Mike Crispy, dismiss Andrew Tate’s pornography business as simply being a webcam business. They never use the word pornography, they never define what is pornography, what’s it used for? What impact does it have on society, on young men, specifically on families, on marriages, on masculinity. They never wanna, they never wanna focus on the question. Well, if a woman consents gives her consent to be, to be in pornography, and if it’s legal, does that make it moral? 

This is an existential question. I know it’s an uncomfortable question. Some people might be like, whoa. Well, we’re talking about Andrew Tate. I don’t wanna sit here and talk about porn. This is not, this is not all about porn. This is, that’s an example of what I wanna talk about. Because what I wanna do today is I don’t wanna offer just a defensive analysis of what’s wrong with Andrew Tate. I don’t wanna just destroy Andrew Tate at every single turn, or I don’t wanna get into a tit for tat with, with this guy that made the video. That’s not the point of what I’m doing today. But I want to offer instead a constructive idea of what real masculinity is, because conservatives are never going to win the culture war if we simply are the party of no, if we’re simply looking at wrong, correctly, recognizing wrong, but then we have nothing to offer instead. 

So many of you guys, after I started interacting with Andrew Tate on Twitter, a lot of you were like, well, who should we look to? What role model sh is a good example of what real masculinity is. And I gave, I gave an answer that I meant it wasn’t an answer that I, that I, that’s wrong. But I wanna expand on this question because this is a valid question, a good question, and I’m glad you asked this question. So that’s what I wanna do today. So let’s start by watching a little bit of this video from Mike Crispy, if we could bring that up on the screen. 

Liz Wheeler said, Andrew Tate is evil. He is an anti-Christ figure. He prescribes poison materialism, pornography, the exploitation of women, the worship of self young men should reject him. 

Okay, hold on just a second. So that’s why I wanna pause it for a second, because if we can bring my tweet up on the screen as well. Mike Krispy did not read that tweet in its entirety, and it’s only 280 characters. It’s not like this was too long here. This is what I said. I said, Andrew Tate is evil. He’s n antichrist figure. He diagnoses a cultural ill accurately that our society vilifies men then for an antidote, he prescribes poison, materialism, pornography, exploitation of women, worship of self, young men should reject him. Mike Crispy skipped that middle sentence, the sentence where says he diagnoses a cultural ill accurately. That society vilifies men. And it’s important not to skip that because this is what makes Tate dangerous. It’s not just that Andrew Tate is acting immorally. There are a lot of people all around the world acting immorally. The reason it’s dangerous when Andrew Tate acts immorally is because he’s using the pretense of morality, meaning he’s identifying a wrong correctly to lure young men in. But then he’s essentially offering a bait and switch. That’s what makes him dangerous. So let’s restart the tape. 

Christ figure. Now, Andrew ate has said, and he’s talked about it, that his former business, he’s been very open about it, this webcam business that he did, he’s been out of it for a number of years. He became a Muslim, he converted, he’s religious now, all that stuff. He talks about it and he says he is not proud of it. He did it. He made money on it. Fine. 

Oh, it doesn’t seem fine to me. This is what this is. Let’s just stop for a second on that phrase, webcam business. So what is this webcam business? Let’s define it. What is this webcam business? It’s pornography. What’s pornography? Pornography is sexual exploitation of women. It’s women on camera. In this case it was not men and women together, women performing sexual acts on a livestream, on a camera for men to purchase so that they, in a voyeuristic sense, could achieve sexual gratification by objectifying these women. If we have a hard time saying the word pornography, if we just use a euphemism, a webcam business, if we, if we have a hard time defending or defining pornography, we should ask ourselves why? Why is it uncomfortable to define pornography? Well, it’s uncomfortable to define pornography because we don’t wanna think about what it is. We don’t wanna think about what it is because it is the exploitation of women. 

It’s, it’s grotesque. It’s immoral. Immoral. That’s the key word here. And the impact that pornography has on the women who are performing is obvious. It’s the exploitation of women treating them as sexual objects degrading who they are. They have dignity and value just because they exist. They aren’t here for to be abused for the grad, the sexual gratification of someone paying for it, that’s, that’s evil. The word that I used before, that’s evil. But the impact that pornography has on young men is also destructive. The impact that pornography has on young men is it reduces their sex drive. It actually changes the wiring in their minds. They are no longer they no longer enjoy normal sex. They crave more twisted and more perverted versions of pornography because they get desensitized to regular old sex. It also leads them towards violence, violence towards women, in addition to breaking down, and perhaps this is no surprise, breaking down relationships and breaking down marriages. 

So pornography is an inherently destructive thing at every level. There’s no positive way to look at pornography. And Andrew Tate has, has bragged about making his wealth, making his riches off pornography. In fact, he said to the Fresh and Fit podcast, at one point, he said, I had 75 women working for me in four locations, and I was doing $600,000 a month. That doesn’t sound like a small operation. I know that he has a spokesman or a lawyer or someone who claims that it’s, it wasn’t a profitable thing for the Tates, it was too controversial. That’s why they moved away from it. Well, that’s not what Andrew Tate said. Andrew Tate said that he made $600,000 a month off of exploiting these women and exploiting the young men. And also also this part is rarely covered. Andrew ate himself, participated in scamming, I guess, an older men who were richer, who became such fans of these girls performing pornography that they would want to send them. They would want to meet them and send them large calf gi cash gifts. And so Andrew Tate said that he would sit sometimes for 16 hours a day pretending to be one of the webcam girls in order to scam these men out of money at, and he would keep the money. This is not a webcam business that can be dismissed as a webcam business. That This is nasty stuff. This is pornography, which we will define and exploitation at every level. This is really, really bad stuff. Let’s continue watching the tape. 

But Andrew Tate’s core message is not about pimping out women and all these things. They cherrypick these little pieces of things that are said on the internet and then they go, look, he’s terrible. He’s bad. He’s a woman beater. He’s a woman abuser. All these things. He speaks out publicly to young men about values that are inherently our values. Being healthy, eating right, going to the gym, working hard, not taking government handouts, being a man, having self-respect. All these things, good things for masculinity in the future of men. 

All right, wait a second here, wait a second here. This is a phrase that we’re gonna break down more when he says, these are good things for masculinity in the future of men. Well, this is where the big question, this is where the big disagreement lies. What is masculinity? What is good for the future of men? Okay, let’s bring this video up. let’s bring this video up one more time here. This is, this is element five E. 

And listen, is he perfect? No. Is anybody perfect? No. But to call him the antichrist, is he pedaling pornography to the modern day youth in the last five years? No. 

Okay, so we agree then that it’s egregious to pedal pornography. Why is that? Because pornography is fundamentally immoral. Otherwise, if you didn’t agree that pornography is fundamentally immoral, then you wouldn’t be denying this because there’d be no reason to. If there’s nothing wrong with it, why, why deny that it was happening? But we agree that it’s a terrible egregious thing to pedal pornography. What’s funny is that all the responses to the video compilation of Andrew Tate bragging, the one that went viral of Andrew Tate about pimping women and getting rich off of a porn business. He never denies any of it in, in all his responses. He spent the last week issuing responses himself. And through his surrogates, no one’s denying what he did. He’s never said that he regretted it. He’s never disavow it. I wonder, why don’t you shouldn’t, we all wonder why. Let’s bring the video back up 

Materialism. So, because he’s successful and he shows young children, oh, you could buy this and you could have nice cars and nice homes. So that’s antichrist stuff. Now, according to Liz Wheeler, 

According to Liz Wheeler, well, we don’t have to, we don’t have to start it like that. We can ask the question, what is materialism? Let’s define what materialism is. Materialism is glorifying inanimate objects as a key to success or defining success as in terms of material goods first, or, and this is probably the most, the most apropos definition, materialism describes the belief that buying and having possessions is not just important, but a key to happiness in life. So let’s just listen, let’s just read some of Andrew Tate’s own words, and you can make a decision for yourself whether he is engaging in materialism. He says, A real man is ultra rich and provides his woman with the most expensive things money can buy. In order to be a real man, apparently you have to be ultra rich. He says it’s extremely important as a man that you become rich. Okay? Then he says, I teach men to become filthy rich. Money is ultra important to escape the slave mind. Then he posts to Lincoln says, learn what you need to escape. 

He then says, those who say money doesn’t make you happy, were always miserable. Those who were happy broke are very happy, rich. He says, you must be rich, but also strong and able to fight. He goes, there’s a sense of inner peace coming with a knowledge that you coming with a knowledge that you can have anything you want anytime you want. What’s funny is once you truly have this ability through unlimited fame and money, you don’t even want anything knowing you could have it is enough. So as you can see, he certainly does equate money with success. He also equates money with happiness. That is the definition, the definition of materialism here, and is as if anybody needs further proof of this. Let’s watch this video, if we could bring element six G up on the up on the screen. Let’s 

Talk about money. One of my favorite things. 

Oh, one of his favorite topics. So then we get, we’re watching a montage of ate with ultra luxury items. So expensive watches, diamond and crusted, jewelry and paraphernalia, expensive luxury cars. This, I mean, you can see this for yourself. You can hear his words for yourself. He said, money is one of my favorite topics. And he certainly equates it with happiness and success. And actually says, A real man is ultra rich. So you can make the decision for yourself here. Let’s bring up one last bit from this video. This is element seven A. 

And he’s a terrible man because they clipped up this compilation of things that he said back in the day, and that’s muddying the waters and the reason why he should be guilty. Now, these are Democrat tactics. It really is. It just bothers me because I read the whole thing. I watched the Tucker interview in detail. The indictment has nothing to do with anything from his past. It has things to do from 2021 onward if you read it and everyone’s like, oh, Tucker Carlson. He didn’t call it out. And he was doing the interview and he didn’t call it out. Well, he didn’t call it out cause he didn’t relate to the case. Tucker Carlson said, what are you charged with? And he said, this, this. Oh my goodness. Tucker didn’t ask him about the webcams, didn’t ask him about that. Well, it has nothing to do with the case. Oh, and he’s materialistic cuz he shows people that you could live a nice life if you work hard and honor for God and honor your body and your values. All that stuff they do that. Liz Wheeler pushes this. It’s stupid, it’s wrong. I dunno why she’s doing it. 

So I expected him to make this point. I expected him to make it earlier in the video. But first of all, it should be fairly obvious that if you’re analyzing Andrew Tate’s legal troubles in Romania by simply repeating what Andrew Tate has said about his legal troubles in Romania, then you’re not actually a analyzing it. You’re just acting as a spokesperson for him. But here’s the thing. Here’s the thing that a lot of people on Twitter, a lot of Andrew Tate’s followers are missing. I’ve never commented on Andrew Tate’s legal case. Never, none of my commentary has been related to his, the charges that were made against him in Romania. None of it. I might talk about it at some point in the future. I might, but I have not. Yet. What I have been doing is making the moral case against Andrew Tate making the case that he’s a destructive force, a destructive role model for young men leading them down the path of self-destruction, the moral case, what Andrew Tate has been doing himself and through surrogates, is trying to conflate the moral and the legal case because he doesn’t wanna answer my four factual observations about, about what he does that first he accurately diagnoses a cultural ill that society vilifies young men. 

 and then he leads them towards self-destruction through materialism, pornography, exploitation of women and worship of self. It’s the easiest tactic to use to avoid answering those observations is simply to pretend that I’m talking about something else. But it’s pretty obvious to anybody who has read my words that I’m making the moral case against Andrew Tate. It’s a really important conversation to talk about the morality of Andrew Tate. Legality aside, there are plenty of things that are legal, that are immoral. That’s not the case that I’m making. The case that I’m making is Theoral case against Andrew Tate. So by the way, Mike Krispy asked if I wanted to engage in a civil debate. You can, we can show this on the screen. This is his tweet to me. It’s element number eight. He said, open to a civil debate on this Liz Wheeler. I’m game. So I said, sure, come on my show. 

I’m happy to have a civil debate with you. I’m also happy to debate Andrew Tate. our producers reached out to him. He was unable to come on the show today. He was, he was already scheduled. He’s welcome to come on the show anytime. I think this is an important conversation to be had for the reasons that I stated before, because the root of all of this actually has nothing to do with Andrew Tate himself. Andrew Tate is just the manifestation of this, or he is one of the most famous figures who is embodying this existential crisis in the conservative movement right now of what is masculinity? What is it? Can you define it? I want everybody watching this show, especially if you’re a defender of Andrew Tate. If you, if you think that he is been helpful, if you think that what he is offering young men is constructive, ask yourself, what is the definition of masculinity? 

This is the argument that I’m making, that the definition of masculinity that Andrew Tate is offering is wrong. So I think to define masculinity, we have to go all the way back to our origin. And this is, I promise that this is not inherently religious, although it comes through my religious worldview. As you know, I’m a practicing Christian, and thus I see the world, including the culture and politics through this lens. You don’t have to be a Christian or a practicing religious person to understand the point that I’m making. So if you’re not a person of faith, don’t click off right now. I have a point to make and understand that people are drawn to truth and that truth, objective truth exists just like you. And I know that a man can’t be a woman just because he wants to be, or a woman can’t. 

I be a man just because she identifies as one. Some things are simply true. So to define masculinity, we’re not just defining characteristics that, or tendencies or habits that are more likely to occur in the male of the species, of the human species than in the woman of the, of the human species. We are actually examining the very nature of who we are as human persons and in order to understand the nature of who we are as human persons, specifically in this case, we’re talking about men. So the nature of who men are, the nature of masculinity, we have to go all the way back to our origin, authentic masculinity. True manliness is rooted in the word of God in our creator. Again, you don’t have to be a practicing Christian. I I’m glad you’re here listening to this, and I wanna share this with you because this is a really important cultural point to be made about not just Andrew Tate, but about our entire political battle against the radical left. 

And it’s this disagreement or lack of clarity that a lot of people in our party have that has caused us to lose cultural battle after cultural battle after cultural battle. So if we’re, if we’re looking for the def definition of authentic masculinity, we should look at our origin, which would be in Genesis. In Genesis chapter two, man is told that his responsibility in the garden is to till and to keep it, to till and to keep it. But these words till and keep it, if you look at the original Hebrew words, to till means to perform a work that is a service. So labor in the service of others, and to keep the Hebrew word that’s translated into English as keep the Hebrew word means to protect and defend the so right from the very origin of man. We understand that the role of mankind, meaning the role of mass masculinity, is to work in the service of others or to labor in the service of others and to protect and defend. 

So God then says to Job, he says, to gerd your loins like a man. Now, the literal translation of Gerd, your loins is pull up your pants, which I find to be quite humorous. But of course, what is meant in job is to summon your inner strength, your your inner masculine strength to prepare for battle. This makes sense in the, in the, in the context of, oh, men are in the garden, we’re told to protect and defend. So summon your inner strength, prepare for battle, but what are you going to be fighting? What are you, what are you gonna fight? Is this a physical battle? Well, Ephesians six tells us that the battle that men are supposed to fight is not necessarily a physical battle. It is a battle against sin and against death. This is what Ephesians six says. And indulge me on this point that I’m going to make after I I, this will take me about a minute and a half to get through this argument. 

I’m interested in your thoughts. Ephesians six says, be strong in the Lord. Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the wils of the devil, for we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers against the world. Rulers of this present darkness against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand, stand therefore, having fastened the belt of truth around your waist and having put on the breastplate of righteousness and having sh your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace. Besides all these, take the shield of faith with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one and take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. 

So we’re told pretty clearly that men’s duty to protect and defend isn’t necessarily a physical battle. It’s against sin and against death. And then of course, you have to ask the question, well, who are you fighting for? Or whom are you defending? And this is also answered in Ephesians five, when men are told that they’re fighting for their wives, Ephesians five says, sanctify your wife and make her holy. So you are protecting your wife, your spouse, the woman that you are now one spiritually, one with from the forces of evil. You are supposed to make her holy sanctify her and make her holy. Men might be thinking, well, how on earth do I do that? And for what purpose do I do that? Well, Saint Paul says, husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church. What did Christ do in his love for us? He died on a cross to forgive our sins, in order to bring us to heaven eternally with him. 

So men’s role is to protect and defend their wives against evil, spiritual evil in order to sanctify her and bring her to heaven, which means men are called to serve and sanctify and sacrifice even with their own body to protect their families. This is actually the root of a lot of the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the verse that says, wives submit to your husbands the translation of the words submit is closer to accept. It’s almost a better translation would be accept your husband’s mission to bring you to heaven, accept your husband’s mission, to sanctify you, to protect you from evil, to keep you holy. St. Paul says that he dies daily to protect others from sin. This is the definition of true masculinity. This is the root of the disagreement, not just over Andrew Tate, but the root of the problems that the Republican party and the conservative movement have faced. 

Because we cannot look at these problems and say, okay, we identify what’s wrong, but what is right? What is the prescription? What do we want society to look like? What are our families supposed to look like? What are individual members of our families, men and women, husbands and wives? What are, what are we supposed to do? What is our purpose? If we can’t answer those questions, then what’s going to happen is Andrew Tates. What’s going to happen is sure, you can pretty easily see what’s wrong, but it’s not so easy to then prescribe what is right. Let me know what you think. Liz wheeler.com, drop me your comments, go to my Twitter, liz underscore wheeler, drop me your comments there as well. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show. 


Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top