The Biggest Media Fails Of 2024

2024

Legacy Media

Morning Wire

Jimmy Carter, the one-time Georgia peanut farmer who rode a post-Watergate, anti-Republican wave to the White House, only to see his troubled presidency usher in the Reagan revolution, has died. He was 100 years old.
Carter&#8217;s son confirmed his father&#8217;s death in a statement but did not provide an immediate cause of death.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/lAINSUHUED">pic.twitter.com/lAINSUHUED</a>
&mdash; The Carter Center (@CarterCenter) <a href="https://twitter.com/CarterCenter/status/1873516321696108714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 29, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Carter, a Navy veteran and the oldest living former president, had been diagnosed with cancer in 2021 and in early February moved to hospice care.
Born James Earle Carter, Jr. on October 1, 1924, the 39th U.S. president was the first born in a hospital, and his earliest days were spent on a family farm without electricity or indoor plumbing. Carter&#8217;s humble roots and folksy demeanor made him an unlikely political star, first serving as governor of Georgia and then being elected president in 1976 as the country turned on the GOP. But his presidency was marred by runaway inflation, an energy crisis, and the taking of 52 Americans hostage in Iran, a 444-day ordeal that ended the day Reagan was inaugurated.
Although Reagan defeated Carter in 1980 in a 489-electoral vote landslide, Carter&#8217;s image with most Americans was that of an honest and religiously devoted man. His approval rating was 70% for the duration of his presidency, according to Gallup, testament that while Americans were frustrated with his performance, they still thought well of him. Carter devoted his lengthy post-presidency to charitable works and liberal activism, teaching Sunday School back in Plains, GA.,  and authoring more than 30 books, mostly about his life.
Carter first began his studies at Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology before graduating from the United States Naval Academy Maryland, in 1946. He married his hometown sweetheart, Rosalynn Smith before departing on a five-year stint with the U.S. Navy around the world.
After the death of his father, Carter left the Navy to take over his family&#8217;s farm. While back in Plains, Carter was elected to the local school board, and then to the state senate, before running for Georgia’s governor’s office in 1966. Carter lost the race, <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/jimmy-carter">battled depression</a>, and became a Born-Again Christian in the Baptist Church.
In 1970, Carter again ran for governor, this time winning and ushering in the era of the “New South” by streamlining bloated state-run agencies. While still in office, and as President Richard Nixon became bogged down in the Watergate scandal, Carter launched a run for the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination.
Carter began his presidential campaign in 1974, releasing his autobiography “Why Not The Best?” which challenged the American people to demand excellence from public servants.  According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/13/archives/georgias-gov-carter-enters-democratic-race-for-president-governor.html">The New York Time</a>s, an initial poll showed Carter was not even in the top potential 31 candidates for the job. Yet, his outsider message ultimately secured the Democratic nomination and victory in the general election over President Gerald Ford, who had finished Nixon&#8217;s term.
Although Carter&#8217;s presidency is mostly remembered for a moribund economy, the Iranian hostage crisis, and a general malaise in American spirits, he is credited with brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and bringing large swaths of land under federal protection. 
Carter and wife Rosalynn became the faces of Habitat for Humanity, the charity that builds homes throughout the U.S. and world for the poor. In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his decades&#8217; worth of service to others.

Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter, America’s 39th President, Dead At 100

Politics

Born into lowly circumstances, he came without fanfare, without flair, without majesty of royalty. Yet his coming fulfilled Old Testament prophecies that pronounced God would send a savior for the world — for every individual in every subsequent time period in every society. The birth story of Jesus has transcended time, and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s series, “The Gospels,” is evidence of that transcendence. 
To examine the birth of Jesus Christ is to assess the nativity story itself. Peterson and the scholars who join him at the table to read the words of the narrative that begins Jesus’ life and mission take up the task of expository discussion: They analyze the story’s personal and cultural implications, evaluate its historical and political context, and address how it applies to us today. The nativity story continues to draw us in, sometimes in ways we simply cannot explain — try as we might. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/jordan-b-peterson/gospels-christmas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH JORDAN B. PETERSON&#8217;S SERIES, &#8220;THE GOSPELS,&#8221; ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
<h4>Mary and Joseph: Personal and Cultural Significance </h4>
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:31-33
The birth story of Jesus involves several visits from angels: to Mary, with news of her pregnancy; to Joseph, in a dream with instructions to marry Mary; to shepherds, in a field with directives to find the baby. The greatest of stories, Jordan has said before, omit everyday, common material, but they include excitement — just as the Gospels exclude extraneous details around these angel visits. But the day-to-day happenings were still going right on in these people’s lives. By the time the angel visits Joseph, Mary has somehow already told him, even though they would have been supervised at all times. How? When? Afterward, Joseph had “considered these things,” but what, exactly, was he thinking? What overwhelming news this would have been for them both. 
Yet even in the midst of immensely life-changing, supernatural news, Mary “says ‘yes’ to the fact of the child,” Jordan notes. “There isn’t a deeper reflection of fundamental faith in the goodness of being and becoming than the decision a woman takes to throw herself wholeheartedly and without reservation into the relationship with her infant.” On a personal level, Mary embodies great faith in motherhood. More broadly, Mary’s attitude reflects that of a healthy culture: one that holds the image of mother and infant sacred. Without the values of maternal love, life, continuity, and sacrifice, a culture has no future. 
So, too, does Joseph accept the angel’s directions without question. This is not because the Gospels shy away from addressing doubt and disbelief, as Gregg Hurwitz points out. After all, “How much can you spring on one person at once?” Jordan posits. Joseph had resolved to send Mary away quietly, but he, instead, pushes any doubt or disbelief aside. Like Mary’s, Joseph’s faith as an individual is evident. But on a cultural level, his willingness to act in good faith creates a solid foundation for the family. 
<h4>The Birth of Jesus: Historical and Political Significance </h4>
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6
Context always matters — always. The time of Jesus’ birth is unmistakably significant to his life’s mission, which the group discusses at length. At his birth, the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus had come to be known as Divi Filius, a Latin phrase meaning “son of a god.” This is an undeniable mark of a hero story: the genuine God is born during a false god’s tyrannical rule. At the same time, many historians consider Augustus one of the greatest leaders in history. He is responsible for establishing the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of peace. During his reign and the years following, the Romans did not rebel and no outside forces attacked Rome. Considering this period of stability, Jesus is auspiciously born into a time his mission can be most fruitful. Undoubtedly, the Christian message was able to spread with astonishing speed. 
The true emperor where true peace will be found is born into a hidden location, and his coming is not announced to the masses. It is announced to those who shared a specific relationship with the prophets of the Old Testament: shepherds. But the choice of shepherds is significant beyond even the prophetic; it is significant in regards to the universal. The shepherds to whom the angel delivers the birth announcement would have been considered lowly because of their socioeconomic status. Christ’s birth, his mission, his salvific nature is universally salvific, intended for everyone.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/jordan-b-peterson/gospels-christmas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH JORDAN B. PETERSON&#8217;S SERIES, &#8220;THE GOSPELS,&#8221; ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
Accompanying the angel who delivers the birth announcement to the shepherds comes “a company of the heavenly host” (Luke 2:13). The Hebrew defines this heavenly host as an “army.” Bishop Barron reminds the group that though emperors dominate the world with human armies, Christ will have ultimate dominion with a fierce, angelic, supernatural army. 
<h4>The Heavenly Host: Spiritual and Universal Significance</h4>
“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Luke 2:11
What does this nativity story tell us about today? About ourselves? About this life — and the next? It tells us that Jesus — the giver of personal peace and worldly peace to come — brings hope, and he intended us to carry that eternal hope with us. 
The host of angels and shepherds signify the fullness of universal reconciliation: two extremes, above and below, connected together through Christ’s birth. Their angelic message proclaims, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Jesus’ mission was to bring true peace, reconciling man to God through his eventual sacrifice. When glory is given to God, as Bishop Barron explains, peace suffuses personally, culturally, and universally. 
It is a story for us, one with the hope of peace and the promise of life.

Jordan Peterson, The Gospels

Critically Examining The Nativity Story: Contextual Study In ‘The Gospels’

Critically Examining The Nativity Story: Contextual Study In 'The Gospels'

Bible

DailyWire+

Gospel

Jesus Christ

Jordan Peterson

The Daily Wire and Turning Point USA announced Thursday that they are teaming up on the powerful new documentary &#8220;Identity Crisis,&#8221; which scrutinizes the radical gender ideology movement.
Inspired by and building upon Matt Walsh’s groundbreaking 2022 documentary, &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What Is a Woman?</a>&#8221; the new documentary has a sharp focus on the societal failures enabling the continued mutilation of children. The announcement comes mere days after the Tennessee Attorney General <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/12/06/exclusive-tn-senator-jack-johnson-explains-what-prompted-legislation-protect-children-trans-surgeries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defended the state’s law protecting children from trans surgeries</a> at the Supreme Court of the United States; the legislation in question was spurred by reporting by Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire investigating Vanderbilt’s gender clinic. 
The news of Daily Wire’s acquisition of the film was shared onstage by Ben Shapiro, editor emeritus and co-founder of The Daily Wire before unveiling the official trailer for audiences at AmericaFest 2024. The announcement emphasizes a shared and ongoing mission of the two organizations to impact pivotal cultural issues.
&#8220;Identity Crisis&#8221; is set to premiere on X on January 10 and will be available for free through the weekend. The film will then be available exclusively on DailyWire+ beginning Monday, January 13.
WATCH THE TRAILER:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Identity Crisis | Official Trailer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5vqiFhhRWEo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“After the resounding impact of What Is a Woman?, it’s only natural for The Daily Wire to continue tackling the cultural questions that shape our society,” said Daily Wire Co-Founder and Co-CEO Jeremy Boreing. “&#8217;Identity Crisis&#8217; dives headfirst into what was one of the most pressing issues of the 2024 election, and we’re thrilled to partner with Turning Point USA to distribute this project that is rooted in shared values and a commitment to fearless storytelling.”
“Daily Wire and Matt Walsh’s &#8216;What is a Woman?&#8217; was a triumph that changed the cultural and political landscape in America. ‘Identity Crisis’ is the culmination,” said Kirk. “TPUSA is honored to partner with DW to make sure as many moms, dads, grandparents and kids get to see this film in hopes of ending one of the great human rights crimes of our era, the medical mutilation of America’s children.”
The gripping new documentary features interviews with gender experts, victims of the mutilation movement, and key players of the conservative movement including activist Riley Gaines, detransitioner Chloe Cole, and author Dr. James Lindsay. 
Also spotlighted are the victimized children and parents who are struggling to fight the rampant social contagion that has infiltrated families across the country. Through frank, heartbreaking conversations and an unflinching look at the medical realities of “transitioning,” &#8220;Identity Crisis&#8221; asks: what are the ramifications of these movements for our country’s society and future generations?
&#8220;Identity Crisis&#8221; is written and directed by Marcus Wada and produced by Kevin Ford, Wada, and Natalie Bovard, with Charlie Kirk, Nelda Buckman, and Marina Minas serving as executive producers.

Identity Crisis

The Daily Wire And Turning Point USA Team Up For New Documentary: ‘Identity Crisis’

The Daily Wire & TPUSA Announce Partnership For New Documentary 'Identity Crisis' 

Ben Shapiro

Charlie Kirk

Gender Identity

TPUSA

Transgender

What Is A Woman

Turning Point USA&#8217;s 2024 <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/amfest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">America Fest</a> in Phoenix, Arizona, will be streamed in its entirety by The Daily Wire beginning on Thursday night.
The Daily Wire will provide comprehensive, real-time coverage of AmFest from Thursday, December 19 through Sunday, December 22.
Viewers will be able to watch live speeches from some of the country&#8217;s top conservatives — including The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles — and an address from President-elect Donald Trump. All sessions will be live-streamed on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a>, as well as The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/realDailyWire?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">X</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaeO5vkdj5xOQHp4UmIN6dw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a> channels.
Coverage begins on Thursday at 7:15 ET with a pre-show hosted by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Cabot Phillips and Mary Margaret Olohan, who will kick off the coverage for each day of AmFest.
TPUSA President Charlie Kirk and Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro will lead off the event on Thursday night. Knowles is scheduled to speak on Friday afternoon.
The Daily Wire livestream will continue all day Saturday with speeches from prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Kirk. The stream will pick back up Sunday morning until the America Fest concludes on Sunday afternoon with a highly anticipated speech from President-elect Trump.

TPUSA America Fest

Daily Wire To Stream TPUSA’s America Fest

Daily Wire To Stream TPUSA's America Fest

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Matt Walsh

Michael Knowles

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and the founder of Cygnal Polling Group Brent Buchanan on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/2024-election-analysis-decoding-trump-s-win-12-15-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday edition of Morning Wire.</a>
In his third bid for the presidency, Donald Trump was able to overcome past shortfalls to put together a decisive victory – winning the electoral college, the popular vote, and GOP majorities in both houses of Congress. We sat down with with pollster Brent Buchanan to go over the numbers.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us now to examine how the political landscape has shifted in the U.S. is Brent Buchanan, founder of <a href="https://www.cygn.al/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cygnal Polling Group</a>. Brent, thanks for coming on. Good to talk to you again.
BRENT: Thanks, it&#8217;s great to be back.
JOHN: Look, we want to start by giving you some well-earned credit: In the weeks leading up to the election, you said we would know the result Wednesday morning. That ended up being true. But on election night you were here at Daily Wire headquarters and ready to call the election for Donald Trump at 10:02p.m. Not being too specific about it — but 10:02p.m. What made you so sure Trump had won?
BRENT: When you looked at some of the key counties within the swing states, you could see that he was doing so well within those counties that what made those counties good for him could be replicated across the other swing states, including places like Arizona and, Nevada, which we&#8217;re still counting votes or just beginning to end the polls, at 10:02 p.m.
JOHN: What were some of the swings you saw that were significant? What kind of movement did you see in which counties that were so significant early on?
BRENT: Miami-Dade County has been really interesting because it has a highly Hispanic population, but it&#8217;s more Cuban and Venezuelan and that&#8217;s not really replicable across the rest of the country. What I was looking at — if you remember from the New York City Madison Square Garden Rally, where you had that comedian who opened for Trump and make a joke about Puerto Ricans living on an island of garbage (and maybe I&#8217;m getting that specific reference wrong), but the Puerto Ricans make up the majority of Hispanics in the Orlando area, which is a very different population of Hispanics than Cubans and Venezuelans in Miami-Dade County. So when I saw that he was doing well there, I knew that the mainstream narrative that Trump was going to be hurt by Hispanics because of that comedian&#8217;s comment was simply just chatter within the bubble in the elitist class and not actually something that was going to hurt him with voters. You can also go over to Macomb County, Michigan, which is a very working class county that continued to shift towards Republicans and that is a highly unionized county. So that also would tell you that, okay, if Trump is winning union voters who&#8217;ve been moving his direction and they&#8217;re showing up in significant numbers, that this is going to continue across the rest of the swing states and really the country as a whole. What&#8217;s most fascinating in all of this is there were really three elections occurring. There were elections in the swing states, which didn&#8217;t have huge shifts from the prior election. You did see a big difference in like Arizona, for example, where Biden barely won it. Trump got over 5% this time. I think that was more a normalization of the state than anything else. But then you had elections in red and blue states, and places like Florida and Texas got even redder. And places like New Jersey — Trump got that to a single digit race. So, where significant money was spent the elections were closer even though Republicans did well. Where money was not spent, Republicans just blew it out of the water. That was a combination of two things: One, Republicans showing up strongly, but also Democrats staying home.
JOHN: Pollsters like you often measure the most important issues to voters in the weeks and months leading up to the election. In this case, it was often inflation and immigration leading the pack. Did that line up with exit polls?
BRENT: It definitely did, and what&#8217;s interesting about the top priority question is that it became very politically polarized. And if you remember how the Harris campaign basically closed the same way that Biden tried to frame the end of the 2022 midterms elections — that was “Trump is a threat to democracy and so we have to defeat him to protect our democracy.” So that was an issue that really showed up. In a lot of our polling, it was somewhere in the top two or three leading up to the election. In our final exit poll on election day, it ended up being the number two issue, almost tying with inflation and economy. But if you said threats to democracy was your number one issue, Harris won those voters by 69 points. And if you said inflation and economy was the issue, you won, Trump won those voters by 60. If it was Illegal immigration, Trump won those voters by 89 points, of course. Harris wins the abortion voters and then, when you look at all the other issues, the minor issues strung together, Trump barely lost those. So it was very much kind of two Republican leaning issues and Democrat leaning issues that were hyper partisan. But I really believe that it was simply turnout mechanisms and Republicans did a better job turning out voters who cared about inflation and the economy plus illegal immigration than Democrats did turning out voters who said abortion and threats to democracy — which to me are luxury issues. If you&#8217;re way at the top of Maslow&#8217;s hierarchy of needs, you can care about threats to democracy and abortion. But if you&#8217;re trying to make ends meet and care for your family, you care about inflation and the economy and illegal immigration, and that&#8217;s what won at the end of the day.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/decoding-trumps-win-2024-election-analysis-12-15-24/id1576594336?i=1000680416315" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: Now, we at The Daily Wire have paid close attention to the transgender issue for various reasons – including the investigations we&#8217;ve done in the past, directing more attention to this issue. How much do you think that issue played into the election results?
BRENT: Huge. And I think it&#8217;s not necessarily the thing that helped with the election. I think it is a symptom of a deeper problem for the Democrats, which is they have gone off into this woke ideology, where you&#8217;ve got to believe all these things or you&#8217;re a bad person. When Republicans are like, well, we like normalcy. Democrats have just gone so much into politics of identity and the majority of the country is rejecting that. We did a post election survey for the American Principles Project, which took a lot of the research that y&#8217;all did and then turned it into advertising. And we tested several of the key campaign themes, one being Kamala Harris&#8217;s is for “sex changes for children,” she wants to give. Another one was that she wants to give your tax dollars to have “prisoners get sex changes.” We tested the “men in women&#8217;s sports” and we tested that they, them “Trump is for you” messaging. What was really fascinating about this is, and I think it is one of the reasons that the diploma divide that has existed with white voters where, if you&#8217;re non-college white, you&#8217;re shifting hard right. That has now gone into the non-white population. What we found out is that among Hispanic voters who said that sex changes for minors made an impact on their vote, 52% of them said it made them more likely to vote for Trump. Of black voters who said that men in women&#8217;s sports was a concern for them, 45% said it made them more likely to vote for Trump. So I think these cultural issues potentially had a bigger impact in moving non-white voters to Trump, while the economic issues were more at play for these white, non-college educated voters moving to Trump. And that&#8217;s a really unique story coming out of this election.
JOHN: As you’ve laid out, this was a sweeping shift rightward. Did Trump actually gain ground everywhere or did he lose ground in any particular demographic?
BRENT: Overall, he gained ground because all 50 states moved to the right. Some of the states barely moved to the right, like Washington State, for example, was 0.2% more Republican. But then New York State was 12% more Republican. California was 7% more Republican than the last election. But when you break out some of the individual demographic groups, Gen X was the largest generational shift towards Trump. In 2020, they were Republican +1, Trump +1. And this election they were Trump +13. Seniors kind of stayed the same, Gen Z moved towards Trump. Millennials actually moved against Trump. There were some other shifts in the college educational attainment, where if you had a college degree and you&#8217;re white, you got more Democratic. But that was probably the only group you can point to and say, this got worse for Trump. But it&#8217;s been a 20 year trend, so I don&#8217;t think we can say this is just Trump&#8217;s fault. There are a whole lot of other things to look at that say Trump is now taking that diploma divide into the non-white community. One thing I&#8217;ll point out is that when Kamala Harris ran for the Senate in California, she ran as an Indian American. And then, in this election, she ran as a Black American. And college educated Indian Americans actually were one of the groups that shifted furthest to Trump. And so like, if that does not define how poorly she did in this election, that she screwed up the one group that should have moved towards her, college educated Indian Americans. Trump was able to get to those folks and it was really the economic concerns for them.
JOHN: You bring up Indian Americans – what about Asian Americans? How did they vote in general this year?
BRENT: Well, it&#8217;s not a huge population. It&#8217;s kind of a hard group to dig into and the Vietnamese and Indians and Chinese all go into that bucket of Asian Americans. If you were a non-college educated Asian American, you started the shift towards Republicans, and that hadn&#8217;t really existed in the past. So I think Democrats are walking into future elections asking themselves, “Who is our coalition?” Because they&#8217;re essentially now the party of the white, college educated coastal elites, and those people don&#8217;t understand America.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
JOHN: There&#8217;s a lot made by the legacy media of the gender divide going into this. And from my understanding, it didn&#8217;t quite play the role that we thought it was going to play. How did that end up shaking out?
BRENT: Well, it was still “women leaned more towards Harris and men leaned more towards Trump,” but I think the bigger story is the fact that, historically, in every single presidential election, going back for half a dozen presidential elections, women made up 54% of the voters.And in this election, women only made up 53% of voters, and you&#8217;re probably saying, well, Brent, why are you saying that 1% is a, is a big shift, but that is a huge, Breakout trend. and Trump made a strong play for the bro vote on the podcast he went on the way he did his advertising and kind of how the imagery of those advertisements and the music of the advertisements was really geared towards men and it didn&#8217;t turn off women. Women 55+, for example, voted for Kamala Harris, but they only voted for her by three points. Young women only voted for Harris, under 55 only voted for Harris by 14 points. Those are really small margins compared to what we saw in 2020 on this gender and age divide. And I think it&#8217;s one of the unsung stories of this election in that Trump really bypassed the mainstream media. and went to all these alternative media sources that happen to speak more to men. Joe Rogan is mostly a male audience. Theo Vaughn is almost exclusively a male audience. And they&#8217;re also amplified on YouTube. And when you go look at where people consume their information and how they voted in the presidential election, the alternative media sources if you&#8217;re getting your news from those places, you are much more likely to have voted for them. Donald Trump. So when, when we ask this media consumption question, one of them is, do you get your media from streaming apps like the Daily Wire? We didn&#8217;t say like the Daily Wire, but that would fall in the category of a streaming app. If you get your news from a streaming app, you voted for Donald Trump by 26 points.
<div id="attachment_830657" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-830657" class="size-large wp-image-830657" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/GettyImages-2182349014-864x576.jpg" alt="TOPSHOT - Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump dances as he walks on stage during a campaign rally at Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan on November 5, 2024. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP) (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/GettyImages-2182349014-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/GettyImages-2182349014-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/GettyImages-2182349014-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/11/GettyImages-2182349014.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images</div>
JOHN: Wow. So there&#8217;s lots of different ways to sum up what just occurred this year, but part of it is it&#8217;s a massive rebuke of the legacy media and revealing that they&#8217;ve been dethroned. Do you think it&#8217;s fair to characterize the election that way?
BRENT: They did a really good job moving Kamala Harris&#8217;s image from upside down, really badly upside down, like Joe Biden, to, only slightly upside down.But they could never get her further than that because they could only reach a certain audience. So, of the people who told us in our exit poll that they get their news from national television, like ABC, NBC, CBS, they voted for Harris by 39 points. Newspapers, if that&#8217;s where you get your information, you voted for Harris by 48 points. But then if you get your news from talk radio, it&#8217;s Trump +40, Facebook, Trump +22. So, you start to see that they&#8217;re losing their grip on their ability to move anything past a certain point. I think we&#8217;re just going to continue to see that degrade and degrade as folks realize that they&#8217;re not giving them truthful information. And they&#8217;re telling people what to think, and they&#8217;re not giving them all the facts as they tell people what to think. And that&#8217;s why we&#8217;re having this segmentation of folks who are listening to podcasts like this, who are subscribing to streaming services. And I believe we&#8217;re going to find more and more of that as people seek out the truth for themselves.
JOHN: What about the state of Leftism post-election? Did we just witness the end of the progressive wing of the Democrat party?
BRENT: No, I think the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will never learn the lesson from this election because they&#8217;re the same people who ran ads that essentially said, “You voters are stupid, if you knew this information, you&#8217;d vote the right way,” which meant for Kamala Harris and Democrats. And they believe that the reason that they&#8217;re not winning is because enough people don&#8217;t know what they know. And they don&#8217;t know how to say it without being condescending to the majority of the country. So, what I think we saw in this election was that this trend of wokeism and progressivism, voters finally stood up and said, this is enough. I’m not doing this anymore.
JOHN: Final question, pretty open – what is a takeaway from this year that you think is not being emphasized or stressed enough?
BRENT: Republicans need to realize that this is not a normal election for us. This Donald Trump is a unique individual that can communicate with folks in a certain way, and that is why you saw in a lot of races, him get more votes than anybody else on the ticket who was a Republican. And the lesson for Republicans out of this need to be, don&#8217;t be scared to jump into the cultural issues. Talk about economics in a way that normal people understand. Don&#8217;t tell them the economy&#8217;s good when they feel the economy&#8217;s bad for them, which is basically what Democrats did. And you have to go into these communities and start building relationships with folks because we just can&#8217;t take for granted that these non-white voters who moved to Republicans are going to stay with us. They moved to Trump, they did not move to Republicans. And there&#8217;s a whole lot of work to still be done in building – real relationships, not just election day relationships with these folks.
JOHN: Sage advice, as always. Brent, thanks so much for joining us. That was Cygnal Polling Group’s Brent Buchanan – and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/2024-election-analysis-decoding-trump-s-win-12-15-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday edition of Morning Wire</a>. 
***

‘Blew It Out Of The Water’: Decoding Trump’s Election Win

2024 Election

Democrats

Kamala Harris

polling

Republicans

Voters

Jeremy’s Razors, America’s top woke-free razor company, is now the official razor partner of the UFC, the world’s premiere mixed martial arts (MMA) organization. 
Fresh off another year of success, Jeremy’s Razors is expanding its marketing partnership with the UFC, which will result in the razor company being showcased at major UFC events. 
“At Jeremy’s Razors, we believe you shouldn’t have to take a punch without throwing one back,” said Jeremy Boreing, Co-founder and Co-CEO, of The Daily Wire. “Americans are tired of giving their money to woke corporations that hate them. They’re looking for alternatives&#8211; organizations that celebrate strength and masculinity without apology, like Jeremy’s Razors. When we launched our company in 2022, one of our very first customers was Dana White. We’re proud to stand beside him now as the Official Razor Partner of UFC.”
The UFC-Jeremy’s Razors partnership means that Jeremy’s Razors will get “prominent brand placement inside the world-famous Octagon® at select UFC Pay Per Views and Fight Nights,” according to a <a href="https://www.ufc.com/news/ufc-and-jeremys-razors-expand-partnership" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UFC press release</a>. Fans will also see Jeremy’s Razors in “all episodes of the popular live-fight series Dana White’s Contender Series and the groundbreaking reality series The Ultimate Fighter.”
Jeremy’s Razors will also be seen during UFC broadcasts which reach an estimated 975 million households worldwide. 
Jeremy’s Razors branding will first appear at UFC’s first Pay-Per-View of 2025, UFC 311, taking place at the Intuit Dome, in Inglewood, California, on Saturday, January 18.
“We couldn’t be more excited to expand our partnership with Jeremy’s Razors,” said Alex Kaptsan Vice President, Head of Entertainment &amp; Digital, Global Partnerships for TKO. “Jeremy’s Razors has been an excellent partner the last two seasons of The Ultimate Fighter, and we are elated to welcome them as a full-fledged official partner of UFC in 2025. Jeremy’s Razors is a challenger brand looking to unseat the status quo, and we’re looking forward to using the power and reach of UFC to introduce them to millions of new customers.”
The partnership comes after the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-jeremys-2nd-gen-razors-same-mission-new-razor-0-wokeness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">successful launch</a> of <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeremy’s Second Gen Razors</a>. The new <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/precision-5-trial-kit-2?_pos=1&amp;_sid=27faa23c1&amp;_ss=r&amp;selling_plan=3820880085" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Precision 5</a> features a top-to-bottom redesign including an ergonomic handle that’s easy to hold and provides for superior durability. The new coated stainless steel blades are sharper and last longer.
Within hours of the <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/precision-5-trial-kit-2?_pos=1&amp;_sid=27faa23c1&amp;_ss=r&amp;selling_plan=3820880085" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Gen’s release</a>, <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/black-friday-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeremy’s Razors</a> became the hottest men’s razor on <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D55RDLBQ/ref=twister_B0D77DB74P?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon</a>, surpassing brands such as Dollar Shave Club, Manscaped, and Beard King.
Now, Jeremy’s Razors is entering the Octagon® to continue its fight.
Sale ends tomorrow!
<a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/collections/black-friday-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-840933 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3-513x576.jpg" alt="" width="513" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3-513x576.jpg 513w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3-267x300.jpg 267w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3-768x862.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3-1369x1536.jpg 1369w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/mobileJRbanner_CM-3.jpg 1381w" sizes="(max-width: 513px) 100vw, 513px" /></a>

UFC/Jeremy’s Razors

Jeremy’s Razors Named Official Razor Partner Of UFC

Jeremy's Razors

As Jesus embarked on his ministerial journey, word of his miracles spread throughout the Holy Land. The accounts of his miracles have since filtered through time and across the world to the point we are still discussing them today. To what degree does spiritual healing change and positively impact an individual’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-eternal-question-of-human-beings-how-do-you-live-in-the-world">day-to-day life</a>? How do the stories of Jesus physically healing the sick relate to our society&#8217;s need for its own type of healing today? How would witnessing these events, on a micro and macro level, affect a soul in search for rescue? Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, surrounded by nine other scholars, leads a conversation about these questions in the third episode of “The Gospels.” And <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-modern-day-socrates-jordan-b-peterson-conducts-socratic-seminar-in-new-gospels-series">the tabletalk</a> is real. Each member of this group takes up their knowledge, devoid of pretentious facade, as they vulnerably talk of Jesus’ miracles applicability to life in the present day and age.
To imaginatively place yourself in the Holy Land during the early stage of Jesus’ ministry is a curious notion. Imagine hearing by word of mouth that a man in the town where you live is performing outright miracles. This is a tiny town of maybe 1,500 people — where people move to get away from social media, television, email, and phones in general. It is a place devoid of electronic communication, yet the rumor slowly spreads, ever so gradually. You hear it from a neighbor, from a friend, from conversations spoken in whispers on the dirt road you walk. A man’s son is sick to the point of death, but he recovers his health. A crazed man becomes instantly sane. A man with a deadly skin, nerve, and respiratory disease is healed in an instant.
Then, you find yourself in the right place at the right time to see the rumor turn to reality before your very eyes. From a short distance, you see a crowd clambering around this man, pressing in on him. Some hope to be healed; some hope to see healings. A window through the horde of hopefuls forms, and you catch a glimpse of him. Surrounded by this small mob, the man simply touches the sick, and they are healed in that moment. What would you think? What would you do? How would seeing the miraculous affect you?
Perhaps witnessing a miracle would make clear the path of your life as an individual moving throughout the world. Perhaps it would, in some way, alleviate the pressural pursuit of wealth, pleasure, power, or honor. As the group recounts Jesus’ travels through Samaria, they discuss Jesus’ meeting with the woman at the well. Here, Jesus essentially announces himself as the source of salvation — the Living Water. Rather than continue to pursue counterfeit satisfaction in the four <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/substitutes-for-religion-are-meaningless">substitutionary (and earthly) pursuits</a>, Jesus offers an opportunity away from contagious rhythms through a relationship with Him. This cyclical nature of unending and ill-begotten pursuits has a universal appeal. Bishop Barren posits that this is where hope enters in, because, “At the well, I meet Jesus — if I have eyes to see.” In other words, Jesus is the escape from the trap of pursuing meaningless accolades that never truly satisfy.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-gospels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH JORDAN B PETERSON&#8217;S THE GOSPELS ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
Perhaps watching a miraculous occurrence in real life would unveil the beauty of community. In their discussion, Jordan makes the point that Christ represents a sacrificial offering that paradoxically returns everything in abundance, including the pathway forward to life. Community is founded on this relationship — of giving and receiving. And as Douglas Hedley mentions, Christ gave expression to a philosophical universalism with imaginative power, vision, and spiritual sincerity. His sacrificial teachings, actions, and being itself represents community.
But perhaps seeing a miracle performed in real life would bring clarity to your role as an individual within the greater context of society. During the time Jesus walked the earth, philosophy had shifted to focusing on the human as a part of the cosmos. In other words, particular significance was given to the individual in relation to the universal. How unique a time for Jesus to come to earth and illuminate a philosophy already in vogue. In the present day, Jordan has tailored his teachings in this way, advocating for individuals to <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/collections/books/products/12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos">set themselves in order before criticizing the world</a>. Societal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-going-to-be-ok-jocko-willink-on-dealing-with-sadness-and-forgiving-yourself">healing begins</a> on the level of the individual.
“The question of miracles is fascinating,” Dennis Prager says, continuing, “Obviously, they’re miracles within the framework of the world as it exists because they’re suspensions of the natural in some way.” But the miracle of the universe, the presence of life itself, and the existence of consciousness is all miraculous, Prager contends. As the group reads the biblical stories of Jesus’ miraculous physical and spiritual healings, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meditations-with-oliver-anthony-negotiating-a-shared-vision-and-taking-a-leap-of-faith">the topic of faith </a>organically makes its way into their discussion — as founding belief and fostering faith was part of Jesus’ point in performing these miracles.
“What do you make of this miraculous healing and its constant repetition throughout the text?” Jordan inquires of the religiously diverse group of scholars. Before they answer, he defends the text through a psychological lens, implicitly demonstrating the masterful purpose in bringing nine voices to surround this table. Each offers a certain area of specialization alongside a particular religious perspective. When one man poses a question based on a passage, another answers with, sometimes obvious, indications of their background. This, then, is followed by a comment from another that steers — and sometimes entirely redirects — the conversation back to the biblical text.
Why the need for such steerage or redirection? The answer is obvious in the third episode. Obvious are the varied interpretations of the text, which, as John Vervaeke points out, gives it a surplus of meaning and makes evident its sacredness. But where does the interpretation end? At this, Jordan asserts his hopeful purpose of this seminar: to specify the symbolic relationships <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-role-of-the-holy-spirit-distinguishing-between-your-will-and-gods-will">encoded</a> in the text. Jesus’ interaction, for example, the woman at the well was to give her hope in this life and of the next, but that was not his sole intention.
What else did Jesus intend to communicate symbolically through the Living Water he offered her? What else did Jesus intend to communicate by performing healings? What else did Jesus intend to communicate by fulfilling Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah’s coming? Jordan wants to discover those answers. “I’ve been thinking we’re on the verge of something like computational epistemology,” he says — intending that meaning is not arbitrary. Tradition brings meaning to the forefront, making the most potent and actual relationships within the text not merely interpretive but, rather, reflective of meaning.
When Jordan began his investigation into the Bible, he did so with humble curiosity, professing he came to it not knowing what he was doing and not having “a prior presumption of my superiority in any manner to the text.” He continues, “Now, that doesn’t mean I had any real attitude towards it except what in the world is this? And perhaps there’s something I can learn from it.” He has, both implicitly and explicitly, taught others during his own learning process — with a keen sense to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wherever-you-are-is-not-as-good-as-it-could-be-plot-a-course-forward">aim at the highest</a>.
While the group often has differing ideas, one consensus is clear: Jesus’ miracles go beyond supernatural events (as if that would not be a fine stopping point). They are stories that teach of healing the individual and society — stories still teaching us today should we so choose to investigate them with curiosity and expectation.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Hope In, Through, And From Miracles — And The Miraculous In Peterson’s ‘Gospels’

Religion

U.S.

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and The Heritage Foundation’s Sarah Parshall Perry on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a>
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what’s being called the marquee case of this term. In United States V. Skrmetti, three trans identifying teens, a Memphis physician and the Biden administration challenged a Tennessee state law that aims to protect children by banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of attempting to change a child’s gender.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us to break down this week’s oral arguments in United States V. Skrmetti and the broader implications is Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah, thanks for coming on – always good to talk to you.
SARAH: Thank you for having me.
JOHN: So, this week we had the oral arguments for this landmark case. Now, we here at the Daily Wire have followed this case closely, in part because of the role <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a> in this. His investigation into Vanderbilt helped prompt the law that this center’s on. First, can you walk us through how we got to the Supreme Court hearing?
SARAH: Yes. This actually came from a parental rights challenge. Three parents of transgender minors brought this challenge against SB1, which was a law that was enacted with bipartisan support in the state of Tennessee, saying that not only did it interfere with their rights to achieve this particular very controversial and experimental medical care for their children, but it was also a sex discriminatory law, and that would make it illegal, unconstitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause. Well, both the Federal Trial Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found for Tennessee, basically determining that the state of Tennessee had satisfied the constitutional bar, and it had every interest in protecting minors from unproven sexism, scientifically sketchy procedures, and that this was well within their police power as the state. Well, by the time it got to the Sixth Circuit, the United States had filed a motion to intervene. It can do so when a state law challenging an equal protection clause violation is at issue. That&#8217;s what they did here. And so by the time it got to the Supreme Court, it only granted review of the United States&#8217;s claim and not the parental rights claim. So what we heard was oral arguments specifically dedicated to whether or not this was sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
JOHN: So, let&#8217;s unpack that a bit more. What is the argument for this being sex discrimination and the argument against it? 
SARAH: Well, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General for the United States, argues for the Biden administration that because the law makes a distinction on boys who are identified as boys at birth who want to get testosterone, but will not allow girls who are identified as boys who want as male at birth – being transgender, of course – they cannot get access to testosterone, that that&#8217;s a facially discriminatory characteristic. But what the law actually does, and the state legislators were very careful to engage in this type of analysis, is to simply restrict for both males and females any access to the drugs determined by their age alone – which the Supreme Court has never held to be a class requiring elevated scrutiny — and also based on the use to which the drugs would be put. So restricted only based on use and age, nothing more, and treated men and women equally under the law.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/high-court-weighs-tennessees-transgender-law-12-8-24/id1576594336?i=1000679633865" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: And to be clear, what is barred here is to use these controversial procedures, these hormone treatments, these puberty blockers, in order to attempt to change the gender or sex of a minor, correct?
SARAH: That&#8217;s exactly it. In fact, there is no restriction on the use of these puberty blockers for endocrine disorders like precocious puberty, which obviously indicates that those are appropriate medical uses. And of course, the state of Tennessee restricts the use of other drugs for particular purposes as well. It wants to make sure that the dangers of “off-label use” — And that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s involved here. This is off-label use of unproven drugs for gender dysphoria. They want to make sure that that use is restricted, and they&#8217;re constitutionally permitted to do that.
JOHN: For those who aren&#8217;t familiar with that term, “off-label” – which is actually crucial in this case – what does that mean in this context?
SARAH: The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has never approved puberty blockers for &#8220;gender dysphoria.&#8221; It has never approved those particular drugs for which these minor children and their parents, and the United States, have all argued to get access to. Instead, it&#8217;s only approved them for endocrine disorders. So the state of Tennessee does not want minor children assuming the risk of off-label use and making determinations that could have lifetime consequences.
JOHN: Now, judging from what we heard on Wednesday, where do you think the justices are leaning in this case?
SARAH: I think there&#8217;s a very strong reason to believe that at least five of the justices are going to be skeptical of the United States’ arguments. In fact, Justice Alito himself was fairly excoriating in his refusal to allow Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, to be creative with her legal analysis and to ignore the science. In fact, he said that she&#8217;s relegated to a footnote in the bombshell Cass Review Report, which came out of England earlier this year, but in fact the science itself is we also know that Justice Kavanaugh said there is &#8220;a red light&#8221; here to prevent us from getting involved in new areas and constitutionalizing new areas of medicine. Justice Barrett said this is a question better left for the legislature, as did the Chief Justice himself, who actually quoted, without citing the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health by saying this issue is better suited for the people and their elected representatives. Strangely silent was Justice Gorsuch, who had nothing to say during two and a half hours, and he may be the swing vote in this.
<div id="attachment_838801" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838801" class="size-large wp-image-838801" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg" alt="Police stand between demonstrators in support of gender affirming treatment, left, and demonstrators in support of the Tennessee case against gender affirming treatment for minors, right, outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024. The US Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of state laws that ban gender-affirming treatments for minors less than five years after the justices outlawed job discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2187611773.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Credit: Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: Justice Gorsuch was notably silent. Do you have any sense of why that might have been the case?
SARAH: You know, it could be one of two things. First of all, I think it&#8217;s wise to remember that Justice Gorsuch was the majority opinion author in Bostock versus Clayton County dating to the year 2020. And in that case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, relative to employment discrimination, was expanded not only to prohibit sex discrimination, but also to prohibit anti-racism and gender identity discrimination. Now, he was that opinion&#8217;s majority author. He may have been dealing with the fact that there is now a recognition that the Bostock opinion was a Pandora&#8217;s box. The Biden administration has used the Bostock opinion to expand the administrative state, and to force gender identity into concepts like medicine, school lunches, education, and more. That is something I think with which he will have to ultimately reckon because Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, mentioned the similarity to Bostock, so he very much may have been curling his toes underneath the table.
JOHN: So will this ruling potentially override that – will this set a new precedent in terms of that discrimination clause writ large?
SARAH: Well, as the other justices noted, particularly conservative justices, the analysis for a constitutional claim, a violation, for example, of the Equal Protection Clause and whether it discriminates based on sex, is slightly different than a discriminatory analysis based on sex under civil rights law. The Constitution holds to a higher bar, what&#8217;s called intermediate or heightened scrutiny, and that&#8217;s a higher bar for a state to achieve. But that analysis is different enough where Bostock is different from the current issue. I do think what it will do, however, is pin back the ears a little bit, the reach of the Bostock determination, and ensure that equal protection claims are not brought alongside statutory civil rights discrimination claims.
JOHN: All right so that was the conservative response – what did we hear from the Left-leaning justices?
SARAH: Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of histrionic commentary about trans kids dying and that these are proven scientific interventions, when in fact we know that is not the case. But the most interesting comparison came from Justice Kanji Brown Jackson, who cited Loving v. Virginia as a analogous case law study, and in Loving v. Virginia, that was the case in which the Supreme Court invalidated the interracial marriage ban from that state under the Equal Protection Clause, essentially overriding the judgment of the state legislature. She argued for the United States to be able to do so here, but ignored the fact that, once again, sex is not the defining characteristic at issue.
JOHN: Right – and Brown’s questions in particular gained a lot of negative attention online. Now, it&#8217;s notable that the conservatives seem to suggest that this issue is more appropriate to be dealt with by state legislatures rather than the court. And I think the implication there is that science is constantly being updated and reexamined, the best practices are often changing. Is the idea here that a federal court ruling can be too permanent in a sense for medical practices?
SARAH: Well, I&#8217;ll harken back to the Dobbs decision again, and we know the line of viability, for example, that Roe v. Wade set shifted and changed over the fifty years before Dobbs versus Jackson women&#8217;s health. And in writing the majority opinion, Justice Alito mentioned the fact that they should not be constitutionalizing areas of medical regulation. That was wholly within the state&#8217;s authority. I think they are very likely here to make the exact same determination, especially with so recent a ruling like that on the books.
<div id="attachment_838675" style="width: 816px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838675" class="size-large wp-image-838675" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee." width="806" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg 806w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-300x214.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-768x549.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 806px) 100vw, 806px" />Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: When do we expect a decision to be handed down on this case?
SARAH: Well, there are quite a number of high-profile decisions, but I would argue this is the most high-profile, which indicates to me we are not likely to see an outcome here until probably the end of June 2025.
JOHN: Okay, so beyond the Supreme Court and constitutional issues here, looking at the broader legal issues here – one of the things that the Matt Walsh investigation uncovered was an apparent financial incentive for promoting the kind of very controversial, permanent treatments that we&#8217;re seeing with these transgender minor operations procedures. Do you foresee legal trouble for those that have been involved in these kinds of programs?
SARAH: That&#8217;s a good question. We know that this is a three to $5 billion a year industry and some estimates are as high as $10 billion. On average, gender medicine yields a doctor $8,000 per single procedure in sole profit. So we know money had to be spent, quite a bit to do with this and with the incentive of doctors to medicalize these minor children, but there is good news. We&#8217;ve already seen a lawsuit coming out of California brought by Harmeet Dhillon&#8217;s law firm and she&#8217;s done excellent work. They are suing Kaiser Permanente for rushing three minor girls, three young teen girls, through the gender medicine gambit without getting informed consent. I do believe a reckoning is coming.
JOHN: You mention Harmeet Dhillon, we actually caught up with her recently and she gave as an overview of her cases involving transition procedures. Here’s some of what she said:
HARMEET: We literally filed the first, second, and third lawsuits on this issue in the country. I think other lawyers are joining us and so these cases are winding their way through the court system or through arbitration, because Kaiser tries to force people into arbitration, so do other medical providers. And one of the issues why there&#8217;s so few cases is because there&#8217;s statute of limitations that are very short that really keep the window very narrow for these young women — largely women — to file lawsuits. And so it&#8217;s heartbreaking the number of people we simply can&#8217;t help because of these statute of limitations issues. I do think that&#8217;s going to make a difference, but the bigger and faster and more effective long term difference is going to be legislatures banning these procedures on children. Medical boards taking away the licenses of doctors who commit medical malpractice, which I believe most of these doctors are doing. I mean, you literally have cases where people go in, some guidance counselor sends them for one session with some rubber stamper who then goes and gets the girl&#8217;s breasts cut off. It&#8217;s shocking and outrageous, it&#8217;s insane and it needs to stop. And we shouldn&#8217;t rely on the courts and lawyers. We should ask Republican legislatures and Democrat legislatures, frankly, if they care about humans, to stop this practice.
JOHN: Final question: How significant will this ruling ultimately be? Is it fair to say that this ruling will change how the issue of laws about trans procedures in the other states are handled by the courts?
SARAH: Yeah, I think that&#8217;s exactly accurate. In fact, there are other cases relative to the notion of gender identity pending on the Supreme Court&#8217;s docket. But I think the first shot across the bow is the particular notion of gender medicine, because that is at bottom such a controversial notion. I do believe for the 26 other states who are watching keenly what happens with Tennessee&#8217;s ban, when they themselves have almost identical bans within their own states. They are very hopeful that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of states rights and their ability to protect minor children, which is something that the Supreme Court has recognized for more than a hundred years.
JOHN: A consequential decision coming this summer. Sarah, thanks so much for coming on. That was Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Sarah Parshall Perry and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.</a>
***
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>

Supreme Court Considers Tennessee’s Ban On Treatments For Transgender Minors

‘$5 Billion Industry’: Breaking Down SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Transgender Case

'$5 Billion Industry': Breaking Down SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Transgender Case

Children

Gender

gender ideology

minors

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Tennessee

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Tennessee Attorney General John Skrmetti on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday edition of Morning Wire</a>. 
It’s being called the most significant case of the current Supreme Court term — United States v. Skrmetti. The attorney general sat down with us to discuss his pivotal role in the case and his defense of a state law aimed at protecting minors from transgender medical procedures.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us now is Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Attorney General, thank you so much for coming on. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what is setting up to be a landmark case on transgender medical procedures on minors. Your name is on this marquee case, it’s you against the federal government: United States v. Skrmetti. So, safe to say, no one is more attuned to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tennessees-ban-on-child-sex-changes-heads-to-the-supreme-court-live-blog" target="_blank" rel="noopener">what happened this week</a> than you. First, how do you feel the day went for your case? 
SKRMETTI: I thought it went very well. I can&#8217;t predict outcomes, you don&#8217;t know what the court&#8217;s going to do and the justices have months to deliberate. So without talking “horse race” here, I thought the day went well for us. My solicitor general Matt Rice did a great job making our case. I was very happy with his oral argument. The argument went long, which I think reflects that the justices care a lot about this, recognize there are some complexities here from a legal perspective, and that this could be a very consequential precedent. And so they want to get it right. So I thought they explored many issues very thoroughly, and I thought we put out a great case for Tennessee.
JOHN: Yeah, what were some of the questions from the justices that stuck out to you, that could be key in their decision-making?
SKRMETTI: Again, you don&#8217;t want to prognosticate too much, but I think the sex discrimination questions were very important. There was one lengthy line of questioning, but there were a number of questions about how this case might fit into existing sex discrimination case law. And I think that&#8217;s probably going to be a very significant issue for the outcome of the case. I think I can prognosticate that much. But the question is: Is this a sex discrimination case in a constitutional sense? Our position is, it is not, because you&#8217;re not treating like people differently. The argument is because boys can get testosterone, but girls can&#8217;t, and girls can get estrogen, but boys can&#8217;t, that you&#8217;re discriminating on the basis of sex. But our position is there&#8217;s not some universal distribution of hormones out there. You don&#8217;t just give boys testosterone. Anytime a drug is prescribed, it is for the purpose of treating a particular condition. And the evaluation of whether the drug is appropriate depends on that condition. There&#8217;s not some universal access to any given drug. So, if you&#8217;re giving a boy testosterone, for a testosterone deficiency, that&#8217;s relieving medical problems. That&#8217;s curing harms. If you give a girl testosterone for a psychological condition, gender dysphoria, it will create a host of physiological problems – potential lifelong loss of fertility, potential lifelong loss of sexual function. Depending on which hormone you&#8217;re talking about, you can have lifelong problems with blood clots, with tumors, with puberty blockers, bone density disorders, and all of them cause potential lifelong cognitive impairments. So the use of the drug is very contingent on which condition you&#8217;re addressing with it.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors/id1576594336?i=1000679563780" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: Part of this is encapsulated in the concept of off-label usage of drugs. Can you explain what that means for our audience?
SKRMETTI: Sure. So the FDA, kind of adopting the perspective that I just articulated, only evaluates drugs for certain uses. They don&#8217;t say, &#8220;This drug is good, everybody can get as much of it as they want.&#8221; They say, &#8220;This drug is appropriate for treating this condition.&#8221; So, a lot of times, a drug will be approved to treat certain conditions. The FDA doesn&#8217;t have sufficient research to evaluate whether it&#8217;s appropriate for other conditions, but doctors can still sometimes prescribe it. They can prescribe off-label, which means even though the drug is not approved for that use, the doctors have made an informed medical decision to use it in that context, but they&#8217;re still subject to regulation. The state has, for hundreds of years, been regulating the practice of medicine. Even though doctors have a great deal of latitude, there are legal limits on what they can do. Oftentimes those limits are in place because the potential harms dramatically outweigh the potential benefits. The state has made a judgment that it is simply not appropriate to let doctors do what they would otherwise be inclined to do. Of course, those are fairly limited circumstances. We give a lot of latitude to doctors. We have a lot of respect for their training and for their decision-making, but there&#8217;s still a role for regulation there.
JOHN: When your team researched the evidence, the medical justification for why you think this is a fair law in the first place, what did you find in terms of the efficacy of these gender transition procedures for minors? Is there evidence backing up what pro-trans activists will claim about this?
SKRMETTI: Every systematic review of the evidence has determined that there is little to no benefit to minors. There are individual studies – there was some of this in the court. You can attack any given individual study on either side, there are always arguments to be made, but the systematic reviews of the overall research literature have consistently shown no benefit to minors. That&#8217;s why European countries that pioneered the use of these procedures on kids have since reversed course. It&#8217;s not because they suddenly got very politically conservative. It&#8217;s because they looked at the evidence and they determined that, for kids, the risks far outweigh the benefits, that the unexplained dramatic increase in the number of cases was very concerning, that there simply wasn&#8217;t a medical justification for the broad adoption of these treatments in the juvenile context. So they&#8217;ve greatly restricted the availability of these treatments. And that same review of evidence informed Tennessee&#8217;s decision.
JOHN: Now, I wanted to ask you about the parental rights aspects of this law. The pro-trans activists have tried to argue that Tennessee’s law could violate parent’s rights. What do you make of that argument?
SKRMETTI: So when the case was originally filed, there was both the constitutional argument, involving sex discrimination, and a parental rights argument. We won both in the Court of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit. The United States only petitioned for cert on the 14th Amendment issue, and so when the court granted that petition, the only question before them is the equal protection sex discrimination claim. So, the parental rights issue is still lurking out there. Justice Barrett addressed that briefly. Now, there are other situations where parents aren&#8217;t allowed to do what they&#8217;d otherwise be inclined to do. We give parents a great deal of latitude with their children but that doesn&#8217;t mean that they can do whatever they want, particularly in situations where you&#8217;re talking about severely adverse consequences in the long run. Parents can&#8217;t just go ahead and let their kids engage in conduct like that because the kids can&#8217;t meaningfully consent, and the parents can&#8217;t consign them to a life of dealing with the consequences for many, many different choices. This is an area where the state&#8217;s power is near its apex, protecting kids from serious harm.
<div id="attachment_838675" style="width: 816px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-838675" class="size-large wp-image-838675" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee." width="806" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg 806w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-300x214.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026-768x549.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/GettyImages-2188237026.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 806px) 100vw, 806px" />Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.</div>
JOHN: Now, as we’ve documented here at the Daily Wire, Tennessee’s law was inspired by an investigation into Vanderbilt’s gender clinic by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-gender-ideology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matt Walsh</a> that got the attention of a lot of people not just in the state but across the country. And now over two dozen states have laws similar to Tennessee’s How will this ruling of impact those state laws?
SKRMETTI: Well, presumably if Tennessee&#8217;s law is constitutionally sound, then the other half of the states in the country that have adopted similar laws will similarly survive constitutional scrutiny, and it will allow those states to exercise their sovereign authority to regulate the medical profession in a way that protects kids. So, this is definitely a case that will have broader consequences than just within the borders of Tennessee.
JOHN: A larger question, about the cultural context of this: We just saw an election where Republicans gained 10 points or more in almost every single state, even in very deep blue areas – even if they didn&#8217;t vote for Trump, they moved in the direction of Republicans. And one of the most cited issues was the transgender agenda. Do you see this year as a turning point on this issue? 
SKRMETTI: So I think it&#8217;s an issue that&#8217;s front of mind for a lot of people because the country has moved, at least in part, very, very far, very, very fast over the past few years. We&#8217;ve just seen radical changes in the rhetoric, in mainstream conversations about gender identity. To tell someone 10 years ago this would be the big case of this term at the Supreme Court, I think, would have baffled most Americans. So it&#8217;s something that people are reacting to. But I do think, even if there is a political element to it with respect to the election, it&#8217;s really important to note that this is not a political issue for a lot of people. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation. It was supported by members of both sides of the aisle when it came through the Tennessee legislature. The people advocating for this include, of course, traditional Christian conservative groups, traditional constitutional conservative groups, but also groups that probably don&#8217;t align with us on a lot of issues. There are medical groups that are fairly non-political. There are LGB groups that are very concerned about what they term “transing the gays.” So this is a coalition that&#8217;s much broader than just one side of the political divide. There are a lot of people who are really worried that we have adopted an approach to gender identity issues that&#8217;s going to leave a lot of kids very hurt.
JOHN: There’s certainly evidence that the national sentiment has shifted on this. Final question. The justices will deliver their decision this summer. In the meantime, how does Tennessee handle this particular law in the intervening months?
SKRMETTI: So, our law is currently in effect, and we will enforce it. That means we&#8217;re going to be protecting Tennessee kids from these lifelong treatments. One important fact is, the science shows, the evidence shows most kids dealing with gender dysphoria will outgrow it. It&#8217;s a hard thing to deal with, it&#8217;s a hard thing for everybody to deal with, but most of these kids who are being steered toward these life-altering treatments would be fine if they were just given time – and we want to make sure they have that time.
JOHN: Well, attorney general, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.
SKRMETTI: Thank you. Take care.
JOHN: That was Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/landmark-battle-skrmetti-defends-law-protecting-minors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday edition of Morning Wire</a>.
***
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>

AG Skrmetti

‘A Very Consequential Precedent’: AG Skrmetti Unpacks Landmark Supreme Court Case

'A Very Consequential Precedent': AG Skrmetti Unpacks Landmark Supreme Court Case

Attorney General

Tennessee’s Ban On Child Sex-Changes Heads To The Supreme Court: Live Blog

It’s a rare thing to witness history in the making. But there&#8217;s something revolutionary happening on DailyWire+, and history is unfolding in real time. 
In an era drowning in shallow hot takes and mindless cultural commentary, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has gathered nine of the world&#8217;s most brilliant minds around a table to do what hasn&#8217;t been done <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/socrates-and-the-discipline-of-listening-to-your-internal-voice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">since Socrates roamed</a> the streets of ancient Athens: conduct a real-time exhibition of philosophical dialogue that will echo for years to come. Their subject matter? The New Testament Gospel accounts of The Holy Bible. 
But this isn&#8217;t an average Bible study. This isn&#8217;t even a typical Peterson lecture. This is something entirely different — a collision of intellect and spirit, of reason and faith, of skepticism and belief, all captured in vivid, full-color glory that the likes of ancient philosophers Aristotle and Plato could have only dreamed of preserving in their black-and-white texts.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-gospels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH &#8216;THE GOSPELS&#8217; ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
What sets these dialogues apart from all others is not just the caliber of minds in the room, though that alone is enough to warrant attention. It&#8217;s not even Peterson&#8217;s razor-sharp ability to cut through ideological noise straight to the marrow of meaning, though that, too, is on full display. No, what makes this series a once-in-millennia event is the raw authenticity of watching these men — from different faiths, different backgrounds, different philosophical frameworks — wrestle with the most profound questions of existence in real time, with every furrowed brow, every passionate gesture, every moment of revelation captured for posterity.
But here&#8217;s the kicker that separates Peterson from every other intellectual giant in history: While Socrates taught through questions, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jung-nietzsche-and-freud-the-psychoanalysts-in-philosophical-debate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nietzsche through proclamations, and Jung through abstract concepts</a>, Peterson does something revolutionary — he shows us how to live his teachings out. His unwavering commitment to &#8220;practice what he preaches&#8221; isn&#8217;t born from self-righteous moralizing, but from a deep reverence for Truth coupled with an almost painful awareness of his own fallibility. It&#8217;s this combination — his raw, honest humanity paired with uncompromising intellectual rigor — that makes him a teacher of wisdom and also a guide through the chaos of our times.
In &#8220;The Gospels,&#8221; his third biblical series, we&#8217;re watching him do what he does best: help people. Not only individuals this time, but also an entire civilization teetering on the brink of meaninglessness.
When Nietzsche declared &#8220;God is dead,&#8221; he was not dropping a provocative soundbite in order to rile the religious. He was sounding an alarm that would echo through centuries — a warning that Peterson, perhaps alone among modern thinkers, has fully grasped in all its terrifying implications.
This is where Peterson&#8217;s genius truly shines. While religious ideologues dismiss Nietzsche as a mere atheist provocateur and secular academics reduce him to a philosophical curiosity, Peterson ventures deep into the psychological abyss to which Nietzsche was pointing. He both understands Nietzsche&#8217;s words and he feels the existential dread that prompted them, the emotional turbulence that birthed them, the profound cultural implications they herald.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
And this is exactly what makes &#8220;The Gospels&#8221; so much more than another biblical commentary. It&#8217;s Peterson&#8217;s answer to Nietzsche&#8217;s warning — not through academic argumentation or religious platitudes, but through a living demonstration of what it means to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/on-wrestling-with-god" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrestle with</a> the deepest questions of existence while <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-more-reliable-and-meaningful-aim-than-happiness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">maintaining an upward aim</a>.
What started in Peterson&#8217;s clinical practice — helping individuals navigate their personal darkness — has exploded into something unprecedented in scope. His ability <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/back-to-his-roots-peterson-translates-clinical-research-into-practical-steps-for-healing-in-series" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to translate</a> complex psychological insights into practical wisdom has resonated far beyond the confines of his office, touching millions of lives across the globe.
But &#8220;The Gospels&#8221; takes Peterson’s positive impact to an entirely new level. Here, we&#8217;re not just watching a clinician help individuals; we&#8217;re watching a cultural physician diagnose and treat the spiritual malaise of our entire civilization. The conversations around that table — raw, profound, often contentious — aren&#8217;t just academic exercises. They&#8217;re real-time attempts to resurrect meaning in a world that has lost its way.
Each episode builds on what Peterson has been doing his entire career: showing people how to voluntarily pick up their crosses, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-to-engage-in-culture-without-chaos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">face the chaos</a> of existence, and transform it into a life deemed worthy to live in spite of suffering. But now, instead of simply telling us about these principles, we have the opportunity to watch as nine brilliant minds, including Peterson himself, actually engage in this process. It&#8217;s one thing to read about wrestling with angels; it&#8217;s another thing entirely to watch it happen.
Quite obvious is the fact the cast is not diverse in race or sex; however, diversity is undeniably present. What makes these conversations so electric is the clash of worldviews, the collision of different ways of knowing, and the interplay of faith and doubt. 
When a Catholic Bishop&#8217;s certainty meets a cognitive scientist&#8217;s skepticism, when a Jewish scholar&#8217;s ancient wisdom confronts a modern screenwriter&#8217;s narrative instincts, we get something more than superficial diversity. We get genuine dialogue across the deepest divides in human understanding.
&#8220;The Gospels&#8221; is nothing less than history in the making. While Socrates had Plato to record his dialogues, we are limited to reading his words on paper. And though Peterson has an advantage over Socrates with a film crew to record his dialogues, he captures much more than conversations through a different medium: He captures the human experience of grappling with ultimate truth as it occurs.
Every raised eyebrow, every passionate interjection, every moment of profound realization —  “The Gospels” documents it all, preserved in high definition for future generations. More than just a series of conversations about the Bible, “The Gospels” is a testament to what happens when brilliant minds come together to seriously wrestle with the most fundamental questions of human existence.
Is it worth watching? That depends on whether you believe civilization is worth saving. That depends on whether you think the meaning crisis of our age needs addressing. That depends on whether you&#8217;re willing to engage with ideas that might shake you to your core.
Peterson would say you&#8217;re worth saving. He&#8217;s spent his entire career proving it. And now, with &#8220;The Gospels,&#8221; he&#8217;s showing us exactly how that salvation can willingly come about. But salvation does not come through easy answers or comforting platitudes. Salvation comes through the hard work of genuine engagement with the deepest truths we know.
In an age of artificial intelligence, shallow entertainment, and endless distraction, Peterson and his companions are doing something radical: They&#8217;re thinking, deeply and seriously, about what matters most. And they&#8217;re inviting us all to join them in that dying but necessary act.
The ancient Greeks had their agora. We have &#8220;The Gospels.&#8221; The question is: Are we willing to listen?

The Gospels

The Modern-Day Socrates: Jordan B. Peterson Conducts Socratic Seminar In New ‘Gospels’ Series

The Modern-Day Socrates: Jordan B. Peterson Conducts Socratic Seminar In New 'Gospels' Series

Jesus

Menu