Dennis & Julie: Humanism Is Arrogant

Your dog and a stranger are drowning. You can only save one. Who do you choose? Dennis Prager says your answer reveals everything about how you define right and wrong. In his new book, If There Is No God, Prager exposes the danger of emotion-based morality and why without objective truth, society descends into chaos. This isn't a religious book. It's a rational case for moral clarity in a confused age. If There Is No God from Dennis Prager. Order now at PragerStore.com.

Hey everybody, Dennis and Julie. Dennis Prager, Julie Hartman. What is it, podcast 26? Is that what we're up to? I got it right.

Our podcast can vote, it can drink, it can rent a car.

See, that's the way you think when you're in your 20s. What can the podcast do that it couldn't do until now?

Soon our podcast will qualify for your Social Security.

Not that soon. Yeah, maybe not, but you're right. No, no, no, no, no, no, it's— no, Social Security is 65, right? Yeah, you think about that a lot.

I do. I hope to be doing this for many, many years. It's so much fun.

I agree. You know, I never did— I never did even a show co-hosting. I've never co-hosted. And it's not ego, and it's not any— it's my, my style is I, I have things to say. Uh, I, I'm an outlier in, in so many ways, right? So it is such a statement about how I feel about you, the comfort I have, and the belief that you can add so much. That's a big deal.

Thank you. And I appreciate that you actually up until now haven't had a co-host. A, because it makes me feel special, and B, because you really have to get it right with a co-host. I watch a lot of news stations.

It is as close— if it's regular, it's as close to a marriage as you can get without being married.

Yes, it's true. You really have got to get it right. And boy, when you you see a TV show or two anchors and they don't work well together, it— that you can't hide it.

And by the way, and obviously it goes in the other direction, when they have chemistry, it's great. People pick up on what we like.

Regis and Kelly, did you ever watch Regis and Kelly? They had great chemistry.

That's correct. Yes. I wonder who else, although I didn't, I didn't watch much, but it's a, it's a beautiful thing to see when people have it. By the way, I wanted to say something about the opening theme. I often comment on how much I like it.

Yes.

As you have already probably discovered, that music enters your soul. Like when I hear the Gladiator theme, which is the theme of my regular radio show, it— music, when music is associated with something, it's like a smell. It's extremely powerful. The emotion that it elicits.

That's why right now, so I'm preparing, as you know, in 2 weeks to start my own show with Salem.

Yeah, what are you going to do about the theme? I'm curious.

Well, I don't want to say, I don't want to reveal too much because I want it to be a surprise to people, but part of the reason it was actually supposed to start next week and I think it's going to start the week after. Part of the reason for the delay is that I'm really trying to get the Salem legal department to get the licensing and the rights to certain music. I'm very particular about what kind of music I want for the show precisely because of what you just said. You know, I think of Rush Limbaugh and the opening of his show. He got that licensing from the Pretenders, and that opening is always associated with him. So the music really does matter.

Oh yeah.

Another thing is, last podcast I made this remark, you may recall, that the kind of music that my generation listens to is so vile and so self- congratulatory, self-aggrandizing, and violent. And I actually repeated that when I guest hosted for you recently. I repeated that sentiment on the air, and I had a lot of people write in to me between when I said it on the podcast and when I guest hosted for you. I got probably about 30 to 40 emails where people were agreeing with me. And I'd like to add another thing to my description of the kind of music that my generation listens to. It's It's violent, it's self-aggrandizing, it's vile, but it's also deeply pessimistic. Actually, I don't even know if I would say that it's pessimistic. It doesn't have any kind of moral message. And what I really like about the opening of this show is that it— you're right, it does enter your soul. It is optimistic. And that's what I like when I talk to you, Dennis Prager. You are always so optimistic. You always say, oh, I'm so great, or Oh, you know, I can't complain. Or he said to me recently, there, people are going to put on my tombstone, I had a good time. That is so refreshing because people these days just in general are not optimistic. Would you agree with me?

I wouldn't even see— I have an issue with optimism. I'll tell you about it in a moment. I've thought that through a lot.

I've heard it.

But you probably have heard everything. Oh, no, no. It's beyond what you've heard. I know what you've heard, but I have more to say about it than you've heard, happily. Uh, look, your generation has been profoundly affected by people on the left. I don't mean liberals, and they're not happy. There are no happy leftists. If you're— happiness is the most subversive. It's more subversive than even political arguments. When you become happy, you leave the left. And it's sort of almost a celebration of darkness.

Yes. Well, that's precisely what it is, because we're taught to be victims, and that when you are a victim, you can kind of wear it as a badge of honor in a way to make your viewpoint seem more powerful or more important than someone else's. So when we're constantly seeing people pull the victim card then we pull it ourselves.

And that's dark.

It's dark, yes, but it's, it's a weird— again, it's a weird celebration of— it's like a badge of honor to be a victim or to have something.

So let me tell you about optimism. So if you look up optimism, it's very interesting. If you look up optimistic or optimism in the dictionary, there are two definitions and they're very different. And they're both— and the dictionary is accurate, at least that's what it was. I assume it's still there. So the most obvious definition is think things will turn out well, correct? But there was another one, and it's always listed as the second definition: see the positive in any situation. That's me. Right, I'm number 2, not number 1.

Right.

I don't know how you and I are both lovers of the— of not just history, but the importance of history. You can't know history and be some wide-eyed optimist, right?

Well, actually, so the first one was you think things are going to turn out well. The second one was you see the positive in things.

Yes.

So I actually think, I mean, you are certainly the second one, but you're a good version of the second one. I think in some ways liberals, some liberals are the bad version of the second one. For instance, defund the police. They choose to see a make-believe positive aspect of defunding the police or the mutilation of children we just last episode played a clip of the Boston Children's Hospital representative bragging about how they willingly provide gender-affirming hysterectomies and mastectomies to young kids. I think that a lot of liberals again are the bad version of that second definition of optimism. 'Cause they go, oh, well there, there must be some good part in that. There must be some people who are being, whose gender is being affirmed by this mutilation. So, okay, I'll support you. Yeah.

All right. You're, but you're macroizing it. The optimism of definition number 2 is really personal, where you can see the positive. Clearly, any position on a social issue is going to think it's positive, right? It is sick. Do you know, I said it on my show for the first time, and it's not original to me. Somebody writing comments— I always read comments on articles that interest me. Somebody wrote a very intelligent thing. If you can decide at 13 to take hormone blockers, which is what they're saying, right? You— oh, I'm a boy, so here, great, terrific, here are hormone blockers. Then why, why can't they decide to marry? You can't, you can't marry, I think, or even drive, I think. Well, they, they would argue on driving, it affects others. So we'll just talk about affecting yourself. I want to marry. I'm 13. I want to get married. Why can't you? Can't get married, which can be reversed. But, but generally non-reversible hormone blockers, you know, puberty blockers with hormones. That's, that's okay.

Well, this substantiates your whole message of the fact that the left is trying to take away innocence from children. Why do you think that is?

My answer is not going to satisfy you, but I— it actually somewhat satisfies me. The world of the left is, is chaos. I don't know why some people like chaos. So I— my example is, it's truly everything is upside down in the, in in the left world. We sexualize children, but we try to render adults innocent. So they took away the swimsuit competition in the Miss America contest because it was too sexual. It was okay for my grandparents, who were deeply religious grandparents. A deeply religious America was fine with the swimsuit competition.

It's interesting.

It is. Oh, it's very interesting. It's such an important point. It's the secular world that's uncomfortable with adult sexuality.

That is a really good point because I think that at least people my age have this conception that there was an older generation of Americans that were far more conservative, not just politically, but with regard to—

Yeah, like prudes.

Yes, exactly, that were prudes. And it's funny how that is actually kind of reversed.

When I think of my religious Orthodox Jewish parents watching the Miss America contest, And my father telling my mother, oh my God, look at Miss Idaho, is she gorgeous? And then my mother would say, no, Miss Wisconsin. I mean, they would actually discuss the women. Faithful to one another for 69 years, 69 years of marriage, Orthodox Jews watching the swimsuit competition. But their secular grandchildren, great-grandchildren Oh no, we don't want ever women to be in a position of being seen sexually. But 5-year-olds can have sexuality. This is what I mean. Everything on the left is upside down.

Yes, I think one of the bedrocks of the leftist project is to unravel distinctions. And as you say in the first 4 pages of your Torah commentary, the first thing that God did in creating the world was make distinctions between light and darkness, day and night. Animal and man, man and women, good and very good, good and not good. The list goes on. And you say that civilization rests on these distinctions. Let's look at how the left is trying to unravel distinctions. Okay. They're trying to unravel the distinction between healthy and unhealthy. Now they're saying that if you decry obesity as a health threat, you are somehow fat phobic.

Oh yeah. Fat. There's always a phobe. I forgot the phobia.

They're obviously trying to unravel the distinctions between men and women. I don't even need to provide examples of that. They're trying to unravel traveled the distinction between what is just and unjust. We talked last episode about that January 6th prisoner who has been in prison for, what is it, 19 months. Meanwhile, all of the Black Lives Matter thugs who rioted in the summer of 2020 were out on bail that Kamala Harris raised, by the way, had people donate to. I just, when I, um, last week when I guest hosted for you, I talked about this woman who was a member of her local YMCA in Seattle for 35 years.

I heard you on my way to the airport. I heard you.

I know. I was so— thank you for listening. That was so sweet. As I was guest hosting, I was thinking Dennis is listening right now. I better make him proud. But I, I was telling the story that this woman was a member of the Y for 35 years. And one day after she used the pool, she went into the women's locker room and she saw an employee at the Y who looked like a man and whose voice sounded masculine, staring at these 4- and 5-year-old little girls getting undressed. And this woman, her name is Julie Jaman, so I have a proclivity to like her already because her name is Julie. She yelled at the guy, and at first she said, do you have a penis? And he said, it's none of your business. And she yelled at the guy and she said, stop staring at these girls, you get out of here. She's now banned from her Y. That substantiates my point about unraveling distinctions between just and unjust.

It also substantiates my point about how everything the left touches, it destroys.

Yeah. Oh, why?

YMCA is Young Men's Christian Organization. Christian organization. Oh, you didn't know that?

No, I didn't. Actually, as I was saying it, I was thinking, what does YMCA stand for?

Young Men Christian— I don't remember what the A is. Yeah. Well, that's what they— they— it was such a— it was such a noble purpose.

Look at Harvard. Harvard was founded in, I believe, 16th—

Association. Yeah, I was right. Yeah, right.

Harvard was founded as a school for, I believe, uh, Puritans or missionaries. It was— it was originally intended to be a religious school.

You couldn't get a BA, as you've heard me say, if you didn't know Hebrew until 1800, so that you could read the Torah in Hebrew, the Old Testament. In the Old Testament. So you said something. I didn't want to interrupt you, so now I want to comment on it. You said you wanted to make me proud. So I immediately wondered— which, by the way, is a terrific thing to have people in your life you want to make proud of you. It is a, it is a massive asset in life. I wonder how many in your generation have that. Who, who does the average kid you know want to make proud?

I actually think it is prevalent in my generation. Hmm, actually, I'm sort of amending that because making someone proud is different than pleasing someone, right? So I am going to retract that. Many in my generation really want to please others. That was the whole thesis of my Wall Street Journal, of my Wall Street Journal piece. And, you know, but proud— but proud is different. So, yes, so I'm glad that I kind of thought that out and made the distinction. I don't know, Dennis, that's an interesting question.

It is an interesting—

I don't know if many people are animated.

In order to want to make someone proud of you, you have to have someone you admire, otherwise you don't care.

Yep.

So I don't know how many— do you know how often— and this predates I would say this, 25 years, younger men would call my show and say, "You're a father figure to me." And I was always happy about that. Every man should aspire to be a father figure to younger men or even to younger women, but especially the younger men. And I realized they didn't have one. I was substituting for their father.

By the way, I had a young girl write into me a few weeks ago saying that you've played a father figure role in her life. So I just wanted to tell you that.

Yeah, I like that. By the way, as I told you privately, it finally happened, which is pretty quick. It's only a few months we're doing this. I would— I'm stopped a lot at airports, which is lovely, and I was finally stopped solely because of the Dennis and Julie podcast. I love that. Yes, you did tell me that. That's all the guy commented on.

I love that. Back to our point, just briefly, I'm, I have this, this argument I wanna make about, you know, people in my generation wanting to make others proud. I don't think it really exists so much anymore because we are not taught to revere our elders. The people at my age who you would wanna make proud would most likely be your parents or your grandparents or your teachers, people who are old. You know, you're probably not interested in making your 5-year-old sister proud. Perhaps you are, but my point is you would mostly focus on those who are older, but we're not taught to think that those who are older than us have some kind of wisdom or value to offer us. In fact, we are told the very opposite. We are told that we are the ones who are so fabulous and so enlightened and so advanced. I told you several times at my graduation, I, I wish I had counted how many times they said between the, ceremony in the yard and then the smaller ceremony back at your residential house. I have no doubt that this generation is going to make the world a better place. You guys get it. You guys have the ability to make real change. All the time we are told the adults have screwed things up and we are going to fix it. So I think that's why people aren't animated by the desire to make those who are older than they proud because it's so depressing. They have to reverse the course of history that the elder set for us.

That's why I was so annoyed with Obama's campaign motto, Hope and Change.

Yeah.

And I remember thinking, hope and change, that's what you tell people in Guatemala.

I know. Oh my gosh. On that point, sorry, am I interrupting you?

No, no, no, that's fine. Yeah.

So I know that you may not be interested in this, but my mom is an Anglophile. She loves following the happenings of the royal family. She has for decades. And so you may be aware that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry left the royal family, and now Meghan Markle has this podcast called Archetypes. Her first son is named Archie. And so I guess that it's kind of a play on, on the name Archie, but the podcast, we should actually play some of it if we can, but I can, I can just synopsize it now because I didn't tell Sean before the show, but The podcast is about the labels and the boxes that women are put into. This is what Meghan Markle says is the project of her new show. So her first guest is Serena Williams, and I just wanted to listen to it for entertainment to see how outrageous these people are, and I was blown away by how tone deaf they are.

They are sitting there and they're talking about Serena Williams is complaining about being placed in a box.

Yes.

What if she had $40 million in tennis earnings?

Oh, get ready for this. The entire podcast, Megan and Serena are talking about how it is not— when women are called ambitious, it's an insult. And when men are called ambitious, it's a good thing. And literally, it's for an hour, them just going back and forth. They're multimillionaires. Both have had enormous public attention and success, and they're talking about, "Oh, this reporter said that I was too ambitious," or, "This friend of mine made this snide comment," or, "This magazine," and I'm just sitting there going, "Are you kidding me? If you want to talk about the boxes that women are put into or the labels, why don't you talk about the plight of billions of Muslim women in Muslim-majority countries, many of whom can't drive, can't leave the house without without a father or another male's permission. It's sick. It's beyond just tone deaf. It's actually into the realm of sick. And it is a profound injustice to the women who actually do are put in boxes and do have labels put on them. If you want entertainment, listen to archetypes. It's disgusting.

A woman who is harassed, And I, I'm proud to say I never harassed a woman, so I have no problem in raising the subject. Nevertheless, saying she is a survivor—

oh, I have a story—

a survivor of harassment?

Yes.

Wait, we're not talking rape here. We're talking improperly spoken to or improperly touched. You're a survivor? It's an insult to survivors.

As you know, I recently graduated from college, and I want to tell you about a great college in New York City. The King's College is a Christian liberal arts college in New York's Financial District, providing a disciplined curriculum with a Christian worldview, both in person and online. The King's College has majors in business, finance, politics, journalism, media, religion, and more. Every program is rooted in a politics, philosophy, and economics core curriculum which provides students with a framework for understanding the way the world works and how it is influenced. Because of this, King's graduates are well-rounded critical thinkers. King's faculty pride themselves in not sharing their opinions on topics, but instead teaching the historical context that roots the issues of the day. Faculty like to say that students come to King's to earn their opinion. They don't teach students what to think, but how to think. Both the online and in-person education from King's will prepare you to interact in any industry. King's alumni thrive after graduation. Students go on to top graduate schools at Harvard, Columbia, and Yale, or begin careers at reputable and impressive organizations such as the United Nations, the Department of Justice, the Wall Street Journal, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Charity:water, Marc Jacobs, and more. Find out how you can attend the King's College in person or online today by visiting tkc.edu. Don't just go to college, go to King's. Start your journey at tkc.edu. Okay, Yes, play, play the video of their conversation, and then I have a point on this.

Yeah, okay.

I have to check myself because I've been so, um, blinded by society. You know, if a man is ambitious, am I saying— am I bringing down society by saying a woman is something different than ambitious?

Often women are definitely put in these different boxes when we are ambitious or when we, when we do have goals, or it's a negative connotation on how we reach the goals.

But even for little girls in a schoolroom, right? If a little girl is ambitious or raises her hand more, what is she called? Bossy.

I was reading an article about how girls— Where do they live? On what planet? A girl raises her hand more, she's called bossy. Wait, your first grader is— Even a boy isn't called bossy in first grade. They make this stuff up.

I totally agree with you. I agree that it's made up. I mean, not in other places, but certainly in America, this does not happen as often as they're saying it does. But you know what? I have a different take on this that I'm sure you'll agree with. Let's say a girl is called bossy for raising her hand and being ambitious. So what? Get over it.

Thank you.

That's life, you know? And the whole time they're talking about, oh, this tabloid said this bad thing about me. That is life. People are going to call you names, especially if you're in the public eye. They're going to criticize you and they may put labels on you. That are not fair and they're not who you are, but we do not live in a utopia. Get over yourself. For instance, we were just talking about sexual assault. I mean, I take sexual assault very seriously. I know people close to me who actually really have truly been brutally sexually assaulted, and I know what a heavy thing it is. That being said, when I was in college, when I got to campus, actually, I think this was one of the first kind of culture shocks for me. People would, girls would kind of brag about being sexually assaulted or sort of, maybe brag is the wrong word, but kind of wear it on their sleeve. Again, it's the whole victim mentality. I remember sitting in one of the various, you know, they, the first few weeks of school, they have all of these gatherings of freshmen in the yard or just in classrooms. And I was going to one of these social events and this girl was talking, and she, like, with such kind of a smile on her face, or with this positive demeanor, she's like, well, the first time I was assaulted, I, um, told my therapist, and my therapist did it, and then the second time I was assaulted— oh my God, two times! Like, she was talking about it like it was—

I would like to know what is the nature of the assault. Even the word improperly touched is not an assault. It's improperly touched. Look, you know, I've told this story in both in print and on radio.

Of Sue.

Of Sue.

Yeah.

Guy, the manager at her restaurant where she was a waitress when she was 19, 20 years old, or even younger, actually, I think, grabbed her breasts. So she took his hands away and continued waiting on her customers. There is no defense of the guy intended. My issue is not him. The— my issue is your reaction to see yourself as a survivor, to see this as trauma. All these words are used.

How self-congratulatory and sickening.

Well, it means you don't know real suffering. Of course, that's the only possible explanation.

And it was crazy, Dennis, when I was in this particular again, I can't remember what it was, but I remember the room we were in and I remember who was speaking when she said, when she was talking about it, and it was so odd because her demeanor and her voice and her facial expressions did not match the alleged gravity of the issue that she was talking about. And then I looked around the room and all of these other girls were chiming in and saying, oh my gosh, I was assaulted too in high school, or I was, you know, this and fondled, or I was, and my first thought was, oh my gosh, am I just really lucky? You know, I mean, I went to an all-girls school and I've never ever been even close to assaulted in my life, thankfully. But I was sitting there going, oh my gosh, is this just, have I been so sheltered from the real world? And now I'm coming to college and meeting all these victims of rape. And then as time went on, I saw it happen again and again and again. And it was this weird, like, social fad, wear it on your sleeve. I've been assaulted and I've survived it. And I, I'm I have so claimed it as my own that I can talk nonchalantly about it. It's weird.

I have no evidence, but it's my impression. Yes, it may stand to reason, but again, the word assault, assault means any unwanted touch.

Yes.

But that's not an assault.

And these individuals make it their entire personality. And you know, not just with assault, but those who claim that they have been the victims of racism or microaggressions, again, they'll like throw it out there and wear it on their sleeves in everyday conversation when you're just meeting these people. And it's, it's really bizarre to me. I'm like, is this your entire personality, that you have experienced something uncomfortable? Get in line.

You're telling me, and, and obviously everybody listening or watching, about how often at the graduation— I can't, I can't stop thinking about it. You are the future. You, you It's why I said that the Obama thing about hope, hope and change. You will make the changes necessary. Maybe, maybe major changes aren't necessary.

Exactly.

That it doesn't occur to people on the left.

Yes.

Maybe major changes are necessary in Iran and North Korea.

Exactly.

Maybe not in Massachusetts or, or Indiana.

That's the thing that— thank you so much for saying that, Dennis, because that's one of the things that was sort of an aha moment for me when I discovered, as I like to say, conservatism, or brought out my conservative instincts, was throughout my whole life in school, I was taught, and we've discussed this before, that even just essay writing, you're taught to make an intervention or critique something, which is so preposterous because I remember being in 7th grade and being asked to critique, you know, an author of Salman Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories. And I'm like, I don't know how to critique him. I'm 13. I've barely, you know, read young adult novels. But my point is they teach you critique, critique, intervene, make changes. That's what's imparted to us. And so just again, throughout my life, you know, I would constantly be told by my teachers or administrators, there are so many changes that need to happen in the world and you guys are going to be at the forefront of that. And then when I discovered you and I, I just, it, it was, it was honestly kind of a relief to me because is for a long time I thought, well, I don't think there's that much wrong with the United States. You know, I don't think there's— I'm not observing that much bigotry.

So just for the record, they're making a change at the University of Pennsylvania, one I commented on often. They took down Shakespeare's, uh, image from the English department at the University of Pennsylvania, and they put up a, a lesbian poet from the Caribbean so that she's not American, she's not heterosexual, and she's a female. That's important. Not who writes the best English. That's irrelevant. So this is a theory I came up with many years ago on this change issue. The average professor of English thinks that it is boring in the deepest sense, the French sense of ennui. It's boring in the regular sense of the word, and it's boring philosophically and existentially to teach Shakespeare every term, right? I need something innovative. So this this lesbian poet from the Caribbean. Ah, now I, I am making an impact. Merely conveying the finest English writers in history, led by Shakespeare, is boring. That's, that's a big part of the genesis. You see, I in my life always felt like teaching the Torah. It's the greatest text ever written. There's 5 books, in my opinion.

I would agree.

I have enormous joy in bringing the greatest works ever written to the next generation. That is the task of the previous generation: bring the next generation not a change, but the best. Now, if there's something new that's great, great.

Well, we are taught so much to— that we need to look for things that need to be changed, and then when we see them, we have to implement the change, change, change. And I have never in my life in school, I was never taught how important it is to preserve things that are good, not just in society, but think about, you know, you talk obviously a lot of, uh, to me and on your show about marriage. A lot of sustaining a good marriage is preserving the things that are good. It's not about change, change, change. A lot of you know, in life when you find a good job or you get into a good relationship, a lot of the times instead of focusing on change, you need to focus on preservation. And we're not taught that at all. And so again, people just look for change or look, look for things that need to be changed because it's constantly taught to them that they need to find it. And it was such a relief when I found you because I was like, okay, maybe America doesn't need to radically change, but it does need to be preserved.

Beautiful.

But preservation, so to your point, is boring. People don't want to talk about that because it's boring. Change is more sexy and interesting. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

No, no, that's exactly right. So Sue has an interest— my wife has an interesting theory, exa— almost exactly in line with what you said. You want to be married to a predictable person.

You know, my— when my mom, uh, started dating my dad, I think one of her friends said to her, what is something that you like about him? And the first thing she said was, he's reliable. And my mom's friend kind of chuckled and said like, oh, aren't you supposed to say boring? Isn't that— yeah, are you not excited? Or he's, you know, he wines and dines me, or he's— and my mom said, he's reliable.

I asked women on on at least two occasions. I'll do it again on my male-female hour. What do you define as masculine?

Oh, that's fascinating.

It is fascinating because I had to hear it.

I had to think about my answer to that.

Well, your answer may be different at 22 than from 30 on, let's say. So most of these women were 30, over 30, and almost everyone said responsible. That's what they found sexy and masculine.

I don't know if that would right now be—

I know, I don't think it would.

I agree with you, although I do certainly value it. Yeah, I don't think it would be my first thing, right?

Yeah, well, it wasn't my first thing in my mind. When I think of masculine, I think of strong. More than I think.

That's what I was going to say.

And I'll add another one for you. You ready? I didn't say this on the air. I will next time. But I didn't offer my opinion. I was just listening. I wanted to know what women thought. But my opinion, a major aspect of masculinity is not being intimidated by women.

I agree with that. Absolutely. And we see, a la your recent article, your column, that a lot of men are.

Well, so my— this recent column is women are disproportionately ruining society. And they are. If you think teachers are killing kids and their innocence and so on, 75% of teachers are women. 92% of kindergarten teachers are women. 85% of librarians are women. If you think they're doing a great job, then my thesis is wrong. If you think they're doing an awful job in general— there are always exceptions— then my thesis is right. So of course, so there are massive attacks on me on the internet for that article from these left-wing women's sites. And I was thinking, I don't give a damn. And, and so I guess that's a— that makes me masculine. And I'm not saying this to offer myself a compliment. I'm not that stupid. I'm offering it so that men understand. Be honorable, but don't be intimidated.

Well, I think that part of you that doesn't give a damn— A, yes, it's because you're masculine, but B, I think you were really just born with it, which is a subject that we can talk about later about natures. But before I get to that I want to say, you know, I've had people talk to me about some of your comments about women. Whenever— it's so interesting because whenever I tell people that I work for you, either it's, oh my gosh, no way, can I get a video? Can I get a selfie? You're so lucky. And that's like 80% of people who I tell. And then the 20%, you know, they'll say, they'll talk about your views on gay marriage, or they'll talk about some of the things you've said about how women are disproportionately ruining the country. And my response to them when they talk about that second part, I can tell you my gay marriage response, but for the right now, I'll tell you what I say about the women thing. I say, you know what? One of the things that Dennis has taught me is that each sex, yes, I believe in two sexes that are different. Each sex has their own battle. Men have to battle their violent nature and men have more of a proclivity to violence than women do. And women have to battle their overly emotional nature. and they have more proclivity to kind of be rash and overly emotional than men do. How is it misogynistic if Dennis is calling out one of the things that women have to battle? He also talks about the violent nature that men have to battle. Read his Torah commentary. Read his essay specifically on why he says that it's a good thing that God is referred to as a he, because boys take rules from men, and if God is a he, if if boys don't have a father in the world, they at least have a father in heaven that will teach them good values, like to take control of their violent nature. Bam. That's my response to them. It's not misogynistic to call out the truth.

No, it's to say that men are the problem is not anti-male, but to say women cause problems.

I know, is anti-women. Well, you're also criticizing men because you say that women are probably the progenitors of this change. But then men go along with it.

Oh, that's right. Well, feminized men. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? I don't know the answer. What did— did masculinized women come first or feminized men?

I could see the way that it would be both, because arguably women entering the workforce, which obviously I think is a good thing, I think a side effect of it is it did lead to over-masculinized women. But then also I think the 60s movement, specifically the, the queer and homosexual movement, I think probably impelled a lot of men to be more feminine.

You, you just hinted at, um, not agreeing with me on gay marriage, correct?

Yes.

Right. Which we've— I think we've discussed on, on this and certainly privately, but I think on, on podcasts we can do it again. It's fine.

I actually— I think we touched on it, so maybe we can talk about it now.

It doesn't have to be. What I— the point I want to make is, is, is a different one. Last night, actually this past week, I was in Denver and the— for my Denver station, I was doing an event and I was being interviewed by one of their hosts, very competent guy. So this is a completely conservative audience that came to hear me, and he mentioned in passing that he doesn't— he's fine with gay marriage, and then just continued talking. And I made a mental note. Not one person booed. Nothing happened. He's still going to be a host on a conservative talk radio station. Our acceptance of different views is so much greater than the left's. Oh, if there is— it's not possible to be for keeping marriage male-female and be, be anywhere on MSNBC CNN, totally New York Times, anywhere. But we— and by the way, you did it too. You did it, I believe. Was it the last podcast where you said— I think it was, or was it on the, on the show sitting in for me— that you are ambivalent on the abortion issue?

It was when I sat in for you.

So here you are. Sitting in on Salem Radio Network.

I have never gotten an email with nothing, people expressing—

if you would have said— you cannot say ambivalence about abortion on the left. I know it is completely immoral to take the life of an 8-month-old fetus.

Trust me, I am beyond aware. I'll tell you a story, and then I actually want to talk a little bit about the gay marriage issue because I have a response to you that you may not expect. So a great example of what you were just talking about, how ambivalence is not allowed on the left. I was having dinner recently with someone I knew when I was in high school. I haven't seen her in a long time. We played sports together and we were catching up. And of course my job came up and she is very left-wing, or I didn't know really in high, we didn't talk about politics in high school, but then when I saw her after this many years, it was It was immediately obvious to me that she was very left-wing. And she was asking me about my views on abortion. And I said to her, just what I said to you, I said, you know, I'm really conflicted about it. You know, I certainly wouldn't allow it past a certain point. You know, I hate these late-term abortions or even second trimester abortions, but I don't know if I would outlaw it completely. I go back and forth. And she said, you know, well, why won't you just be fully gung-ho for abortion? And I was listing all of these arguments, you know, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, and it disproportionately— abortion disproportionately affects Black babies. And then I said, you know, I think that the pro-life position is a beautiful thing. Even if there's a part of me that may, in practice, disagree with it, or, you know, choose another route, it is a beautiful thing to advocate to preserve the life of a child. These individuals are animated not to control women, but to preserve the autonomy of a life. And again, I kept using this adjective subjective, and that is a beautiful thing to me. And her response to me was so revealing. She said, so you're calling the far-right position a beautiful thing, but why won't you call the pro-choice position a beautiful thing? So it was just interesting to me that she labeled being pro-life as a far-right position. View. And so my next question to her was, I said, do you support the idea, you know, of two sides debating? Do you, do you as a Democrat support having a political opposition? And she said, of course. And I said, okay, what kind of political opposition on this issue would you not try to destroy? Like, what would be an acceptable opposition to your pro-choice view on this abortion issue? And I think that really got her thinking, because these people say that they support having two sides in a dialogue, But then to her, having someone who's pro-life wouldn't be an acceptable challenge to her pro-choice position. Want to know what her answer was? She said, well, preferably I would like someone maybe like you who's pro-choice but wants to limit the amount of time that the, you know, the child can be aborted. And I said, but that's not really a political opposition. That's just your position watered down.

But even that they don't accept. That's not true.

That's true. No, I mean, yes, they don't.

Any compromise on the woman being God.

Yes.

Which is what it is.

Yes.

I determine whether this creature is human or not.

Yep.

It is 100%. There is no comparable thing in all of life.

I know.

To the ability of a pregnant woman to make a life-death decision without society having input. It doesn't exist.

And one of the things you can't—

forgive me— you can't do it with your dog.

I know, it really is unbelievable. And one of the things that I said to her was, you know, I would much rather live in a society that is too pro-life or leans towards being pro-life than pro-choice. Why don't we look at the example of China and the one-child policy? There are some countries in this world, believe it or not, you leftist, you ignorant leftist, that force children to have abortions out of population control. Wouldn't you rather live in a country that wants to preserve the dignity of life and would rather have a beautiful life be brought to term than a country that tells you that they have to kill the child in the womb? Anyway, you know, it's so interesting because when I debate about this, or when I talk about this with you now, I would say I'm pro-life. But sometimes when I hear the pro-choice argument—

well, no, what, what— so the distinction I would make, which I've always made, I do it in my PragerU video, morality versus legality. Yes, morality versus legality. The joy I have in your knowing I fill in your—

sometimes I hope it's not annoying.

Oh, no, I love it. It brings me peace.

Yes. Oh, what was— there was an— oh, gay marriage. Okay. So I want to talk to you about this. And this, I think, goes along nicely with our point about how it's okay to be ambivalent. So when I first discovered you, I would have originally said that I completely disagree with your views on gay marriage. I mean, look, it's kind of useless having this debate because Obergefell has been passed and no one is trying to get it overturned to my knowledge. I'm totally fine with gay people being married. I think it's a great thing. But if you just— I can understand why people in 2015 or before oppose gay marriage. I can understand why the Supreme Court justices oppose gay marriage. If you just think about it from a constitutional standpoint, states make rules pertaining to marriage all the time. They make rules about how old you have to be. We just talked about that. How distant of a relative you— how many you can marry, the property allocation if you get divorced, who's the primary guardian if you have a child. There are a million rules that states make pertaining to marriage that don't just have to do with sex. And so, I don't know, I think it's kind of tricky constitutional business when you say that a state can't make certain rules about marriage when this has been the system that we've operated on for years. So that's, I guess, what I would what I would say to you now is I'm starting to understand the arguments that people made on, certainly on a constitutional basis and even just on a religious basis. Like you say, you trust the Torah more than your heart. You trust the Bible more than yourself. I respect that. I see the way that you treat gay people. You are lovely to them. There are gay members on the board of PragerU. You're best friends with Dave Rubin, I see the way that you interact in daily life. I have, I have no problem with your opposition to it. And in fact, again, I guess my thesis statement is, whereas when I first met you, I thought, oh gosh, I really, really disagree with him and don't like that point of view, now I can understand where you and the other conservatives came from.

Well, I just want to repeat, and I, I think I said it when we just touched on this subject the last time, my major not my only, but my major argument was that the argument for same-sex marriage is very dangerous. And the argument was gender doesn't matter. And now we are seeing the upshot of the belief that gender doesn't matter. Gender doesn't matter so much now it doesn't really even exist. It's a completely subjective And that is a direct result of same-sex marriage, of gay marriage. There's no question. I can chew gum and walk at the same time. The gay couples I know who are married, I am very happy for them. It is a blessing in their life. They are loyal to one another. They're terrific people. I know one lesbian couple, two gay male couples intimately. So I can acknowledge it is better for the gay— in the gay world to have gay marriage.

Totally.

But that's not the only question.

I know, I know. And that's the thing also, you know, I struggle with this both with gay marriage and abortion because I would say that I support both of those things. Definitely gay marriage more than abortion. But I think that they lead, unfortunately, they can have some pretty bad side effects. Overall, I think it was a great thing that gay marriage was passed. I think it really does proclaim gays as equal to heterosexuals, and I think that's a good thing. But to your point, an offshoot of that policy has been this crusade against gender, which I think has been horribly detrimental to our country, needless to say. It's the same thing with abortion. I would allow abortion if it could be the way that when Roe was passed, it was intended to be safe, legal, and rare, really for only extenuating circumstances. But then an offshoot of legalizing it is that you get all these people using it for birth control, and it's the cheapening of life, which has led to something really bad. So That's sort of my mental debate with those two things. MyPillow is having their biggest sheet sale of the year. You have all helped to build MyPillow into the great company that it is today. Now Mike Lindell, inventor and CEO, wants to give back exclusively to you listeners. The Percale and Giza Dream bed sheets are available in a variety of colors and sizes, and they are all on sale for as low as $29.98 with our listener promo code. Order now because when they're gone, they're gone. The Percale and Giza Dream Sheets are breathable and have a cool, crisp feel. They come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee. Don't miss out on this great offer. There's a limited supply, so be sure to order now. Call 1-800-566-6745 and use the promo code Hartman. Or go to mypillow.com and click on the radio listener square and use the promo code Hartman.

You're in great shape intellectually as far as I'm concerned. You know, the, the notion that it's the, it's the inevitable human rights decision to have people marry the same members of the same sex. It is not fully tenable. What you are saying, and they are saying, every society, including the most advanced humane civilizations, have all been wrong for all of history. We have discovered a brand new moral good. That was unknown, but namely that there's no difference between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. There is no other example, just like it's unique about abortion, that a woman has the right independent of society to decide whether this is a human or not. And as I said, can't do that with a dog. The same thing holds here. I, I don't know of any other position. For example, slavery. There's been an anti-slavery movement in Western culture, in Judeo-Christian culture, from the Book of Exodus. God clearly didn't like slavery. The, the, his greatest intervention in the world outside of the flood, let's say— I mean, whether you believe it is legend or not is not important, it's the story. Was to say, to liberate slaves. Okay? So there's always been an anti-slavery movement, even in the Catholic Church, not even, including the Catholic Church. The majority allowed it, but it's not new anti-slavery. Same-sex marriage is new. You are saying everybody was wrong Maimonides was wrong. Aquinas was wrong. Gandhi was wrong. Why didn't Gandhi? Gandhi is an idol of the left. Did he come out for gay marriage?

Well, a lot of people oppose gay marriage for natalist concerns. I mean, throughout human history, if you were a proponent of people of the same sex getting married and creating a family unit, then, you know, Right now it's inconceivable of us to think about because there are 7 billion people on Earth and it's growing exponentially every day. But there was a population problem for most of history. People needed to reproduce. So again, what the left just fails to see is that people have their reasons. It's— they reduce— needless to say, if you oppose something, it must be because of an inherent bigotry.

To your point, you know why I— this took me a lot of time to figure out. This you'll love, I think. The left is governed by the heart. Yeah, therefore— that I knew you'd say yeah to, but there's a therefore here. Therefore, I, the leftist, know that if you oppose my position You have a bad heart.

Yep, double yep.

And that's something—

that is, that's one of your great Dennis Prager lines. You're, you're good at many things, but the two I've really noticed is that we talked about this, the questions that are sort of scenario questions. Would you rather have your pilot have a joint or have a glass of wine? And then this one: if this belief than this belief. Yeah, that does clarify it. That's exactly right, because if you're the one who has good intentions and someone opposes you, then whoever's opposing you must have bad intentions.

That's right. And since intentions determine the goodness of the act, right?

I know, I just— I say to people, you know, when I'm having these debates, I go, okay, you know, You're fully pro-choice. Okay. Can you not at all see at least why someone would be pro-life? Can you just acknowledge that there may be a shred of validity to their argument, even if you disagree with it? Or gay marriage? Can you acknowledge? And they can't.

No, they can't.

And do you know what I think?

We can see theirs.

But you know what, Dennis? This is, I think this is actually maybe the thing that we disagree the most about, whether the leftists believe they believe their lies or they don't. I think that they do see validity, even a shred or a morsel of validity in the opposing argument, but they think if they even give that concession, then they wipe away their whole standing as a leftist. They have this sick notion that if they, again, if they any way admit ambivalence or even some level of understanding, then they betrayed their side. So I actually think they're being dishonest. When they're saying that they, that they refuse to see, for instance, a pro-life person's argument?

When Democrats said defund the police, do you think they believed that defunding the police would reduce crime? No, I do.

I really don't.

I know we're both right. I know that sounds bizarre.

There are people from both camps.

See what I—

look, because the way they live is so different, Dennis. You got to see.

I mean, it doesn't matter. So, so look, I'm going to give the— Alan tells me never bring up the Nazis because why? It's taboo. It's it. But I'm not, I'm not comparing. I want to make this clear, okay? I know, I know too much about Nazism and the Holocaust. I'm not comparing defund the police to a Nazi position. I'm comparing an absurdity with an absurdity, that's all. Did Germans who believed that the Jews needed to be wiped out because they threatened the German race, did they believe that absurdity? I think they did. The ability of people to believe absurdities, moral absurdities, factual absurdities, The people who say men give birth, they, I think they believe it.

Yes. I mean, I think it really does depend on the issue. Certainly with the gender stuff, I think that people genuinely believe it. Perhaps I take my position that most of them honestly are just fraudulent and they're being dishonest is because I've been, I've attended schools and certainly I have seen this at my college that so much of what people in the cohorts that I've been exposed to in my generation do is for personal and professional advantage. That is what animates all of their opinions, their jobs, who they socialize with, everything.

But then, but then to sleep well at night, they believe it. The very first thought—

I don't think they have a moral conscience. I don't think they care. I don't think they're—

Then if they don't care, they believe it.

No, see, I disagree. I think certainly, again, the cohort that I'm referencing, They refuse to acknowledge the other side, even though they know that the other side may have some validity because they think it will jeopardize them personally or professionally. And when they go to bed at night, they're not thinking about the morality of their decision. They're thinking about themselves. They're thinking about the Harvard alum that they're having coffee with the next day, who can get them the job at the venture capital firm. They're not thinking the way that we're thinking. I actually think maybe this comes, maybe you have a more optimistic view of human nature than I do. You think these people are lying down at night thinking, oh gosh, I shouldn't have lied?

It's very hard for me to have more optimistic of a view of human nature than anyone.

True, fair enough.

I think that people— no, I, I do believe people do squelch their conscience to be at peace with it. I don't think they go to bed literally thinking about thinking about advancement of their own life. I agree with that. But they, they, they can't entertain the idea what I'm saying isn't true, right? But I really gotta say it.

That's— that is true, right? Partially.

It's That's why it's very tough to fight them, because they've convinced themselves.

I would agree that many of them have, specifically on the gender stuff. But as far as the, the, the example that you mentioned, maybe it's just because I personally think it's so absurd. I really don't believe that people are that stupid that they think defunding the police would decrease crime.

Their arguments were It, uh, we need to combat crime with social workers. That, that's what they said.

I know.

We will defuse it. Look, it's idiocy. Would one of them call a social worker if you had 911 for police?

I know.

Or 811 for social?

You want to know a great example? I should have mentioned this on air. You know, the thing about guest hosting is we can, we can talk about it separately, but when you have 3 hours, you think, oh my God, I have 3 hours to fill. And then when you're in it, it goes by so fast. And there are so many things I wish I could have said. This was one of them. When I was talking about that, uh, Julie Jaman individual who was the, the 80-year-old who went to the YMCA, et cetera. Right. Right. Wanna know what happened when she, uh, told the transgender employee to get out of the women's locker room? They called the police on her.

On her?

On her. Okay, right. I thought they don't like police. Wouldn't that be a very apt moment to call in a social worker to solve the issue? Isn't this what they were just talking about for 2 years, that there are certain things that you call the police for and there are certain things you call social workers for? Here is an example, and they don't call a social worker, they call the police. These people are frauds. You know, I wanted to make this point when, when we were discussing my graduation and and how every 5 to 10 minutes it was this general, you guys are the best, you're gonna save the world, et cetera. There's, I think I was just sitting there thinking there's so much pretending nowadays. Like, we used to live in a world, first of all, where people wouldn't say those kinds of platitudes. And second of all, where people in the audience would roll their eyes at that kind of puffer Now people just smile. It's this weird, and again, maybe we disagree on this and maybe the people saying it and the people hearing it truly believe that this generation is different. I think that's partially true. I do think that there is a large contingent that knows that it's probably just, again, puffery, but people don't even roll their eyes at that stuff anymore. People are unwilling to call, it's like this mutual exchange of BS. BS. I'm sorry to abbreviate a curse word, but it's really the only word that I can think of right now. And even in the classroom, you know, when I would be in my sections and we would be talking about a book and somehow, of course, the conversation would devolve into social justice, everyone was just saying these, again, BS-y platitudes. And it was this weird thing where everyone in the room knew that it was BS, and knew that everyone was just pretending and it was puffery and it made no sense, but no one would kind of cut through the fog and say, this is a stupid discussion and it's not intellectually honest and what the hell are you talking about? That's the problem with our generation. We, we exchange in this vile, again, just BS talk that goes nowhere.

So if you go out on a date, do you share these views?

Oh, of course. I want the person who I am dating to know exactly what they're getting into and exactly who I am. Why would I— why would I hide from the most intimate person in my life what I think? Like, I have a lot of girlfriends that say, you know, on the date, like, Oh, I need to hide from them that I watch this TV show because they're going to think that I'm vapid, or I have to hide from them that, you know, I have a fear of this. And my response to them is, you should— I mean, obviously you don't want to sit on the first date and throw up all of your, you know, innermost secrets and personality.

Well, I just have to throw up. Yeah, regurgitate all your bad stuff.

Sorry, I just have this visual.

Of people laying it out on the dinner table.

But why?

No, no.

Why are you going to pretend to be someone you're not?

Well, I don't understand when people go on dating sites that they don't say everything. I don't mean the most intimate details of their lives, but everything that they think. Because then you want to weed out 95% of the people. Then you have a much better chance.

Also, Dennis, it's a little difficult to go on a date and hide these views when people can look me up. Up and listen to this podcast.

Well, no, that— well, that's an advantage for you. Oh, you don't have to do any work.

Exactly. Yes, it's like a pre-vetting process.

Yes, exactly.

People can look me up. If they don't like it, adiós, amigo.

That's right, exactly correct.

I want to talk about nature for a little bit. Is that okay, or should we do the Pierre thing?

Nature.

Okay.

So you said, by the way, that's evidence that this is very spontaneous. Is. I know, which is a risk. It's like, it's like high wire walking. Is that the word? High wire? Tightrope walking? Yeah, yeah. But it's great if it works.

Great.

Both are acceptable. Thank you. It's like, you understand, folks, I have earphones on and it's like a revelation from the Lord periodically.

I know, I have to—

Sean has the role of the Lord.

When I would listen to you before I knew you, I would— at first I got a little bit annoyed, to be perfectly blunt with you, and then I thought it was endearing when you would— when Sean would talk to you or you would talk to Sean on air. And eventually I thought it was endearing because he would say these hilarious and incredible things. Now that I know Sean, I especially have an appreciation for what he says.

But now that you know it, Rick gives him all his lines.

That's right.

Yeah, there was a total thumbs up on that. Exactly.

Okay, so I want to talk about nature for a little bit because you said something earlier that intrigued me when you said that you published this, this gutsy piece about how women are disproportionately ruining society and all these feminist magazines decried you as a misogynist and you said, I don't give a damn. And I responded to you, yes, that's That's probably because of your masculinity, but it's also, I think, a part of your nature. And the reason why I said that is because I can relate. From the time that I was little, if I can say so myself, I have a lot of flaws, but one of the flaws I do not have is that I don't succumb to peer pressure. I, in many ways, am immune to the kind of external, everyday peer pressure forces of what I should think or should do. And so what were we just talking about before this? Right before this, because it also related to nature. Hmm. Sean Z, what were we just talking about? Dating. Oh yes, dating. Sean said dating profile and whether you throw up. Boy, that line—

on the date, if you throw up—

I should not have said that. Yes, that line will stick with you. When you asked me if I just, you know, if I talk about these things on a date, that also is just a part of my nature. I've always been that way where I will be open about what I think. Yes, of course, I'm in the position where I'm very public about my views. And as we just said, people can Google me, so they're hard to hide, but it's just, it's always been that way. Now, what's so interesting to me about this moment now, I think we've talked about this on air, but I know we've talked about it off air. Is that the ideas of the left are so powerful that people are doing things that are in defiance of their nature. For instance, look at women. Part of women's nature is to be nurturing and caring. That's one of the great parts about us. And yet it is women who are largely the ones who are heading this gender craze, this drag queen story hour.

It's because of nurturing. They're nurturing in their mind all of these trans kids.

Yeah.

Oh, this is, this is very much out of women's nature.

Well, that goes back to my macro point, as you pointed out, about optimism, that they are choosing to see a benefit in a situation that is overwhelmingly detrimental, right?

But I don't think it comes from optimism. It just, it just— they— it's coming from classic aspect of leftism is you don't ask the consequences consequences of your action. The moment you say, but what is the price, you're a conservative. What is the price of a lockdown? You're a conservative. Okay, what is the price of closing schools for 2 years? You're a conservative. What is the price of nurturing kids? Oh, you feel that you're a girl? Of course you're a girl. That, that's— that's— they don't ask what is the price What is that kid gonna— what price will that kid eventually pay? What price will society pay?

Do you disagree with my stipulation though that these ideas are bending and altering people's natures?

Well, amplify that.

Okay, so I gave the example of the, the women who are caring and nurturing and yet they are actively supporting things that are undermining the Right, but they're not abandoning their nature of nurturing.

That was my argument.

Okay, see, I think they are. How can they really think that it is nurturing to tell a 5-year-old— to bring a scary drag queen in front of a 5-year-old?

They don't think he's scary. They think he's a lot of fun. There's— it's just broadening those kids' experiences. They're incorporating men who dress as women into their, into their life. What could be sweeter? But you were— I wanted you to follow up on the nature issue. Is hounding me lately. I don't know why it didn't hound me when I started writing.

Well, I'll give you— sorry, I'll give you another example of how I think ideas are bending nature. Yeah, it is in our nature, I would hope, to have some kind of loyalty and affection towards our family members. And now if We— I'm sure everyone listening—

yes, no, that's a great example—

that people will literally stop talking to their sisters, their parents, their uncles, or anything because they disagree politically.

Well, no, no, be precise, because they voted for Trump, right? We don't stop talking to them because of their politics, right? They stop talking to us.

Oh, I— if I didn't make it clear, it's coming from the left towards the right, not the opposite way around.

Well, I think I think leftism makes you a worse human being, right? There's no doubt.

See, I think it's bending people's natures.

Fine, you're right. And well, I give the other one. Women— women's nature is to protect children's innocence.

Well, yeah, that's what I was trying to say with the nurturing and the being caring.

Oh, okay, that wasn't— it wasn't obvious to me. Okay, yes, that, that's, that's another example of doctrine overcoming So here is a, is a big macro conclusion. Most evil is, is ideological evil. Most evil is not, I am a sociopath and I, I will strike out against anyone in my life. That they're, they're, they're relatively, thank God, rare. Ideological evil, is what— whether religious or secular.

I was about to say a lot, and I would argue that most of the, the— perhaps I should say the most prominent examples of evil in the world are overwhelmingly wrought by secular— yes, ideologues.

Certainly the, the numbers— like, people talk about the Spanish Inquisition. I know, you know, and it was I think a few thousand people in the course of 200 years.

Yeah.

It was a few a month.

I know.

Which is disgusting, but it's not Gulag.

I know. If you look at the numbers between the Soviets and the Chinese, all of the communist regimes, and then the Nazis, it's not even close. And that's why I love that line in your Torah commentary where you say, we know the consequences of too much religion. We don't know the consequences of too much secularism. We actually kind of do, though.

We do.

If we look back at the last century, we know the consequences, right?

That's correct. Uncle Tom's Cabin 2 is the eye-opening documentary everyone in America should see. Dennis Prager here, and Uncle Tom's Cabin 2 offers a compelling and brave analysis of the true history of Black America, the cultural shift from prosperity, integrity, and faith to its current perceived state of anger, discontent and victimhood, Uncle Tom 2 offers historical footage, photos, correspondence, and data to reveal: the genuine strides of Black America in the 20th century; the deliberate Marxist strategy to create racial tension and replace God with government; the NAACP's sinister agenda; the fall of Black Harlem; the truth behind Black Lives Matter; and the demoralization of America for political power. Don't miss Uncle Tom 2 from executive producer Larry Elder and director Justin Malone with Brandon Tatum, Vodie Bauckham, and Chad O'Jackson. Watch the movie on demand or buy the DVD now at salemnow.com. That's salemnow.com. That's been my life's work.

So we were talking about natures.

No, no, no, we're okay. So back to— okay, so here's the nature question. So, so we'll use me as the example. You said, and you, and you identify with it, which is true, you have this nature too. So I said it was masculine not to give a damn that I would write an article that women are disproportionately hurting the society. Means is two things. One, I'm not intimidated by women because I, I know how many will react. Or, or for that matter, by left-wing men. But correct, that's part of my nature, but it's also— it's something I've cultivated. So it's both. But your larger point has been disturbing me in the recent past. How much can people truly undo their nature? It was hinted at because I said something which disturbed you because you were worried how would it sound when I said I don't understand men who want to be sexual with prepubescent children. I literally don't understand. I understand bank robbers, murderers. I understand a whole host of evils. I don't understand that. So therefore, by the way, On the moral level, I get no credit for not, you know, sexually assaulting a child. I get no credit. Okay, zero. It's like I get no credit for not eating ants because you have— because it doesn't exist. There's nothing to battle.

Yes, I understand.

So this is a very— it's a very tough problem. We must judge behavior. And, and severely in some cases. But I think, I think we have to recognize not everybody has the same battles that other people have.

It's true. Yes, absolutely. And one of the things that is truly— I've mentioned I don't like this word because I've heard it ad nauseam my whole life, but it is truly impact— it is a truly empowering thing about the Bible in that Cain and Abel story, it's one of my favorite lines, that God says to Cain when he laments that Abel offered a better sacrifice, "The urge towards evil," I'm putting towards evil in brackets because that's not the exact line, "but the urge is within you, and yet you have the power to master it." I love that because I think that's sort of the thesis statement of conservatism and of religion writ large.

That's right.

Yes, it is absolutely true that people have different battles and that we're not always dealing with people who may have a full deck. But I think what I dislike about a lot of leftists is that they're not taking steps to rule over those bad things. We all know, I mean, actually, no, I shouldn't say we all know because the left loves to say now, that, you know, people are inherently good. They completely dispel the whole notion that there is even a bad urge within you. So I guess that's why they don't try to combat it. But again, I just think it's fundamentally dishonest to— instead, what they try to do, instead of trying to combat the more malignant parts of their nature, they try to make the more malignant parts of their nature mainstream.

Look, That's why you're 100% right. That's why I have said I grew up, biggest problem in Dennis Prager's life is Dennis Prager, because I went to a religious school. Secular school, the biggest problem in your life is America. It's a totally different outlook on life. You don't have to battle you, you have to battle sexism and heteronormativity and patriarchy. And racism, but you don't have to battle you.

Well, when I just said that people are trying to make their, their bad impulses mainstream, I think that that is, to your point, it's such a haughty and arrogant thing to me to think that you don't have to battle yourself, that what's in you must be, even if it's bad, is so infinitely precious and valuable that you have the right not Not to suppress it, but to make it mainstream. For instance, we were just talking about the defund the police movement. All people inside of them, even if some people have it in small doses, others may have it in big doses, we all have an impulse towards anarchy within us. It's just part of human nature. And part of the reason I really believe why people love going to protests and running around is because you get a little sense of that anarchy. As you say, you're anonymous when you're in a crowd of protesters and you're protesting, so you can be loud, you can be vile, you can be vulgar, you can throw things, you can spray paint, you can take your clothes off, you can do whatever you want. People are making that internal impulse mainstream. And then another example is the amount of, I think, pedo— see, this is a word I struggle with— pedophilia we are allowing now. People who have internal impulses towards pedophilia, like that transgender individual who is in the locker room, they're trying to make that mainstream by going into a locker room and staring at young girls, and then when they are called out about it, they call the person who called them out a bigot. How arrogant! Do they not see that that is the epitome of arrogance? Whatever is in me just gets to rule over you?

That's everything. Where do I take my cues from, my moral cues? I, I take it from the Bible.

I know. Well, that's what you say, you trust the Bible more than your heart. Yeah, it's a, it's a fundamentally humble point of view.

Exactly.

That's what I love about religious people and about conservatives. Fundamentally, they are humble, modest people because they think that that the Bible knows better than they do, and they, and they think that, you know, the system that we've created in America is something that they should have deference towards instead of try to tamper with and change. Sorry, I interrupted you.

I'm just smiling. I can see that the joy I have from you is indescribable. In the deepest sense, you get it. There was a book written when I was your age Dennis Prager called The Arrogance of Humanism. I didn't read the book. The title changed my life. Humanism is arrogant. I am the source of values, not something higher than me, not a god.

You know, I think a lot about why left-wing ideas are so appealing to people because sometimes— I mean, not sometimes, all the time— I am just astounded by people's allegiance to this absurdity. And I think what I'm attempting to postulate right now in my head is that many left-wing ideas inherently allow you to bring out those more malignant aspects of your nature. They allow you to be lazy. They allow you to throw aside judgment. For instance, defund the police movement. You don't need to have any kind of judgment or wisdom. You can just say I want this, I wanna run in the street and be an anarchist, I want the police to go away, I want to create some kind of utopia where we call social workers instead of police. Again, that goes back to an inherent part of your human nature that is bad, that you wanna be anarchistic and you want to be the progenitor of your sense of right and wrong. That's, I think, what's at the heart of left-wing ideas. They allow you to not suppress but bring out those malignant parts of your nature. Would you agree?

So that's my old question. Or do you start out with awful values and then, yeah, it's gravitate left? Or does left make you have awful values? Look, but it doesn't even matter. The point is your You are the master of morality. That is what the serpent promised Adam and Eve.

Yeah, his prediction is coming true.

You'll be like God. You will determine good and evil. And they thought it is worth giving up immortality and no violence and peace and the Garden of Eden I know, just to be the moral god of my life. Does the left like the idea in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights? They never quote it. You know, it's an embarrassment to them.

You know what is crazy to me, and Dennis, you can speak to this as well as anyone because you've, you've really seen it over the course of your lifetime. I have noticed that the left no longer tries to hide what they really are. They will outwardly say that they want the— I think there was just an article in the New York Times advocating for eliminating the Constitution or—

By a Harvard and a Yale law professor.

Oh God. Oh God. Oh yeah, you did tell me that. Boy. I was just telling you about the Trinity School in New York City. Project Veritas met up with one of their administrators who was just, again, meeting this per— this administrator didn't know that she was being recorded, but nevertheless, she was talking with a stranger and telling this stranger that she's trying to push in a left-wing agenda on the kids and that the Trinity School isn't really a place where conservatives are welcome. And she said at one point that right now is not the time for both sides. She's just blatantly honest with this stranger about these horrible ideas that she harbors. It's really, I think, been a shift because I think the left has always hated America, probably, I mean, definitely now more than ever, but now they are just so open with their craziness. When did that happen? When did you notice that shift? I mean, to have someone write in the New York Times that the Constitution should be eliminated, that's—

It's very old. It's older than me.

It's, oh, you're saying it's old?

Yeah.

I think it's pretty, I think it's no, pretty novel for people to be that.

When I was at Columbia, left-wing students spelled America with a K.

Oh, wow. Yeah.

And some with, some with, some with 3 Ks. By the way, I owe— I, I, until, until relatively recently, I thought it was relatively new. It turns out it's 100 years old, this movement to undo Judeo-Christian bases. Look, 1962, they— the Supreme Court rules that you can't say God bless my teachers. God bless my teachers. Why would anybody object to that?

I think right now we are running off of the fumes of the Judeo-Christian tradition that we had. And their fumes are—

they're dying.

And they're dying. And so I really worry. I don't know if we can sustain it for another 5 years or 10 years, right? Because we're, you know, I have this image of like our gas tank. Once it in the green because we had a great country with great values. Then it's gone down, down, down. Now I think we're like under. We are running on— you could probably all tell I don't really know how cars work, but isn't there some kind of—

fumes is right.

Okay. Oh good.

Yes, that's— you were right. Yeah, good for me. Good for you is right. It was called Cut Flower Ethics. You have— you read?

Oh, of course.

Yeah.

Yes.

But I didn't, I didn't make that up. It was, I read that, and the guy I read it from, he said he read it from somebody, but he didn't remember who. So I just want to note it's not original to me.

Can you explain it for our listeners?

Yes, it's really critical. It was a life-changing realization. When you get flowers for your birthday, anniversary, holiday, They look great. So someone who knows nothing about plant life said, look, they don't need the soil, they look great, but they'll wither and die in, in 2 weeks. Ethics cut off from their Judeo-Christian religious God-centered soil don't last 2 weeks. They last maybe a century.

Before I even heard about the cut flower ethics idea, I actually had an analogy of my own to express the same idea. I called it photocopy ethics, where if you have a document and you take a photocopy of it, the second document is going to look a lot like a first. But then if you take another photocopy, the third one still gonna look a little bit like the first, but it's going to fade.

That's a good one.

And then it's going— and then if you keep photocopying, it's going to fade and fade and fade, and eventually it's just going to be a white piece of paper. And I think we're probably at the second to last or third to last document from the white piece of paper. What people don't understand, this is what's interesting, for all that the left decries Judeo-Christian values and tries to subvert them and undermine them, so many of my friends actively practice them without even knowing that they are Judeo-Christian values. For instance, even this aspiration to get married and have kids. Maybe I'm giving Judeo-Christian values too much credit for trumping it up to them, but I would argue that the Bible is really one of the main forces that normalized and encouraged the nuclear family unit as we know it today. Okay, so that's, that's the first way.

The second way is, you know, but a lot of them don't want to get married and have children, right? So even that's disappearing.

True. The second way is that even just like the way that we— you actually said this, it's a great example to bring up in a PragerU video— murder. We, we have this idea that murder is wrong and that certain behaviors are wrong because of the Bible, and people don't even know that it comes from the Bible. I pressed a classmate on this once, actually talking about your PragerU video where Dennis said, without the Bible, I want to— I want to—

there's no God, murder is wrong.

If there's no God, murder isn't wrong. And people were, people were up in arms about that. And I said to this person, you know, well, what's your basis for saying, you know, murder is wrong? And he said, it's just, it's just wrong. And I said, well, what if, what if someone, you know, murders your child? Is it wrong to murder them? What if someone does a horrible, egregious act against you? What if someone throws throws acid in your mother's face, is it wrong for you to go kill that person? You know, honestly, you could probably make a moral argument that it isn't wrong, but the reason why we think it's wrong is because the Bible tells us it's wrong. So anyway, my greater point is just people are the beneficiaries of these Judeo-Christian values and they actively practice them without knowing that they're practicing them, and then they're tearing down this very system that they benefited from.

That's exactly what's happening. So I don't know, I don't know, I, I don't know the answer except that we have to make the case over and over and over, which is what you're now doing and what I've done since your age. It's how I've summarized my life.

I know. Well, that's why I think I sleep better at night, because when I do this show or when I guest host for you, I really do feel like I'm moving the ball forward in some kind of way. It's the worst thing when we have off days because I'm lying awake at night and I'm like, oh, I just want to make this point, or I just want to tell people about this instance that happened. And it's frustrating for me when I can't go out and vocalize it.

You will be able— you'll have a podcast.

I know, in two weeks.

And you'll be sitting in for the Salem hosts.

I know.

The fact that you enjoy it.

I love it.

It's such a big deal. You have to love this.

It— I really view it as so much fun. I said this when I opened your show last week. When I was driving into this studio listening to the same music I listened to every single day, I was bouncing in my chair and singing it aloud because I was just— I was like, I'm going into guest host. It was a palpable excitement. Do you have— do you have that still when you drive in? Or, I mean, you've been doing it for 40 years.

Yeah, so intellectually I do. I know how lucky I am to be able to talk to so many people every day about what I most believe. I don't know, you know, when I bounced the most, I think, was the Religion on the Line Religion on the Line, because I love talking religion.

Yeah, that's truly your passion.

It is. And every week to have 3 people at my disposal— Protestant, Catholic, Jew. One day we should on this, on the Dennis and Julie, we should talk about that. You'll get a big kick out of—

Religion on the Line?

What it did for me. Me. That it started a love affair with America's Christians, and it's mutual. They love me and I love them. And for a kid who grew up, you know, Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn, New York, this was so foreign.

See, this is a, this is a topic for another time, and I'm actually encouraged that we're talking about it at the end because it's what we can start off with next week. But what it— what was How were you taught about Christians growing up? Were Christians seen favorably, unfavorably?

So this is such a huge issue, I won't answer you.

Okay.

I wanted— I want to address it properly.

Okay.

I could— I'll tell you this.

Oh, I'm excited. I've never asked you this.

You don't know how important it is because there's a very real parallel, tragically, between how many Jews view Christians and many Blacks view whites?

Oh, I noticed that growing up when I would speak to my Jewish friends, they would kind of make fun of Christians and Christianity, and I was never offended by it, probably because I wasn't particularly religious myself. But it did— I could sense a bit of animosity.

Yeah.

To what do you attribute that?

12 to European antisemitism, right? Christian antisemitism was severe, right?

Fair enough.

It was the mother of antisemitism. There's major Islamic antisemitism, but in Islam, the Jews weren't the killers of God. So it's a real issue, but it was not an issue in America. And I told Christians I told— I've told Jews all of my life, it is completely unhistorical and unfair to lump America's Christians with Europeans, European Christians.

Why? Why are they just different?

You know why they're different?

No, I don't.

Oh, you'll love it. Because they were Torah-based.

Oh, this is a podcast. We're doing this the whole time.

This country Is the one truly Judeo-Christian country.

Yes, that's interesting that you say Judeo-Christian as opposed to just Christian, because arguably Christian would encompass the Judeo. Yes, but, but so can you just— I know this is going to be a whole podcast episode, but I'm just so personally curious, what do you mean by the fact that this is what truly the only—

the founders of this country were rooted in the Old Okay, not only Old Testament, at least as much. And the, the belief was, which is unknown to most Americans today, the founders of this country saw America as the second chosen people, not the replacement of the first, which often existed in Europe. That Christians replaced the Jews.

Paul Johnson talks about this.

That in America, the Christians did not replace the Jews. They, they were the second chosen people. It's, it's phenomenal. It's why Jews not are just not only stupid, it's suicidal to root for the secularization of America. Jews will lose the special place they've had in America, all of American history, when America gets secular.

Well, America— I mean, this is what I talked about on, on your show, and I did a whole hour on American exceptionalism. America is fundamentally, literally, in its roots, both religiously pluralistic and capitalist. We are founded— people came to the New World for two reasons. Number 1, to escape religious persecution in England and establish, again, kind of like a heaven on earth, if you will, in the New World. And we had all of these different colonies that had different religions. The Pennsylvanians were Quaker. Those in Maryland were Catholic. Obviously, in Massachusetts, they were Puritan. I mean, it's just unbelievable. So number 1, we are fundamentally religious and religiously pluralistic. And number 2, The Virginia colony was founded because of a private corporation and capitalism. Okay? People invested in the Virginia Company to come and settle in the New World. So we are fundamentally capitalist, and you're right, we are totally committing suicide when we are trying to get rid of those two forces. We'd be committing suicide even if they came later, but especially because our country would not exist without the presence of religious pluralism and capitalism.

You get it.

I know.

I love it.

Oh, it's my crusade, let me tell you.

Thank God.

That's why I love this job. A, it's just fun, and B, I've got to do it.

That's right. You got it right. Okay.

All right. You know what we're talking about next week.

Good point.

Well, Sean, you gotta remind us cuz we're just gonna dive into some other fun topic and forget this.

Yes, Sean, it's your fault.

And another question I want to ask Dennis, I want to tease it now, is I really want to ask you how you learned about the Holocaust.

Okay. I know, I know, I know the day.

Oh wow.

Isn't that odd? Yeah, I do.

All right. Well, next time we'll talk about it. And in the meantime, you guys can email me at julie@julie-hartman.com or go to my website julie-hartman.com. Sean is nodding because usually he has to remind me.

Haha.

I know I got it. And you can follow us on social media @DennisJuliePod. There's no 'and' between Dennis and Julie, it's just @DennisJuliePod on Twitter and Instagram. And our Facebook account is Dennis and Julie Podcast, and we post really good stuff, if we do say so ourselves.

We do.

Thanks everybody, see you next time.

And up on the wind it's carried over the sand dunes and the plains.

Your beloved dog and a stranger are both drowning. You can only save one. Who do you save? Every time Dennis Prager asks that question, his audience splits three ways. One-third chooses the dog, one-third chooses the stranger, and one-third aren't sure.

Why?

Because we live in an age where increasingly feelings define right and wrong. But if morality is based on emotion, then murder, rape, and theft are just opinions. And if people feel justified, why is rioting or destruction wrong at all? In his new book, If There Is No God, Dennis Prager explains why civilization's why governments cannot survive without objective morality, and why Judeo-Christian values shape the moral foundations of the free world.

If you claim that certain things are good, certain things are evil, independent of how you feel about it, you are in effect affirming God.

If There Is No God by Dennis Prager, available now at PragerStore.com. That's PragerStore.com.