TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MattWalshBlog

MattWalshBlog
Posted - December 12, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Saved - December 13, 2025 at 11:56 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Enjoyed this conversation. Watch the whole thing before you start screaming at me please.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

A civil war is consuming the American right. Matt Walsh may be the only person with a foot on both sides. What’s that like? (0:00) Is There a Civil War Breaking Out on the Right? (5:06) Why Walsh Refuses to Publicly Denounce Anyone (16:49) What Is Leftism? (30:34) Why Walsh Doesn't Care About Israel (35:14) Can You Defend Israel’s War on Gaza and Still Be a Conservative? (43:14) Why Does Randy Fine Think the Death of Children Is Funny? (49:04) Is Violence Necessary for Justice? (58:28) Are We Heading Toward a Revolution? (1:02:23) Why Is Restaurant Food Getting Worse? (1:10:04) Where Did All the White People Go? (1:21:35) Why Labels and Name-Calling No Longer Work (1:26:12) The Deadly Evil That Has Taken Over Canada (1:38:18) Is the Transgender Movement Over? (1:40:31) How Do We Resolve the Conservative Civil War? (1:52:47) Is There a Political Realignment Happening? (1:57:57) The Importance of Prayer (2:01:22) Is Walsh Addicted to X? Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses with Matt Walsh the current fractures within the right and Walsh’s guiding principles for how to navigate loyalty, truth, and public discourse. Key points and exchanges - Leadership vacuum after Charlie’s death and its consequences - Walsh says Charlie’s death created a leadership vacuum in the right; the immediate post‑death unity faded as realities set in. - The attempt to turn Charlie’s killing into a catalyst for more Charlies backfired; Walsh notes that assassination “works” as a strategy, and the result is the loss of the glue that held the coalition together. - The organization Walsh admires—TPUSA—remains intact, but the leadership that bound people together is gone, leading to heightened internal friction. - Loyalty as a principle - Walsh asserts he will not denounce friends or disavow colleagues, arguing loyalty is a fundamental principle and a duty to those who have consistently backed him. - He defines loyalty as having a personal relationship with someone who has had his back and whom he would defend; betrayal, not disagreement, is what he rejects. - He uses examples (e.g., if a close family member committed a serious crime) to illustrate that loyalty does not require endorsing wrongful acts publicly, but it does require private accountability and support. - Leftism vs. conservatism; the core “enemy” - Walsh defines leftism as moral relativism (the idea of “my truth” and rejection of objective truth) and as an ideology that opposes civilization, Western identity, and foundational institutions like the family and marriage. - He argues leftism rejects the intrinsic value of human life, portraying life’s worth as contingent on circumstances (e.g., whether a mother wants a child), which he calls a fundamental leftist position. - He contends the fight on the right is against that leftism, and aligns with Walsh’s interpretation that preserving Western civilization, American identity, the sanctity of life, and the family are core conservative aims. - Israel, Gaza, and internal right disagreements - On Israel, Walsh says his stance is “I don’t care” (a position he reiterates as his personal view) and stresses that the debate should not be about Israel per se, but about whether right-wing conservatives share foundational values. - Walsh argues that some conservatives defend mass killing in Gaza, which he brands as a leftist argument, and he distinguishes it from more traditional right-wing concerns about strategy and casualties. - Walsh acknowledges there are conservatives who defend Israel’s actions but reject the premise that civilians are mass-killed intentionally; they may minimize or challenge casualty claims without endorsing mass murder. - He emphasizes the need to distinguish between true disagreements over policy and deeper disagreements about whether certain universal values (truth, life, and Western civilization) prevail. - The moral status of violence and justice - The conversation touches on the justification of violence for justice. Walsh acknowledges that violence can be a necessary tool for justice in some contexts but warns against endorsing violence indiscriminately. - He invokes Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ actions in the temple to discuss the moral complexity of violence: turning the other cheek is not a universal solution, especially when innocent people are involved. - The exchange explores whether state authority should compel action or whether individuals should intervene when the state fails to protect the innocent, using examples like Daniel Penny’s subway incident as a test case. - The state, justice, and governance - The two guests discuss the legitimacy of the state and what happens when the state fails to enforce justice or protect the vulnerable. - Walsh argues that if the state does not act, it can lead to mass action by citizens—though he concedes this is a dangerous path that should be avoided if possible. - They reflect on how the state’s authority is God-ordained, but acknowledge moments when civil disobedience or private action might be morally justifiable if the state abdicates its duties. - Cultural realism and media dynamics - Walsh and Carlson discuss how political labels (left/right) obscure shared concerns and how many conservatives actually share core aims with others outside the traditional conservative coalition. - They critique the media and pundit ecosystem for being out of touch with everyday life, citing deteriorating quality of goods, services, and infrastructure as real-life issues that affect families directly. - They argue that many pundits live in insulated environments—whether expensive urban enclaves or rural enclaves—without appreciating the middle-class experience and the practical hardships faced by ordinary Americans. - Demographics and national identity - A recurring thread is the argument that modern politics has become entangled in demographic change and questions of national identity. - Walsh contends that Western civilization and American identity rest on belief in objective truth, the sanctity of life, and the family; failing to defend these leads to a broader cultural and civilizational crisis. - The discussion includes a provocative point about indigenous identity in America and the claim that “native Americans” are not native to the country as formed; Walsh argues for reclaiming the term “native American” to describe the founders’ European-descended population. - Economics and social policy - Walsh describes himself as libertarian on many economic questions, opposing the welfare state and taxes, while acknowledging that conservatives can disagree on policy tools if the underlying motivations remain aligned with preserving family, culture, and national identity. - He suggests that a welfare state is not incompatible with conservative aims if its purpose is to strengthen family formation and national viability, though he believes it ultimately undermines family stability. - Internal dynamics and personal impact - Walsh discusses the personal toll of being at the center of intra-party debates: frequent public attacks, misattributed motives, and the challenge of remaining loyal without becoming embittered. - He emphasizes prayer and structured routines as practical means to maintain perspective and resilience in the face of sustained public scrutiny. - Toward a path forward - Both speakers stress the importance of clarifying the conservative catechism: defining what conservatives want to conserve and aligning around a shared set of non-negotiables. - They suggest that if people share core commitments to objective truth, the family, and American identity, disagreements about methods can exist, but collaboration remains possible. - If, however, people reject those core commitments, they argue, conservatives may be on different sides of a fundamental civilizational divide. Notes on the interaction - The dialogue weaves personal anecdotes, philosophical stances, and political diagnostics, with both participants acknowledging complexity and evolution of views. - The emphasis repeatedly returns to loyalty, truth, and civilizational foundations as the ultimate frame for understanding intra-right tensions and for guiding future alignment. (Throughout, promotional segments and product endorsements were present in the original transcript but have been omitted here to preserve focus on substantive points and to align with the request to exclude promotional content.)
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me commend you on your tightrope walking skills. I I don't check into social media that much, but whenever I do, I'm like, Matt Walsh is an amazing man. Speaker 1: Glad you feel that way anyway. No. I mean, Speaker 0: I there's a lot the reason I wanna talk to you is there's a lot that I admire about how you've handled this just as a man, leaving aside our opinions, which I I don't even know if they are probably different in some ways, same in other ways, but it's not even about that. I you know everybody involved personally or most of them involved in all these dramas on the right and I think the way that you've handled it is just so so impressive. So thank you for that. But first, what is going on? There is a civil war probably not too strong on the right within the Trump coalition. What is it? Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, this has been It's it's been a really awful. I I think I think for everybody. And a lot of this drama obviously goes back goes back a long way. But I think after Charlie was killed, it's created this kind of this vacuum. And it's a it's a leadership vacuum because Charlie was was I think the the best leader we had on the right. And the the tragic reality is that a lot of the stuff that that we said right after he was killed turned out not to be true. Stuff that even I said. Like, well, you killed Charlie, but you made a you made a million more. Right? You killed char you killed one Charlie, but now we have a million more Charlies. And I think I think we said that because it it we wanted that to be true. And it kind of felt for a brief amount of time, it felt that way because it felt like everybody was sort of unified. And we were coming together and going to the memorial and everybody was there. And and it felt like almost this revival, even this religious revival and all these things. But then I think quickly reality sets in. And what we have realized and what we've seen is that you kill Charlie and now Charlie's gone. And when when you that's the thing. When you kill someone, they're they're gone at least in this life. And so we no. We didn't go from one Charlie to a million Charlies. We went from one Charlie to zero Charlies. And that's just that's what happens with the that's why assassinations happen. That's why people do them. Speaker 0: Because they work. Speaker 1: Because it works. Yeah. Because they work. And that's that's been the greatest tragedy about all this. I mean, aside from the human tragedy that an actual human being lost their lost his life, and his wife doesn't have a husband, his kids don't have a father. I mean, that's that's the great tragedy, the human tragedy. But on a on a kind of national scale, the tragedy is that the the strategy of assassination has been proven effective again as it has all throughout human history. And so now this guy who was this I think to an extent that none of us fully realized was the glue that was holding everything together on the right, holding holding this whole crazy coalition together. It turns out it was like one guy who was doing this and his organization, which which is is still around who have a lot of respect for TP USA. And I think they're doing the absolute best they can in in the face of this. I mean, I have no I I can't even imagine being in the spot that they're in. But he was the leader of the organization. He was a leader of the conservative movement. He was the glue. And and now he's gone and it it kinda feels like everything's coming undone to be honest with you. And there's this so there's all the there's all the fighting that go that's that's going on. And for me personally, and I don't I don't like to I I don't get into this because first of I don't like talking about myself. I I like I like to talk about the things I that I think. I talk about my ideas about things all the time, but I don't like talking about myself. Speaker 0: Good. And I like people don't like talking about themselves. But with that said, I hope you'll talk about Well, Speaker 1: and also I don't want to like I'm not the victim of any of this at all, but I can only speak from my own experiences. And so my experience is that I'm a consider myself a personal friend of many of the people on either side of all of these various disputes, including a friend of yours. And so that that's a that's a very complicated position to be in. And then what what ends up what ends up happening is Yes. And there's so there's people on either side, and it's really not even two sides. It's I don't know how many. It's fractured to a million pieces it feels like. And so you've got the people on all the different sides of the different disputes who are shouting at me that, well, I need to denounce so and so. I need to disavow this person. I need to come out and say, you know, that I not not just I just that I disagree. This is one that we'd have disagreements. But the pressure is beyond it. The pressure is no. No. You don't just disagree, but disavow, denounce, condemn. And my answer has been and not everybody respects it, you don't have to respect it. But my answer is no, I'm not gonna do that. And I'm not gonna denounce a friend. I'm not ever I'm not ever gonna do it like ever. Because to me loyalty is a principle. Loyalty is a so when when people say, well, do you need to stand on your principles and come out and say this or that? Well, loyalty is a principle in my mind. It's one of the most important principles for any person, for for a man especially. And I think that, you know, people if you're not if you're not in the middle of it and you're kind of on the outside, there are lot of things that go on behind the scenes that you don't know about. And so when I say that somebody is a friend and I feel personal loyalty to them, that doesn't just mean that, oh, I kinda like that person. But for me anyway, what that means is this is someone who I know personally Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Who I can call on the phone, who I can share a meal with, I've shared a meal with. And very often, this is someone who has had my back and supported me in ways that you might not see. Not not in like a they've paid me off, but just in a friend way. Like, I I've got your back. I'm gonna support you. I'll defend you. Hey. Everyone's attacking you for this or that reason, and I got your back. Right? And so there are a lot of people who've done that for me. And once you do that for me, then I feel like duty bound that I cannot turn around. I will not turn around and stab you in the back or condemn you. Like, you have my back. I'll have yours. That's that's that's the idea. Speaker 0: Okay. That's the principle you said. You said it's more than an idea. It's more than an emotional response. It's a principle, and you said it's especially important for men. And I I just agree with you so strongly when you say that, but I haven't taken the time to think through why it's so important to me. Can you explain why that's a principle and why it's especially important for men? Speaker 1: Well, I think it's about I think it's about I think it's about integrity. It's a it's a matter of personal integrity. It's also a matter of of of having a spine. I mean, if if if you denounce someone because especially again a friend because you've got a million people screaming in your face and telling you to do it. Well, how can that possibly be a principled stand? You're doing it to get people to stop yelling at you. Right. That's why you're doing it. And and actually even if they're not your friend, if people are yelling at if you do anything because people are yelling at you to do it, then that that's that's the wrong it's it's the wrong reason to do something. Yes. It's the wrong reason even to do the right thing on it really. But with with a friend, it's it's the wrong thing. There's also just this basic principle of, you know, doing to others as as you would have them doing to you. Speaker 0: And there's something uniquely repulsive about betrayal, and that's what that is. That's why Quisling got executed. That's why Judas is reviled. Betrayal, you know, someone that you're responsible for or are in in a real relationship with and then you whip around and undercut the person, that's worse than like an invading army kind of. Right? Yeah. It feels that Speaker 1: way to me. And I think I think that's right. That's something we all kind of instinctively understand, which is why everyone has such a low opinion of traders. Yes. You know? Traders are are below Exactly. Dirt in terms of of how we rank them. Now disagreement, on the other hand, is not betrayal, and you can obviously disagree with someone who's a friend. And if you have a friend who demands that you never disagree with them, well, that's not really a friend. No. And the relationship you have with them is one of it's not a friend relationship. Speaker 0: It's a master slave relationship. Speaker 1: Right. It's master's a subservient relationship. And and as men, we should not be in those kinds of relationships either. So you'd certainly disagree with someone. And so I'm not talking about that, and that's important. Because even what I'm saying right now, I know that Twitter's gonna have fun with it, and they're and they're gonna say, oh, is you're saying you can never disagree with a friend? Of course, can disagree with a friend. What I I'm not talking about that. I'm I'm talking about what I have personally experienced, like if I look in my mentions or email or even people I talk to of saying denounce condemn disavow. Okay. That that is the that is very specifically that's what I've heard. And that is the thing that I cannot ever do. And maybe I have a more extreme view of that than most people. I mean Speaker 0: No, you don't. You have the most basic human view. Like, what world are we in? Speaker 1: Well, because someone someone asked me once, they said We were talking about this, and they said, okay. What if someone you're really close with your brother? What if he murders someone? What if what if he becomes an axe murderer? Well, then you would disavow him and condemn him, wouldn't you? Speaker 0: No. I'd get him a fake passport. Right. Speaker 1: As I well To me, he's my brother. Yeah. I I if my brother was a serial killer and had 40 bodies in his basement, I would not get on camera and disavow or condemn him. I I would not do it. Speaker 0: Now Now who are you saying this to? Someone actually asked you that question? Speaker 1: Yes. To be clear, it was not my brother who was trying to make sure I wouldn't I wouldn't wasn't that. Do you Speaker 0: remember this line from the night before Christmas, quote, the children were nestled all snug in their beds while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads. It's the perfect winter slumber, but it's only possible if you can actually sleep. That's where Beam's dream powder comes in handy. Our friends at Beam, is an American company, have made the perfect formula for the most effective sleep powder ever used. Unlike the junk you would buy from your pharmacy, Beam's dream powder is completely clean. It's got no fillers or synthetic garbage and it actually works. Lots of people here on our staff use it and they can affirm that fact. When you use dream, you fall asleep fast, you sleep through the night, and when you get up, you feel sharp, focused, and ready to dominate the day. It's already improved over twenty eight million nights of sleep. They've calculated it, and Christmas is the perfect time to try it. This winter, Beam is giving our listeners the patriot discount. Visit shopbeam.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker and get up to 40% off Beam's dream powder. But here's the catch. It's only available at this price until it sells out. Go to shopbeam.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker. We recommend it. Speaker 1: But just just like because their point is like, yeah, the point they're trying to make, I understand. The point is that, yeah, you're loyal to people, but it's to a point and there's and it could get to a point where it's so something happens that's so extreme or they've done something that's so extremely wrong that it it should it changes your calculation. And my point is that for me, it doesn't. Now that doesn't mean that so if my brother going back to my brother being a serial killer, which by way he's not just to be clear. But if you were, I wouldn't defend I I wouldn't get on camera and say, actually, it's okay to be a serial killer. Right. And in that case, I mean, you you know, I can understand the temptation to get him a passport, get him out of town, but I I would I would turn him in because I think that that's justice and also it's best for him and his soul that he that he faced. Yeah. You're probably He faced the consequence. It wouldn't be easy to do. But even in the even in the midst of all that, I would not I would I wouldn't get up in public and say, I condemn and disavow. It's got the way that I you know, what happens on Twitter or on social media in general now when people are when they when they when when someone does something that upsets everyone, it's like the old it's like mid the mid ages where your your head is in the stocks, right, in the town square, and everyone's coming back by throwing tomatoes at you. And and I've I've had my head in the stocks many times with the Twitter mob. I've been in that spot. And probably in in times when I've deserved it because I've said something that really is just stupid, and so everyone is just flinging crap at me and it's okay. Been there. But my point is that if it's my friend who's got their head in the stock, even if they kinda deserve it because they said something stupid or they're doing something stupid, There's no scenario ever where I'm gonna pick up a tomato and throw it at them. I'm not gonna do that. Now I might I might speak to them privately and say, hey, you know what? You kinda had this coming because, like, you you need to you need to get you need to get it together. You need to get it aligned because what you did was wrong. I'll speak to someone privately and tell them that, and I have done that. If I disagree with a friend and what they're doing, I will tell them that. So that's the basic principle. But again, that's not that is all different from disagreement and saying I disagree with this person. Speaker 0: Of course. This is intuitively obvious, I think, to normal people. What I'm so struck by is how this doesn't just remind me of, like, medieval Europe. It reminds me of 2023. This is why Trump got elected. When we say woke or the crazy left, this is exactly, at least speaking for myself, I'm talking about. First of all, it's identity politics, it's censorship, the two things I hate in our country, but it's the same impulse to publicly denounce people, to destroy people. Really what you're saying when you demand that is it's not just a breach of loyalty, it's a transfer of loyalty. You're saying you need to be more loyal to me and my ideas or the mob than you are to your own friends. It's like demanding control of your loyalty and my view has always been, I'm an adult man. I'll decide who I like and who I don't. That's up to me. You're trying to strip me of my autonomy of my humanity. Like, no thanks. And that's why I got to the point where after many years of disagreeing with the left, I really hated the left cause I find that so totalitarian and scary. I just can't even believe that less than a year later, the right is doing the same thing. Like, what is going on? Speaker 1: Yeah. And that and going back to the the great tragedy the many tragedies that have grown from the the one great tragedy of Charlie's death. It is it is that it is that we have, like, the left. I still believe I'm old fashioned, so call me old fashioned. But I I still believe that the left that leftism leftism as an ideology is the enemy. It it it is it is the it is the problem. It's the thing that we're fighting against. It's the thing that I've always fought against. It's why I'm it's why I'm doing any of this. This is the only reason I'm on camera right now. The only reason that I'm doing any of this. The only reason I got into this, whatever it is that we're doing, whatever this business is, this this fight, it's the reason I'm in it, is to oppose leftism. Speaker 0: What is how do you define leftism? Speaker 1: Well, I I would define it Modern leftism is, first of all, moral relativism. It's the idea that I have my own truth. You know, there is no there is no truth. There's no there's no truth. I have my own. And so I think to me that's that's the core of the thing. And I think that if you're a relativist, then you are a leftist. Doesn't matter what else you believe. Right. You could be you could be a relativist and be anti immigration. You could be relativist and believe in gun rights. Now I think most relativists don't end up there, but even if you did, you're still a leftist because you reject truth. So that's what it is at at at its core. And also leftism not really also, but as as an as an extension of that, it's an outgrowth of that. Leftism opposes civilization, and it opposes western civilization in particular and American identity most particularly of all. It opposes all of the institutions that our civilization depends on and is is grounded in, like the institution of the family and the institution of marriage. It rejects all of that. It rejects the fundamental truths that we depend on. It it rejects the fundamental reality, like the reality of, well, men aren't women. And they're kind of I think a lot of leftists are trying to, in a really really embarrassed kind of way, back back away from that one because we beat them on it. You know, it's a thing when when we as conservatives can actually put all this bullshit to the side and focus on something, we can win and we beat the it's not it's not totally dead but the trans agenda is on life support and we defeated it. We took it down. We beat it. We can do that. And it's a good thing that we did because that was and is wicked and evil and it's hurting people and killing people. Couldn't agree more. But they also they reject the reality of of of human life. The fact that that that human life is has inherent worth and dignity from the moments the moment of its existence, from the moment of its conception. That your life is not the value of your life is not contingent. That's another fundamental aspect of leftism. They believe that human life, the value of human life is contingent. It's contingent for babies on whether or not their mother wants them. It's contingent on how much of an inconvenience they cause to their parents. And if it turns out that their mom doesn't want them and their parents find them inconvenient, then they their life has no value. Their life is less than garbage and can and can be killed and thrown into a dumpster. And that's what is still happening in this country. You know, every single day, that's still happening. Hundreds of thousands every year, hundreds of thousands of human children are poisoned, stabbed in the heart with poison needles, dismembered, decapitated, and thrown into medical waste dumpsters. They don't even get a burial because they are treated as less than Or recycled into vaccines. Yes. They they are treated as less having less value than a dog. They they they have less value than than an animal. I mean, there are there are there are animals who are who are from conception federally protected like sea turtles and bald eagles, and human children have less protection than that. So and I know you know all this. I'm preaching to the choir. My point is Speaker 0: love it. It can't be said too much. Speaker 1: Right. My point is that so that's happening. That is to me, that's the enemy. That is what we're opposing. And if you're in favor of that, if you're if you're among the forces that are are pushing this, the destruction of the family, the destruction of of human life in the womb, the rejection of reality, of objective truth, of of national, of American identity, of western civilization. If you're pushing that, then you're my enemy. You are my enemy and I wanna destroy your I wanna destroy your ideology. I want to destroy everything you stand for. That's what I wanna do. And if you're again but if you're against them, and that is to say you stand for American identity and for the sanctity of human life and the family and and objective truth and reality, the church faith. If you're if you're on that side, then I then I consider you to be base basically an ally. And and and we could disagree vehemently on a lot of other issues. We could disagree on we could there could be a lot of disagreement. If we agree that okay, we need to preserve all. What as conservatives, what are we conserving? Well, to me it's easy. We're conserving Western civilization. We're conserving American identity. We're conserving the sanctity of human life. We're conserving the family. We're conserving marriage. That's what we're conserving. And if you agree with me on that, then we're on the same side as far as I'm concerned. Now we might have a lot of disagreements about how to conserve Speaker 0: those things. Exactly. Speaker 1: And those those disagreements might be even brutal and bitter at times. But if if that is the argument, then we're all in the same side arguing. If we're arguing about whether those things should be conserved, well then, if you're on the other side of that argument, then we're not on the same side at all. We're we're on we're in two different universes. Like, don't even know what universe you're living in. And the and the divide I think ideologically in this country is so vast and so deep and so unbridgeable that it it that we may as well be living in different universes. We may as well be aliens from different galaxies trying to live on a planet together, it's just not working out. That's what it feels like. And so for me, that's where the fight is. That's where I want the fight to remain. Speaker 0: Hate to brag, but we're pretty confident this show is the most vehemently pro dog podcast you're ever gonna see. We can take or leave some people, but dogs are non negotiable. They are the best. They really are our best friends. And so for that reason, we're thrilled to have a new partner called Dutch Pet. It's the fastest growing pet telehealth service. Dutch.com is on a mission to create what you need, what you actually need, affordable quality veterinary care anytime no matter where you are. They will get your dog or cat what you need immediately. It's offering an exclusive discount, Dutch is, for our listeners. You get $50 off your vet care per year. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code Tucker for $50 off. That is an unlimited vet visit. $82 a year. $82 a year. We actually use this. Dutch has vets who can handle any pet under any circumstance in a ten minute call. It's pretty amazing, actually. You never have to leave your house. You don't have to throw the dog in the truck. No wasted time waiting for appointments. No wasted money on clinics or visit fees. Unlimited visits and follow ups for no extra cost, plus free shipping on all products for up to five pets. It sounds amazing like it couldn't be real, but it actually is real. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code Tucker for $50 off your veterinary care per year. Your dogs, your cats, and your wallet will thank you. Okay. First of all, that's like the greatest description I've heard in a long time, the clearest. It was like music to me hearing that because I agreed with every single word so strongly. You didn't mention economics, I noticed, which is revealing. Speaker 1: I didn't. Oh, and yeah. Speaker 0: I wouldn't and I know you've got views on it. I certainly do. But you mentioned what underlies the economic views, which is like your view of other human beings. Speaker 1: Yeah. Because I because I don't mean to but No. Yeah. On so so that's I'm glad you brought that up because that's a really important point because I am when it comes to economics, I'm pretty I hate to use the term. I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to a lot of economics stuff. Me too. I would love to see I I don't think there should be a welfare state at all. I wish I think we should abolish food stamps. I think we should abolish the income tax. I I think the income tax is is evil. I think it's terrible. And so that's how I feel about it. However, as far as I'm concerned, you could be a conservative and have the exact opposite. You could be a conservative and say, you know what? I think we should raise the income tax. I think the welfare state is great. I think there should be more of it. I think we should get food stamps to more people. I think we should have universal basic income. I think all these things. You could have that view as a conservative. Now I will vehemently disagree with you. I will argue with you and I will yell at you and you'll yell at me and that will be fine. But if if the reason that why you want that, it comes down to why do you want that? Why do you think we should have a welfare state? If your reason is that well, this is the way to support families, and this is the way to make sure that we can have more families, that people can have kids. Well, I think you're wrong. I think actually it destroys the family, but you want the same thing as I do. And so we're on the same side. I just think that you're I think you're lost. I think you're trying to find the same destination, but you're you're off in the woods somewhere on the path, and I wanna I wanna I wanna wave to you and say, no. Come back over here. But Speaker 0: you're using the same alphabet. I mean, you're speaking in the same tongue. Like, you you have a common point of reference because you want the same outcome. Speaker 1: Which is on the left, the reason why they want a lot of that stuff More control. Is is more control and because they actually wanna destroy the family. They they want to make the family irrelevant. They say, well, you know, if we have a vast welfare state, everyone's got everyone's getting money there everyone's on the dole, then you don't really need the family. You don't need a father going to work and caring for his family. And so and and so that's what that's what they're trying to get to. That's their reason for having that view. But who Speaker 0: is they is the question and as I heard you explain who you're fighting against and why and I nodded along in agreement, I really was the choir to your sermon, I thought you're describing the people who defend the war in Gaza perfectly. They don't believe in absolute standards of truth at all. What they're committing in Gaza is exactly what they decry correctly when it happens to other people. Can't kill innocents. They didn't do anything wrong. Not on purpose you can, period. You're not allowed to do that, but they defend it fully, so they don't believe in an absolute standard of behavior at all. They don't believe in truth. It's totally It's dependent upon circumstance. Like, in fact, you've even seen people say it out loud. Know, we we raised an entire generation correctly to believe that slaughtering people because of how they were born is the greatest sin, which it is. I believe that. And now we're being hoisted by our own standards. And my view is no, standards are absolute. It's either true or it's not. And it's universally applicable or it's not a real thing. It's just group it's identity politics. That's exactly what I hate. And identity politics is the kind of political expression of the worldview that you have just decried and and declared war against, and God bless you for doing that, but that is in full flower on the right. I don't wanna dignify people by naming them, but people I know who call themselves like MAGA conservatives are defending the murder of innocence. By the way, some of them suggest we just move the refugees into The United States because that's good for the country that they support. But is that good for us? That's an attack on American identity. You're also describing, by the way, a lot of ways Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela who are all required to hate, and I'm not supporting him, of course, but this is like the the most socially conservative country in Latin America that has banned abortion, banned gay marriage, banned gender transitions, banned usury, banned, you know, loaning at crazy interest levels because it destroys people. I don't think he's done a good job running his country. Obviously, hasn't. But to your point that, like, we should be open to talking to people who share our most basic values, how is he not on that list? Oh, shut up, you communist, but I'm not a communist. I'm not gonna be bullied by your dumb labels, not yours, but I'm anticipating the many attacks. I have been attacked for saying that, but it's just it's true, so what's the answer? Do you see what I'm saying? So I guess I guess what's blowing my mind is that I thought I was speaking the same language as a lot of people that I disagreed with on on the margins like about, you know, what what's the best way to harness capitalism and help people? I mean, are real debates. And then I realized with the war in Gaza that like these are people who don't believe in Western civilization because Western civilization can be boiled down to one concept, and that's the individual. If something someone does something wrong, we punish that person. We don't kill his kids. Why do we do that? Why is that our standard? Because we believe that God created every person as an individual, and every person will stand before God alone to account for his life. He's not responsible for what his children do, what his ancestors did, what his forebears might do. He's responsible for himself because we believe in the individual soul, not the collective soul, and that's what makes our civilization unique in the history of the world. And it derives from Christianity, from the Christian belief of the individual soul. And I see all these people who, like, clearly don't believe that. So how are we on the same side? Speaker 1: Well, I think I mean, so this is where we we can be friends on the same side and disagree because, yeah, I I wouldn't agree with everything you've just laid out there. I think that I think the last time we talked and we talked a little bit about Israel and my take at the time was I really don't care. Right. I just don't care. I I honestly don't care. Speaker 0: I want that take bad. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't wanna care. Speaker 0: I don't want anything to do. Speaker 1: And that's and that that's still my take. That's always been my take. It upsets people on both this is one legitimately on both sides of the Israel issue. People get mad at me for that because they say that, well, they're very pro Israel, they say, well, you're being a coward and you need to stand up and support Israel and talk about how Israel's our greatest most important ally and all this stuff. And but then another side, very much it's, well, no. Israel's the great Satan. They're the most evil country in the world. Right. They're responsible for everything bad that happens. And which is which is something that I think some people legitimately really do believe at some level. A lot of people believe that. Right. And and so then they say to me, well well, you need to stand up and and say, you know, and and say that. And again, my response to that is, first of all, don't tell me what to say. Okay? I I have my own mind. Amen. So don't tell me what to say. I will say what I want to say. And and I can only speak for my own opinion. This is my view. And I think and I'll we'll get back to it but not to get sidetracked. This this is one thing by the way that's making political conversation in this country impossible. Is that all anyone ever does anymore is impugn the motives behind the argument that you're making. So you make an argument and then everyone goes well you're only saying that because and it's like first of all even if it's true that I'm making this argument for some dishonest reason, well is the argument right or not? Because if it's if the argument is right, the argument's still right. Even if I'm the worst guy in the world saying Speaker 0: it. It's also like arguing with a woman, they tell you what you think and it's like, no, I'm actually telling you what. Speaker 1: Right. And why and and the What? Right. And well here here's why you're really saying that. Well for me the only person who can speak to your motives is you. Exactly. And so if I ask you well why are you saying that and you tell me I have no choice but to just accept that because I I'm not in your mind. You're the only author. You are the only authority of what is in your mind. You're the only one on the planet. The only other authority, the only greater authority is God, and I can't really ask him. So I can only go to you on that. And so for Speaker 0: You're describing my life, but yes. I agree with So Speaker 1: so for me on Israel when I say I don't care and everyone on both sides goes, well you're saying that because No. I'm saying that because that's what I think. Yeah. I'm saying and I always have which is why by the way you can go through my catalog. I've been blabbering my opinions publicly for a while now. And not as you know, I've I've been in the business as long as you, but I've I've been, you know, at least ten years on the record. And if you go through that, before I worked at the Daily Wire and and while I was there, when I was independent, I was an independent blogger just like churning out content and, know, then you can go through all that and here's what you'll find. You'll find that I almost never ever talked about Israel. And when I did talk about it on the rare like once every five years if it came up, my take was I don't really care about this. I don't care about this country. It's not my country. You know, if you're if you're in America, if you're an American politician, you should care about America first, and and that's it. That's always been my take. So that's always been my take. Speaker 0: By the way, me too, believe it or not, up until the last year. I I don't in thirty five years, I don't think I've talked about Israel 10 times. December's already here. I felt like it was just summer the other day. Your life is moving fast as always. There's a lot to keep track of between Christmas, family, giving presents, keeping up with your regular life. Times like these are when moments of peace become essential. They're the chance to recharge. That's why we love Cozy Earth. If you're thinking about who deserves a guest gift that will help them actually relax, then Cozy Earth has you covered. Bamboo sheets are the gift of better sleep. They're actually made from bamboo. They don't feel like it though. They're wild, very soft. They keep you cozy without overheating, and they help you sleep several degrees cooler than you would with other materials. Their blankets make the perfect cozy gift with its textured bubble design and soft fur feel. It is perfect for reading by the fire, staying warm in a cabin in the woods. Every single Cozy Earth product comes with a hundred night sleep trial and a ten year warranty. Everyday luxury at a decent price. Cozyearth.com is the address. Use the code Tucker of up to 40% off. Order by December 12 for Christmas delivery. After the twelfth, the code Tucker will still work year round for 20% off. And by the way, if you get a post purchase survey, mention that you heard about Cozy Earth from this show. So so here's the point. It's not actually about Israel. It's about the components of the American right Right. Who are defending mass murder, and I mean that murder, killing people who didn't do anything wrong in Gaza. That's it. It's not Israel. It's what about the parts of this coalition that, as you noted, Charlie really did keep together Yeah. That are now fracturing, but one of the reasons they're fracturing is because they have different views, different worldviews, and that is obvious when you hear how they respond to the murder of kids and women in Gaza. So it's Americans responding to that. Are you really conservative? How are you not the leftist that you just described if you're like, well, they're basically all Hamas, including the kids? That is collective punishment. That's blood guilt. That's the opposite of what you described. How can I be on the same side as someone with that attitude? Speaker 1: Well, well, here's here's what I would say. I think that if somebody is making the argument that we or Israel can kill as many Palestinians as they want, can kill children because their lives have no value because they're Palestinian. If you're making that argument, then that is a is a that is a leftist argument. Exactly. Speaker 0: It's a leftist argument. Speaker 1: However however however, I think that there are plenty of people who would defend and have defended Israel's actions in Gaza and even our involvement, which I don't agree with us being involved at all. But Right. People have had that view. But not on that basis. What what they would say is, you know, they would say, oh, well, it's not true that we're that they're killing children. It's not or or it's really tragic, but but it's it's it's, you know, there's no other way to fight the war. It's it's not intentional. It's it's we're actually targeting the terrorists and this is this is these are casualties that happen like in any war. It's very bad. You try to minimize them but it's we don't we don't want that to happen. They could say, you know, there's many arguments along those lines. Just it's also arguments that just kinda reject the premise. Like your premise is that they're doing mass murder of people in Gaza. I think that there are conservatives who would just reject that premise and say, not actually happening. Speaker 0: Okay. But if you just the the I think the undisputed fact there are tens of thousands, 70,000, we can certainly say tens of thousands of women and children killed in Gaza. And so there are really two arguments you can make. One is that like that happens in war, collateral damage, which is true. It's a 100% true that that always happens in war. It hasn't happened at this scale in eighty years, but in the West, but it does happen, and The United States has done a lot of it. We dropped the atom bombs. Okay. So like we're not Israel's not the only country that's done this. But what are you sad about it? Do you think it's bad? Would you be willing to say, holy shit. I can't believe we killed 70,000 noncombatants. That's the acid test. Can you admit that that's horrible? It's horrible. It's a moral crime. It was a moral crime when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. It's not even a close call in my view. It's not an endorsement of the Imperial Japanese government, but it's like that's just bad. If you can't say that, then you are endorsing collective punishment, aren't you? Speaker 1: Well, I think it I think it goes back to what what what argument are you are you making? So like using Hiroshima, for example. And I I I'll be honest. I've kind of been on both sides of that. I think there's interesting arguments on both sides. I think an unten a morally untenable argument would be, well, yeah, just kill as many as you need to. They don't matter. They were Japanese. They were the enemy. Just kill them. Like, that's morally untenable, obviously. And based on that argument, well, then we could just nuke. If you get into an get get into war just like nuke the entire country, kill everybody, and why not? And that obviously is that that is rejecting the value of human life, which is not which is an unconservative view. It's also just deeply immoral. But the other the other side of the argument for like the atom bomb, for example, let's say, this was the best way to preserve human life, that that that these were legitimate military targets. And the way to preserve human life ultimately was this way. If we had not done it, then millions more people would have died, millions more Japanese would have died. And that's the argument. Now like I said, I I I can see the argument for that. It now that runs into the charge of ends justify the means. Speaker 0: Well, it doesn't run into the charge. It's an expression of ends justify. Speaker 1: Well, there's there's all yeah. There's there's ends Speaker 0: justify the means. It's like the perfect articulation of it's like, if I could save millions by shooting your children, it's okay to shoot your children. Speaker 1: I I think there's a dip like, there's ends justify the means. Now we're getting into philosophical. I'm not a philosopher. There's ends justify the means. There's also the kind of the principle of double effect, which is different, and double effect is, well, so I understand it. You can do something that you know will have a negative effect, but your intentions are good. And and it's it's you're doing it in order to bring about a good result. Speaker 0: This was the argument that Hitler and Stalin made. If you take a look at Stalin's personal correspondence and diaries, which by the way are available, it was super interesting. He was an idealist. Like, he really believed he was ushering in a new era of man, and, like, you had to kill a lot of Ukrainians to do that, and Georgians, and Russians, by the way, a lot of Christians. You had to murder a lot of priests to get there, but by the end, you would have utopia. Hitler felt that way. It's like if we can only get the Jews out, everything will be great. And so but we are against them because we don't share that view. We believe in human life. It's Like, not okay to kill an innocent person. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think yeah. That that argument well, it's not, yeah, it's not okay to intentionally and deliberately kill an innocent person. I think that's, you know, in war, innocent people do die. I think that there can there are a lot of wars that have been unjust. There are there is such a thing as a just war. For sure. There's such thing as a necessary war. And if we can agree on that, then then we have to accept that any war, innocent people will die. It's a terrible tragedy. So now but the argument that I was just playing out for dropping the atom bomb, it's true. Like, that that can be terribly abused. My only point is and I'm not even taking a position on that because I honest my my honest view is like, I I kinda feel like I I I I have an opinion of it, and then I express it, and someone comes and and they just eviscerate my argument on it, and then I think, well, you might be right. And then I hear like so that's kinda Speaker 0: Super where I mean, I should just say, I I hope I don't sound self righteous. I've my views have changed. If you went through my corpus of opinions, it would be a Jackson Pollock painting. It would just be splashes of everything. Like my views are evolving in real time. I but I I've been forced to think about it because of what's happening in Gaza. It's like I don't feel like I have a choice. Speaker 1: My only my my point about that is whatever is the correct view. Well, let's just accept for the sake of argument. Like, I'll let I'll I'll take your view that dropping that at a bomb was morally wrong. I still think that somebody could be wrong about that, but for the right reasons. And so they're still kind of on my side because the the wrong, if if you're correct in your argument, then the the wrong for the right reasons position is, yeah, we we we cherish human life. This was the best way ultimately to preserve human life. And again, you could say, that's wrong, but someone could have that view and the reason why they have it is because they truly believe in the sanctity of human life and they just honestly believe that that was the best way to preserve it. Speaker 0: That was my opinion until recently as a lifelong adamant pro lifer. Right. So I I mean, I wanna give myself the benefit of the doubt, you know, I'm not for dead kids. I guess what has really brought this to the fore is a guy called Randy Fine who's a congressman from Florida who, you know, I disagree with on a lot. I don't think I disagree with him on anything actually. He spent his career in the gambling business exploiting people, and now he got some kind of clever way to find a senate a house seat in Florida. Everything about it I I disapprove of, and of course, I don't like his foreign policy views, but there are a lot of people like that and I'm not mad at them. What makes him unusual is that he said out loud what I think a lot of people think, which is like it's hilarious to see a picture of a dead child in Gaza. Somebody tweeted him, I know you're online, you've seen this, a picture of a dead baby in Gaza and he laughed at it and said someone said, How can you sleep at night? You know, getting self righteous with him, okay, being high handed like the anti war left is. How can you sleep? But okay, I get it, they're annoying, but like it is like his response was, Very well, thank you. Thanks for the pic. If that's your gut reaction to a picture of a dead baby, we are not on the same side in any way. On the deepest level, we're not on the same side. I'm a father, like I'm not How can I laugh at that? I can't. And that to me revealed what I think a lot of people think who I know very well who call themselves conservatives, is just like these are not human beings. Well, you've got that attitude, how can you how can you really care about me or my country or my children? Like, don't think you can. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that I certainly would agree with you on that. If you if you think that dead kids are funny, then we're not we're not just on that on the same side, but this goes back to I don't think we're living in the same universe. Speaker 0: You're the leftists that you described. Speaker 1: Yeah. Because you fundamentally cannot value human life if you could ever see it as funny that a child was I think. So so for sure. And I think that there are people that we would call neocons that are definitely not conservative by any stretch. My only point to you is that I think there are plenty of people who are on the other side of the of the argument who are conservative, and and they just don't they don't agree with the premise that you're laying out. They don't and they do wanna preserve human life. They think this is the way to do it. They they could be wrong, but it people can be wrong about this. Speaker 0: Well, they haven't thought about it or the partisan system I'll speak for myself. I didn't think about it at all, and all the people getting mad about Hiroshima hated America. It was just a fact, and they wanted to say that all American military expeditions were immoral because America was fundamentally immoral. That's the point they were making. They wanted us to hate ourselves. They taught us a history that convinced our kids to hate themselves and to hate their own country, and that's all evil and we're watching the results of So it I was like, Man, there's no way I'm on their side. They hate everything that I love including my nation. So I just was like, If you're for it, I'm not for it. And because I'm a child that way. Like, I just react against things. But now I'm feeling like I got misled into supporting an awful lot of violence, like a lot of violence. And how how is that good? Speaker 1: Yeah. I think well, so there's two things. First of all, there's a maybe there's a whole other category we should be talking about because we're talking about, oh, left, right, conservative, Then you you also have, though, politicians who often not always, but often are neither, and they don't have they don't have an ideology. For sure. And their ideology is control and power, and and that's what they care about. Speaker 0: Percentage would you say fall into that category? Speaker 1: 95%. Speaker 0: It feels that way, doesn't it? Speaker 1: I I would I'll amend that. I think it's it used to be 95% of want control and power. I think now it's more like and this is even worse. Now it's like 70% wide control and power and then you've got another 20% who they're just there because they want attention like the Jasmine Crockets. Right. They're just there because they wanna be influencers like Jasmine Crockett. I'm so grateful for her. She amuses me every day. But if you were to go to Jasmine Crockett and say, okay. Here's two buttons. Press one button and you're the president of The United States. Press the other other button and you have 50,000,000 Instagram followers and your Instagram she is pest pressing the Instagram button in a second. But that but it's a it's that's a different, like, species of politician we've never seen before. Speaker 0: Yeah. No. It's Speaker 1: so Because up to this point, every single politician, like, I can be president. I'll I'll take that over. You know, if it's like, I'll I'll press this button, you could be president, as a consequence, your whole family dies, they're pressing the button. Oh, yeah. A lot of these people. And now it's it's a little bit there's there are people who who they're politicians. They're not even really hungry for power. They just want attention, which I think in some ways is somehow even worse. But, anyway, the the the just want power category, I think that does describe a lot of the people we would call, like, neocons. Lindsey Graham Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Is for sure in this category. You know, I well, I've I don't know where it was. He gave a speech recently. He was talking about I I think it was him bragging about how we ran out of bombs or something like that. I think I have the right person here. Yeah. And and so it's it's like, okay. Well, you obviously do not take human life seriously if you just think it's it's like, you just wanna run out of the bombs. And and and for someone like him, this this is not someone who's a conservative at all. He he doesn't but it's not for someone like him, he doesn't I don't think that he's passionately in favor of, like, abortion or No. Destroying the family. He just doesn't care. It doesn't matter. Right. No. It doesn't doesn't matter to him. So so that think that's that's the other category that exists. And Speaker 0: really that's really smart. That's really smart. It's like post ideological. It's even kind of post power. It's just pure narcissism. Speaker 1: Yeah. Although I in in if I could, I'm actually glad you brought up because I wanted to talk to about this. In in defense of violence, I if I could, I I because I've heard you talk about about this. And And my views are, Speaker 0: by the way, changing even as during this conversation. Like, is all new to me. So I don't Speaker 1: So because I I'm actually I think in some ways, we should have a lot more violence in society. I'm I'm sort of pro violence Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: In a in a certain context. I think that violence can be a necessary tool for justice. Like, I just believe that. Now it can be really misused and it very often is, and I think it very often is these days, but it is a necessary tool for justice. And so what I'm really mostly talking about are evil people who've committed terrible crimes against the innocent. And I think that through illegal means, and I'm talking about, you know, I'm Speaker 0: talking about, you know Extrajudicial lynchings or anything. Speaker 1: Right. I'm talking about legal means for those kinds of people, we should be using violence a lot more because I think that it's I just think that it's justice. I what is justice? Justice is giving to someone what they're owed. You know, giving giving to anything what it putting things in the right place basically I would say is is justice. So giving someone what they're owed is justice. So if you owe me $5, it's justice that you give me $5. That's a matter of justice. And if you give me $3 and you owe me 5, that's an injustice that has occurred. Now, if I slap your wife in front of you, I'm owed something else. I'm not owed $5, but I am owed something now. Like, there it is right that I receive something, and that I would say is a slap. Right? It's you slap my wife, I'll punch you 10 times in the face instead. Like, that's that is a just response. That is justice. And and I think what we have these days, you got a lot of people walking around doing this assault, like literally assaulting women, you know. I know. And they don't receive what they're owed, and what they're owed is is is harsh, and I think sometimes violent, but just punishment. And so that's that's my one kind of caveat. Speaker 0: You know, it's hard to disagree with that. It's I mean, of course, viscerally, I agree with you, and all of this is just aimed at whites, obviously, because what you're talking about is a racial dynamic where non whites who commit crimes just aren't punished as harshly as whites who commit crimes, so it's a racial double standard designed to destroy the country, which it's doing. And I feel that. Every person feels that, like the need for justice, and sometimes that expression is physical. How do you balance that against the Shermit on the Mount, which I happen to have read this morning, where Jesus is like, well, the the law is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but I tell you, you know, turn the other cheek and, you know, takes your shirt, give him your cloak. Speaker 1: I'll tell you, because I've thought a lot about this. Mean, obviously, hopefully, all Christians have thought have thought about the sermon on Mount A It's only the most important public address. It's mind blowing. Speaker 0: Right. It's when whenever people are like, oh, Jesus was a great person, great teacher, you read that, and you're like, either he was God or this whole thing is insane. I mean, because this is not it's not intuitive wisdom in the sermon on the mount. Speaker 1: Yeah. That that's the CS Lewis, the, you know, trilemma. Yeah. Lunatic lunatic liar or lord. You know, those are the op only options. But anyway so, yeah, of course, as all Christians should, I've thought a lot about this and how do you because I I also recognize in myself, I'm talking about how violence can be just just and I really believe that. But I also I have a a eventual streak in me. I fully recognize that. Yeah. Well, me too. And when I see evil people, I act I actually do sometimes hate them. And hate means like I I don't just want justice for you. I want you to suffer Yes. And I want you to burn in hell. And that and and as Christians, we should never want that. We should never we should never want anyone to be damned. And sometimes I I I find that feeling in myself. I pray about it. I just have to be honest that I do feel that way about really bad people. But how do you how do you square this? I think that So turn the other cheek. I think it's very important to notice that Jesus is saying if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek. Yeah. What he does not say is if someone slaps your wife or someone slaps your child or someone slaps an innocent woman on the subway, turn the other cheek. Because turning the other cheek in that situation is not you being the bigger man. It's you being a coward. And so I I that's how I square it. And that's how I can also square Jesus having these kinds of, you know, quote unquote anti, you know, violence statements that they made with also famously, he goes into the temple and fashions a whip. I mean, that's what the that's what scripture says. It's not even like No. He grabbed one. No. This was a premeditated. This was this was premeditated. He made it. First degree. He like and so he fashions a whip, and he starts beating these people to get them out of the out of out of the temple, and that is violent. I mean, think about it's easy to read these stories and and you just read it as a story we've heard a million times. Yeah. Heard in Sunday school as a child. It gets kinda sanitized. Well, imagine actually seeing this happen. I mean imagine actually seeing it in real life that that you're there and somebody has a whip and they are throwing down tables beating people with whips. I mean there's gonna be blood. It's gonna be a very brutal In the Speaker 0: temple of Speaker 1: all police. In the temple. And yet, this was Jesus Christ who did it. This was our Lord and savior who did this act. And so it was and had to be a moral act. And so what that tells us is that, you know, violence is sometimes necessary. Now, the the rejoinder to that is, well, that was, you know, God made flesh who used violence, and that doesn't mean that you could do Speaker 0: it. Right. And Well, there's also a theme that runs throughout the New Testament where Jesus and his disciples Paul draw very clean distinction between you as a Christian and the state. So the state is held to different the state operates by a different code. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Right? Render under God with Gods, surrender under Caesar with Caesars. I don't know. I I I'm the opposite of a theologian. I really Speaker 1: I really don't know. What happens when the state and we're experiencing this right now. Because I I I think that is kind of the answer. The state the state has authority from God. Now it doesn't like that's and it's hard sometimes especially for conservatives to accept that but that's scriptural. The state has authority from God. Now it can reject its mandate. It can do things that are evil, obviously, and it can do things that we should reject and in some cases even rebel against in the most extreme cases. So we know all that is true. But but the state as like an institution, generally speaking, has authority. This is this is God ordained. This is what God wants. He doesn't want us all to live as he doesn't want anarchy, you know, where there's no there's no one in charge. But so the the state has that authority. What happens when the state refuses to exercise that authority? Right. And and what happens when it refuses to enact justice and refuses to protect the innocent, what happens then? Speaker 0: Well, you over you overthrow the state. Speaker 1: Yeah. At at what point at what point morally can the average citizen say, well, the state is not doing this. And so I have no choice but to do it. If if I don't do it, then it won't be done. And I think we're getting perilously close to a point where people in mass start saying that. They start saying the state is not doing this. They're not defending my family. They are not defending my community. My community is unlivable. These these these violent psychopaths who've been arrested 40 times are running through the street assaulting women, assaulting children, and I cannot live this way anymore and I won't live this way. I And think we're we're getting perilously close to a point where in mass people start saying that and when they start Speaker 0: Perilously saying that or blessedly close? Speaker 1: Well, perilously because that's not I would prefer that's not the best option. The best option is the state does its job. When when when when the other option is ultimately chaos. I mean, that's where it leads. And but that's where we are. I think right now you have like the best version of that are people who are have benevolent intentions and know what they're doing and are good decent people. And they step up in an extreme situation because nobody else will and they do the thing that the state won't do. They don't go overboard and they don't become, you know, Batman. And and so like Daniel Penny, for example. I mean, Daniel Penny is an example of someone who said, okay, I gotta step in. I gotta do the right thing. This guy should not be out here. He should not be allowed on this subway. There should be some kind of cop here to arrest him. No one is doing it. I'm gonna step up. And and I'm and I'm glad that he did. He was right to do it. And so that's the that's the best version. That's the the best version of of people stepping in where the state has failed. Speaker 0: Did he get a presidential medal of freedom? What happened to Daniel Penny? Speaker 1: Well, that's a that's a very good good question. Well, he was they tried to throw him in prison. Speaker 0: No. I know. Yeah. A rhetorical question, but it's like if you see heroism like that and it goes unrewarded, in fact, it's punished, then then you have a total inversion of justice. Speaker 1: And then and then and the But Speaker 0: how was the state legitimate at that point? Speaker 1: Right. And by design, when people like that become punished or punished as they I mean, they they tried to put him in prison. They thank God we're not successful. But they, you know, they tried to destroy his life. Everybody else looks at that. And I think by design, it has this demoralizing effect because everybody else looks at that and they say, well, I don't want that to happen. And and now, I think I mean, I don't ride the subway because I I value my my life. But if I were on the subway and I saw something like that happening, I'd be thinking to myself, well, I hope I would step in. But I'd also be thinking, well, I got a family at home. I got a wife. And if I step in and I go to prison and so so now I I can't be there for my wife and children. And so is it right for me to step up and protect these strangers if if the consequence is now I can't protect my own wife and children? Speaker 0: That's Speaker 1: right. I don't know. And I don't even know what the right answer is. I don't know. I can't even say for sure. If I'm if I'm looking at that happening and I'm in Daniel Penny's shoes and I got a wife and children at home, I think the right thing is for me to step up and do what he did, but I'm not even sure if it's the right thing because because I got a wife and kids. And now I gotta call them. I gotta call my wife and say, hey. By the way, I might be going to prison forever. Good luck. You know? I don't know. It's it's it it puts it it it creates a lose lose unwinnable situation. Speaker 0: Even now, you feel that. Even after the last election, and clearly, there's a reaction against the kind of government that we had. You you still would feel like no one in authority would support you. And Speaker 1: Yeah. Generally, I think the rot well, first of all, this is a this is a I mean, when we talk about the state in general failing to do the basic things to preserve civilization, this is a wide problem. It goes to it's the state level, it's the local level, cities. And has all of that been fixed? Like, definitely not. I mean, not even close. Speaker 0: Well, so that that was kind of the broad that was exactly the question I'm asking in it. Don't even know if I have you sent out an amazing tweet recently. Oh, it's right here. December 4. I wanna read it. It's an empirical fact that basically everything in our day to day lives has gotten worse over the years. The quality of everything, food, clothing, entertainment, air travel, roads, traffic, infrastructure, housing, etcetera has declined in observable ways. You're a nice writer by the way. Thank you. There's not enough good writing on Twitter. Oh, nice. Even newer inventions, search engines, social media, smartphones have gone downhill drastically. This isn't just a random old man yells at clouds complaint. It's true. It's happening. The decline can be measured. Everyone sees it. Everyone feels it. Meanwhile, political pundits and podcast hosts, speaking of things that are getting worse, focus on anything and everything except these practical real life problems that actually affect our quality of life. So I have like eight questions there. And I'm gonna ask you about your core observation. Is it getting worse? Clearly, it is. Why are podcast hosts and pundits ignoring this? Physical reality. Speaker 1: I I don't know. I think that it's a wide group of people. I think they have different motivations. I I think for well, there's the most obvious answer is that for a lot of these people, pundits, podcast hosts, cable news, you know, all the media in general, A lot of them, think, are insulated from a lot of this stuff. They don't they don't live in this world. Yeah. That's right. And things like so for example, we're talking about things that are getting worse. One thing, and it seems small, but it's not. One thing that's really getting worse is restaurant food. Okay? Rest like the food at most restaurants, I'm talking about like chain restaurants. You got a Applebee's or Chili's or whatever. You order a pizza from one of these places, especially one of these chain places. And the food is worse and that's not just again, it's not old man. I am an old man yelling at clouds but it's not what this is. It is act it's it it is true. It's a real thing that's happening and you can trace it. You can look at, okay, starting in the early two thousands, all these places started getting bought up by private equity companies. Yeah. And so now they're they're run by people who don't care about the product or even know anything about it. So that's happening. Also, it used to be that you go to these places and it's a bunch of, like, teenagers and college kids that are working there. And and they're just working there to make some money to pay for college or whatever, and that's happening less now. And now you've got adults, you know, very it's a a an increasing number of, like, people with substance abuse problems. People who, you know, they're in their late twenties and they're still, you know, they're they're doing a job that a 16 year old used to do because their life isn't working out exactly as it should. That's it's that's it's own problems. Like, why is that happening? Right? But but the effect of that is that even a lot of people not not all of them at all, but a lot of the people in the establishments that are working there on the ground don't really care that much about the product. And you can see why they don't care. They're getting paid crap wages. They've got a difficult life. They're working for people who don't care about it. Like, so the guy who runs this by if I'm working at Applebee's and I'm a waiter and I'm looking at it like, the guy who runs this place doesn't know anything about this. He doesn't care. I'm getting paid nothing. Why do I care? You know, and so so I don't care. And so that's happening. And then the quality of the food. It used to be that most of these places made their food fresh. Now no place makes fresh food anymore. They all buy frozen food. There are a couple of food distributors. Cisco is one of them that the vast majority of the food that you eat at a Chili's or Applebee's or whatever is distributed. It comes off the same truck. It's the same frozen food that comes off of the same truck and that is served in all these places which is why all the food sucks and it all tastes the same because it's literally the same. People don't know that even pizza places. Again, everything's frozen. There's one I forget the name of it. There's one cheese distributor that distributes most of the cheese at all these different places. And that's like the crucial element of a pizza. And it's literally the same. It's the same thing. And but they're just pretending that it's not. So my point is that this is a small thing. Speaker 0: By the way, it's not a small thing. Speaker 1: Right. So it's Speaker 0: What not people eat is important. Speaker 1: Yes. It's quality of life. It's your diet. It's what you eat. It's and that stuff really matters. Now podcast hosts and pundits, a lot of them, why don't they care? Well there's two reasons. Number one, they're not eating at these places. And if you have money, then you don't have to worry about that because you can go to expensive places where the steak costs $85 and it's not gonna hurt you much because you got a lot of money. And if you have a lot of money then you don't notice any of this because at the really fancy restaurants where people spend spend a lot of money, most of those places are still making fresh food and the service is a lot better because they're paying better wages to their to the to the waiters like now you've got older waiters and waitresses but they're older who have kind of climbed up the ladder. They're really good at this. They get paid better wages. They care about it like you go into one of these fancy places and I like eating it. I mean who doesn't like eating these kind of restaurants? The food is good. But you go into it and one of the first things you notice before you even get to the quality of the food is that everyone at least to the good places, everyone that you interact with starting at the hostess stand seems to be really happy that you're there, and they care that you're having a good experience. That is not how it works when you when you go to Chili's. You know? So anyway, the these podcasts these people that I'm talking about, they're in those places. And so they're not in the places where the quality is falling And off a then also, I think that and this is something we all do and I do it too. You get caught in this we're dealing with like national issues all the time. We're dealing with politics and what's happening in Washington and the president and geopolitics and what's happening. We're dealing with these massive big things all the time if you're a pundit, if you do commentary. And so you can fall into this line of thinking that the things that actually impact someone's physical everyday life, those things are just too small to worry about. Speaker 0: Well, politicians wind up at this exact place. Speaker 1: And and and and it's true that because I run into this. When I start talking about this stuff, I will hear this criticism from people. They'll say, why are you talking about this? I did a I did a whole video on my on my channel few few weeks ago. I did like a thirty minute monologue on why does restaurant food suck. And there are two interesting things that happened after I talked about this issue. One is that I did get a lot of criticism from people saying, everything's happening in the world, you're talking about Applebee's. Like, why are you talking about this? You know? It's like how out of touch are you? When really it's the opposite. It's like, no, this is this is the stuff that's happening in people's lives. But so that I got that criticism, but then what I also noticed is that a lot of people watched that video. It was like one of the more successful in terms of traffic videos that I've done in a while. And and it was just about food at Applebee's. And why is that? It's because again, this is like this this is your life. This is what's happening in your actual life. And it it matters. It touches you and and it touches your family. Speaker 0: Yes. And this is one thing I noticed about a lot of people in the world that I have always lived in is they either spend time and this is true for me, I'll admit it. They either spend time in very rich places or in very rural like low income places but there's no time spent in the middle which is where the overwhelming majority of Americans live. So it's like only rich people, only poor people, but no middle class people. So they have a sense of like, you know, a lot of rich people have summer houses so they sort of get the know, if you're on Nantucket, right, and you go there in the winter and everyone's on drugs, you're like, oh wow. You know, fentanyl is a huge problem in our country, but there's no Applebee's. There's no Applebee's in Cambridge, Mass. There's no Applebee's in Nantucket. There's no Do you see what I'm saying? You just You do get a very you know, I am so guilty of this. In fact, so guilty that I really go out of my way to like understand, you know, but there's no sense of like normalcy. Yeah. It's also in the same way that like the richest people, Bill Gates for example, are totally focused on curing Africa in Congo I mean, curing malaria, polio. They're obsessed with the problems of the poorest while living the lives of the richest, but like the bulk of the population is invisible to them. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's right. I I was having a conversation with someone recently who's in the business, and I don't know. I mentioned in passing. I don't remember why. I just mentioned in passing. I just been out I just was coming I just had been to Walmart. I was pick I was buying something. Whatever. I went to Walmart. And this person was shocked that I'd gone to Walmart, and they said, I've I haven't been in a Walmart in twenty years. Speaker 0: Because there are no whites in Walmart. That's the other thing. They're like they're you drive into, like, Middle America. There are nowhere I don't know what happened to the whites, but are we allowed to say that? I just noticed it. Like, we're all there's no whites at, like, a rest area on the highway anymore. Yeah. And in Walmart, I go to buy sporting clays. It's my only my only shopping trip of the year usually. And it's like, where are the white people? Speaker 1: Well, that's that's part of the thing. It's it's I mean, it's a small it's a small thing, but it's it's just it's emblematic of the problem. It's like Well, Speaker 0: there's been total demographic Speaker 1: change Yeah. But if as a commentator, if you have never been in a Walmart or, know, it's like, well, then that's America. I mean, that's that's the that's Middle America. Speaker 0: Oh, I totally agree. Speaker 1: So it's just there's there's a basic I'm not saying you gotta go and walk around a Walmart like a safari trip just to understand America. I'm just saying that that's it's just like that's yeah. That's what's going on in America is a place like that. And if you're just never there at all, to your point about either you're out in the sticks or you're in the really wealthy areas, then you're you're not really in touch with what's actually happening in America. And one of those things is, yeah, when you go you you do notice this. When you go to the places where everybody goes, Walmart is one of those places, the DMV is one of those places. Like a place where everybody has to go. Yeah. Unless they're very very very rich. Right. Or very very very poor. When you go to those places you do notice you start noticing things and and one of those things is like yeah. It's like, it looks a lot different now. It it's it's it's yeah. Not not nearly as many white people as there used to be. You start noticing those kinds of things. Like, yeah. Like, it Speaker 0: you know, I've never been a bigot. It's prohibited by my religion, but I also think there's overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things and I try to keep myself alert just to notice what my eyes tell me and that's the biggest change. That's an incredibly fast change, incredibly fast change. It's not an accidental change, it was an intentional change to reduce the white population in The United States, and I've kind of never seen anybody more passively accept it. I wonder, like, are we getting to a point where we can say that and notice it? And why is that good exactly? Speaker 1: Well, for for every other it's it's funny because certainly for every other race on the planet, if we were to look and see that in their native countries, they are dwindling and disappearing. Everyone it would be nothing controversial about saying, well, this is bad. No one would say, well, why is it bad? You know? If if if Speaker 0: I'm not even saying it's bad. I'm just saying it's so profound and abrupt. Speaker 1: Well, and I I I will say, I think it's bad. Yeah. I think if you go to Nigeria if I were to go to Nigeria and notice that, like, all the Nigerians are disappearing. Yeah. I would say, what's going on here? Speaker 0: I mean, like Everyone's Chinese all of a sudden. Speaker 1: Right. That's like that's bad. And and if I said that, no one don't think anyone would even ask, well, why is it bad? What do mean why is it bad? It's Nigeria. Like, there should be Nigerians in Nigeria. And it's bad if some other group comes in and takes it over. And I think for any other race or demographic on the planet, you can say that for white people, we're the one race, the one demographic where it's not even just that you can't notice that this replacement is happening. It's that in fact, we're at the point now where you should notice it and celebrate it. It should be seen as a good thing. So now Speaker 0: is that that evil? Isn't anyone who tells me that I'm not allowed to notice or scolds me for noticing, isn't that person my enemy? Isn't that I mean, how could you justify that? What does that say about your motives? Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I think so. And, also, it's I said it's every other demographic on the planet. Any other species on the planet. Like, if I You know, it's so true. Yeah. If if Where are Speaker 0: all the condors? Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. If I if we look, we get these panics all the time. Oh, all the Amazonian horned owls are disappearing or whatever. And they're going away. We have to preserve them. No one even stops and asks like, why do we need Amazonian horned? Like, we've got a million other owls. Well, owls. Why do we need these owls? And it's just seen as like, well, they're a species that existed. They should continue to exist. And so for every other demographic and species of living being, we can all agree that if those people disappear, that it's bad and white people only want that where we can't say that and part of the reason for that I think is well there's a lot of anti white sentiment. But also so I I use the example of Nigeria. Everyone recognizes that Nigerians or black are the native inhabitants of Nigeria. And so if the native inhabitants go away, we see that as a bad thing. The the Amazonian horned owl is a native inhabitant of the I don't think that exists. I'm just yeah. Whatever. But they're a native inhabitant of the Amazon and so they should be there. With white people, it's really interesting thing where what we're told is that white people are not native anywhere. We are not indigenous to anywhere, which is why and I'm not like making this up. There's nowhere in the world you can go where the people who are officially recognized as the indigenous habitants are white. Nowhere. White people do Speaker 0: not How is that not genocidal intent? Speaker 1: Well that's my point. So it's like okay so we're not indigenous to anywhere so where are we supposed to be? Because the other part is We're supposed Speaker 0: to be dead. Apparently. Speaker 1: Yeah. Because we're told that, okay, the here are the indigenous habitants and the the what's implied every time we talk about indigenous people or just outright said is that, well, they this land is really theirs and so you shouldn't be here. And so what we're saying to white people everywhere is that you shouldn't be here. Well, where should we be? Do you want us to go to Mars? I mean, are we gonna like, we going to Jupiter? Where are we supposed to be? Or do we are are you just gonna throw us into the ocean? And I think the answer is that we really shouldn't be anywhere, which is why we should not be embarrassed or afraid to say that the native, like, native Americans are white people of European descent. That is true. The people that we call native Americans now are not native Americans. And the reason they're not native Americans is because they did not form a country called America. They are not native. America is a country. It's not just a a place. It's not just a plot of land. It is a country. And before America was formed as a nation, this place was not America because America didn't exist. America existed when it was formed. And so if someone can trace their lineage back to the Comanche on the Great Plains, Well, that doesn't make you a you weren't native to America. You're a native native to Comancheria. You're you're native to to to this. You're not native to the country of America. The people who are native to the nation of America, the people who formed this nation were by and large almost exclusively white people of European descent. They are the natives of this country. They're the ones who formed this country. That doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to live here. It just means that they're the natives. And again, anywhere else on the in the world, there's nothing controversial about pointing that out. And we're the only place where we're not allowed to say that. But I I I've I've been on this. I've been preaching this for a while now. I think we should we need and not just as a gimmick. Like, I really believe we should reclaim the title of native American and not not to not to denigrate the people that we call natives who I think that they're it's really interesting to read about their cultures and Speaker 0: their history. Oh, they're amazing people. Yeah. But not native to here. Speaker 1: They're not native to America. And they also were by the way, they're also not native in the strictest sense to this hemisphere. Like they didn't sprout out of the ground. They came here at some point in the past From Asia. From Asia. They fought brutally with each other over the land. All of the the so called natives that were here and had claimed land when Europeans first started showing up in the late fourteen early fifteen hundreds, all of those people had were on that land because they brutally killed who'd who'd been on it before. Right. And they raped their women and took their children as slaves. Speaker 0: One wave of conquest supplanted the Speaker 1: next. Exactly. And and and the and the law Speaker 0: of conquest is what determined No. It's it's, of course, it's factually true, and by the way, it's been suppressed for many decades by anthropologists and archaeologists the official policy of the US government, but cracking the human genome made it impossible to deny the origin of the of the American Indians, which was Asia. It's fine. I mean, I really like the native Americans. Speaker 1: I do too. Speaker 0: Personally, yeah. I'm not against them at all. Feel so bad for them, but you're absolutely a 100% right. I just find it so interesting the coordinated effort to exterminate white people which is in full flower now, but it's so you know, it's 1945 is when it started, but it was every part of our society. I remember at Fox News in the most gentle way trying to say, you know, maybe all lives do matter or we shouldn't attack whites because they're white, man. That was like the worst argument I ever got in with a senior executive at the at the network like, that's racist. No. It's actually an argument against racism. It's like everybody on all sides was so brainwashed in just accepting this and then of course it happened. And so I wonder, does it ever let up? It didn't let up in Zimbabwe or South Africa. You like take the power, kill a bunch of whites, suppress them, and then like thirty years later, you're still blaming them for everything? Will that happen here when this becomes majority nonwhite? Speaker 1: I I all indications are that it it will continue. I I mean So how Speaker 0: do you respond to it? What's the right way to respond? You don't want some kind of race war. I don't wanna wake up every day thinking about my whiteness. I'm not interested in my whiteness, just being honest. I don't like thinking in those terms. Sorry. Call me a boomer, which I'm not, but I'm I just don't wanna I wanna see people as people, but how do you respond to that? Because you can't allow that. You can't allow people to attack your kids because of their skin color. What the fuck? Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. I I think you respond to it and I think there has been some progress actually in this regard. Probably significant amount of Speaker 0: You've been a big part of that, by the way, on the right. So thank you. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think a lot I think I think this is one of the things like I said before, there there are some victories that conservatives have had. Yeah. I know some some of them more doomer minded conservatives say, what do we conserve? We haven't conserved anything. Well, I'm not saying it's been a it's been a you know, I'm not saying it's been we've been batting a thousand, but I think we have succeeded. Speaker 0: I think they're referring I well, maybe this was what I think, but I do think they're mostly referring to conservative institutions. Speaker 1: Yeah. Which which I would Speaker 0: Republican congress or some Republican think tank, like, those clearly haven't achieved a lot. Speaker 1: Yeah. I would agree with that. But so so one so one one success that I think that we're starting to see recently is that the the left used to get a lot of mileage out of, obviously, not engaging with arguments, but just labeling them. They would just label the argument. And so they would say, their way of engaging with argument is say, well, argument's not wrong or right. Don't care about that. The the argument is an ist or ism. The argument is racist. The argument is is is is know, whatever. Bigoted, Islamophobic, whatever. Anti semitic. So that they used to they used to get a lot mileage out of that. I think what's happening now is that people are people are saying, well, I don't care about the labels. Like, you can say whatever label you want. Exactly. It just doesn't it doesn't mean anything to me. And the reason it doesn't mean anything to me is it's not my fault, it's your fault. When you when you decided that everything fits under that label, the label doesn't mean anything anymore. Speaker 0: Exactly. Speaker 1: And and I think that's made people more more fearless. There there was a time mean, look you go back like go back to 2000 or not 2000. Well, certainly 2000 but even going back to 2020 in the the throes of the Floyd hysteria. And for a lot of people being called racist was it's like the worst thing in the world. They were terrified of it. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: Being called racist was it it for a lot of people, was worse than being called like a child molester. I mean, they they would rather be called anything but racist. And there's all this fear, and I think the the race hustlers got a a lot of mileage out of that fear. I think that fear is starting to dissipate. Speaker 0: And yet, I still haven't seen many people, especially people who spend a lot of time claiming bias against them, coming out and making unequivocal statements against anti white hate. Like, that's the one category. I haven't seen a lot of people say that. Like, no. Hating whites is every bit as hating blacks or hating Jews or hating Asians or whatever. Hating a group is immoral. I have seen very few people say that. Barry Weiss is not big on that. Why? Like why can't we just say that? It's all the same. It's all species of the same evil. Like that that's my opinion. I think that's the Christian view. Someone correct me if if I'm wrong, but it's certainly my opinion and it makes it it's a coherent argument, but I never see anybody say that. Speaker 1: Well, think I think it's a lot of that is programming that's been going on for a long time to to the the the way a lot of people programmed is that to speak specifically in defense of white people as a group, to say anything positive about white people as a group is just automatically racist. And I think that this and it's it's obviously Bunkers. Right. So it's absurd, but it's ingrained deeply. I mean this goes back to I can remember this kind of conditioning in public school in the nineties. I went to public school. I can I can you know, we talk about wokeness like it just started in 2015? It didn't. And maybe it was worse in 2015 than it was in 1993. I can remember it in 1993. And I can remember being in school and the only time that if we ever talked about, like our ancestors or the people who founded this country or anything like that, it was it was either in an expressing negative way. Let's talk about all the terrible things they did. Or if we are going to acknowledge anything good they did, we have to couch it by first saying, well, here's a lot of bad things they did. They also did this, but also the bad. And so that's been going on for such a long time. Speaker 0: These were in retrospect, these were the first moves. These were the shock troops of a total takeover and change in the country. Like, this was preparation for what we got under Biden where it's just like, let's just totally transform the demographics of the country in four years and then no one will will feel free to say anything about it because racism. Speaker 1: Right. I mean, feels that Speaker 0: way to me. I don't know if it was a strategy or intentional, but it was certainly a coordinated effort maybe unconsciously, but it wasn't an accident and it happened in every majority country and that's why there won't be any white majority countries really soon. And so what was that? I kind of wish I wasn't white in saying this because it's not selfish. First first of of all, it's it's curiosity. Like, what the hell? You almost never see anything happen globally that's that similar in countries that aren't that similar. Like, The United States is not that similar to The UK or Canada or New Zealand, Australia, but exactly the same thing happened in all of those places. Speaker 1: Much much worse than a lot of those places. Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, if you visit those places, it'll just break your heart because the people are broken. But In Canada, they they are Well, Canada is not even a country. Speaker 1: It's not even a country. And they they are they are overwhelmed with guilt. They they are Speaker 0: so They're murdering. The government is murdering tens of thousands of its citizens every year. They're almost all white and now they're gonna be doing it to kids. And by the way, under the MAIDs program, they're harvesting the organs. They're harvesting the organs from the Canadians they kill. So it's like the darkest thing. That's like I would feel much freer and safer living in China than Canada. I can't believe I'm saying that. I actually love Canada. But that's happening and no one's saying a word about it. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's well, that that in particular is one of those things that it's so dark and so depraved that when you talk about it, I think a lot of people, especially in America, they think you're you're making it up or you're exaggerating. Speaker 0: I I almost don't talk about it very often because I don't think anyone believes it, but I live right near Canada and I know and I I'm like the only American who really sincerely loves Canada because it's just so beautiful. Not the only, but not many people care about Canada. I do. So I know a lot of Canadians and that's absolutely you'll look it up on the inner tubes. It's there. Speaker 1: It's it's becoming one of the leading causes of death and and so It Speaker 0: is one of the leading causes of death. Speaker 1: It is is a is assisted suicide. I mean, just The Speaker 0: government killing you and not because you have ALS, but because you can't pay your rent Then extending it to children and then harvesting the organs and the blood. I mean, I feel like they're a way bigger threat to The United States than Venezuela. I would be open to an argument in favor of invading and occupying Canada on human rights grounds. I'm not joking even a tiny bit. I think it's one of the darkest countries in the world, and it's such a great country with such great people. I don't know how we can allow this to happen without at least saying something about it. I'm not actually arguing for military action, but like maybe threatening it. The the they're way worse than Maduro. Well, I'd Way worse than Maduro. Way worse. So like but I'm sure I'll be like scolded for how can you say that? Because it's true. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the the the MAID program alone is one of the most evil things happening in the world, period. Speaker 0: Murdering their citizens and harvesting their organs on a greater scale than China does? Really? And it's right there? Speaker 1: I think one of the things that's happening why are people ignoring this in America? Well, one thing it's it's people it's like not your country, so you think it doesn't affect you. I think it does affect us because also also like when you look at Canada and Europe and these that we're on the same kind of crazy train. They're just a few train cars up. And so and so we that's why you gotta pay attention to where they are because we're gonna be there. So that's that's one thing. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank Speaker 1: you. But I think that also for for some conservatives in this country, there's some embarrassment about this because they I think there are plenty of conservatives who've been at least indifferent to to the issue of euthanasia and have even kind of I've had many arguments with so called conservatives Actually? Over the years. Not as much now because you see what's happening with MAID. But over the years was was saying that well, you know, because they get they get hung up on this, well, it's a personal choice. And and they just think as conservatives, you just you you cannot oppose a personal choice. You just you you can't do it. And and it's it's it's it's kind of a libertarian instinct gone way haywire in my mind. And and so there but now you can see now those of us who have always been against Speaker 0: So a desperate person has free will? Is that what they're saying? Speaker 1: And that's the problem. Speaker 0: These are children. They don't know what they're talking about. Speaker 1: And also and also so those of us those of us who are opposed to it, we have been saying for years, like, this is where it's gonna go. Okay. Yeah. Right now, they and the other argument for euthanasia was, well, these are people who are in terrible pain, and they're at death's door. They've only got days or and most weeks to live anyway. They're in horrible pain. You have no idea what it's like. And so they should be able to they should be able to have a way out. And and and, like, from an emotional level, like, I I get what you're saying. I totally disagree with it. I get what you're saying. Our argument was well, there's a few arguments, but the big one was, okay. That's what we're do it's already evil to do that even with someone who's terminally ill. They're doing that now, though. It will not stop there because it never stops there. And once you give the state and the medical establishment the authority to kill, they will not stop. It it it always starts with the most justifiable version of it that they can muster, which is still totally unjustifiable in my view. But they always starts with the most justifiable version and then next it's like, okay. Yeah. But yeah. We should include people who maybe they're not terminally ill but they're chronically ill and they're a lot of pain. And okay. Now we've included them. Well, what about what about mental illnesses? What about this person over there? He's homeless. Yeah. He's not terminally ill, but his life is has no meaning and he's terrible. He lives on the street. And then and then, you know, step step step step, eventually, you're killing kids too. But we've Speaker 0: seen this. We've seen this and by the way, I grew I'm older than you and so they were still teaching this in schools when I was a kid, but the Nazi experiment began with euthanasia famously and it wasn't just on a small scale, it was like hundreds of thousands of people killed. It began with Down syndrome, like, how could your life be worth living? And then it wound up with Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Warsaw Ghetto. Like, this was a very clear, much written about continuum that began with murdering the weakest and then again, you know, it ended where it famously ended which was with mass murder. But Hitler was famous for his euthanasia program. He was also famous for rounding people up and moving them to new places, is now openly being discussed in Gaza. It's like the whole thing is so bonkers and it just tells you that human evil is not specific to any group or time or place. It resides in every person. Every person is capable of this kind of behavior, justifying this kind of behavior, we should all be on guard against it. But like, Hitler was very famous for euthanasia. Did you even learn that in school? Speaker 1: No. Certainly not. Speaker 0: So funny. Things change. I was in first grade in 1975 and that was like a feature of it. Know, he was bad because he killed people on the basis of their DNA, that's not allowed, And he killed the weakest, not allowed. And I guess they stopped teaching that. Speaker 1: And and the other thing is when you give when you give the medical establishment, when you accept the idea that death is a treatment Yeah. You have opened the darkest door imaginable. Yes. And this is what's so frustrating is that what what is often what what are often decried as slippery slope arguments, people talk about, oh, it's a fallacy. Slippery slope. First of all, slippery slope is not a fallacy. That's not it's not a fallacious way of making an argument. All we're trying to show you is that, okay. Here's a door you've opened. Okay. You've made an argument to justify something. And what I'm trying to tell you is that I can take that argument intact and use it to justify this thing over here that we both agree is horrific. And so if I can do that, what that tells me is that what it should tell you is that either your argument is bad or the thing you're arguing for is bad or both. And so that's what the Slip Your Slip thing is. And and and that was the point with euthanasia. Once you allow the the medical establishment to to use death, murder as a form of medical treatment, you've completely flipped it on its head because the whole point of medicine is to heal and treat. And so so to avoid death and pain. Like, that's the point of it. And now you flipped it upside down, and you've said that death is the treatment. And so now you've just destroyed the whole thing. You've destroyed it. And Speaker 0: But this happened I think that almost all obstetricians are required to commit abortion during their training. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's right. Speaker 0: It it before. Wind up with an entire medical corps that's evil. Yeah. Yeah. Like, there are a lot of evil doctors, not Speaker 1: just a few, but a lot. Evil and or I mean, this is the same thing, but they they have to be very indifferent to human life, which is evil. Speaker 0: So but did you I did I certainly didn't realize. It really was the COVID vax and the lack of COVID treat the intentional lack of COVID letting people die rather than treating their symptoms, which happened extensively across The United States. That sounds like these people aren't just wrong, they're like the worst people and the physicians are the worst people in the country. And for all the nurses, sweet nurses, I love nurses, sorry, who like stood up and like, This is wrong. Almost no doctors did. A few, a few. Mary Talley Bowden and people like that but like not a lot. And I was just like, our doctors are evil. Not just mistaken, they're bad. Do do you feel that? Speaker 1: I I think a lot of them are. I mean, certainly, obviously not all of them. Speaker 0: Of But Not all of them. Right. Yeah. But but But like not 5%. Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. Speaker 0: We're, like, seventy percent. Speaker 1: Well and and how about also there's abortion, euthanasia, COVID, you've gone to but then also something that I don't think we should just drop and move on from because the speaking of justice, there has not been justice for this, which is that for years, we had the entire medical establishment unanimously almost telling us that the best thing to do with a a young boy who's a little bit confused about his identity is to castrate him. And they were doing that. They were doing that to thousands of kids. They were chopping the breasts. They're still doing it in some places, but it was certainly happening at scale for a long time. They're chopping the breasts off of 15 year old girls. And it what to your point, it was not just like a few doctors. There's a lot of doctors that were involved in it. A lot more doctors supported it, and a lot of other doctors who maybe didn't like it, but they didn't say a word. They did not speak up against it. This is this is some of the most insane barbaric Frankenstein bullshit that the world has ever seen. Completely unjustifiable. No one can argue in defense of it. It's the one of the craziest things that's ever happened in the history of the planet. Speaker 0: It's hard to hear this even because you're because you're right. Speaker 1: Right. And and it was it just went on. And the the the way that the the advocates for this, the way that they argued in favor of it, because obviously they couldn't make any substantive argument for castrating kids, what they would always say is, well, look at all these medical establishments. Every single one of them is in favor of it. And they were right. They all were. All of them. Speaker 0: What's so crazy is that, you know, female genital mutilation, which is, you know, universal in a few countries, I think Somalia is one of them, but was very frowned upon by by feminists and also by me as a lover of women, and it was a feature of debate on cable news shows like my most of my life as a cable news debater. FGM, you know, we do a segment on FGM or whatever. Can you believe they're doing this? And like nobody would defend it. You know, we'd look far and wide. Who will defend female genital a clinerectomy, like who would defend that? And you know, our bookers tried really hard, but there weren't many. All of a sudden, no one mentioned it again and that's because they started doing it. And it's just a reminder that you don't have to be Somali or a Nazi or any specific group to participate in evil like this is a human problem. And the second they stop talking about how what other people did is bad, it's probably a tip that they're gonna start doing it themselves. Right? Speaker 1: And it's it's also a lesson that it's very easy. I mean, look. Nobody wants to admit it now, but at the height of the trans madness and I I don't mean to talk about it totally in the past tense like it's over. It's not. But we are past the height of it. Speaker 0: It feels that. Speaker 1: Thank god. But at the height of it, no one wants to admit it now, but almost everyone on the left supported it, vocally so. And most people on the right did you know, told themselves or insisted that it's not worth saying anything about. It's not that big of a deal. Speaker 0: Totally right. That's exactly Speaker 1: right. This is a this is a cultural war sideshow. And so what that tells us is that it's actually very easy for people to convince themselves to go along with the worst evils that are even conceivable. No. That's totally right. It's very easy to convince yourself. Speaker 0: And partisanship is not a good guide to that. I can as you just said yourself, there are lot of people that are on our side, like, I don't wanna deal with that. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's it's well, because what you have are mean, usually, this is not how it always works out, but you've got the really evil thing being promoted, facilitated by the left, whether it's abortion or euthanasia or whatever else. And then you've got cowardice on the right refusing to speak up against it until it's very safe to do so. You know? And then and then then everybody does. And that's why it's also been on the trans issue. It's been interesting over the last, like, year year and a half to have, like, people coming out of the woodwork, like, very very boldly saying, you know, men men shouldn't be in women's sports. Yeah. Thanks for that. Like, I could've we could've used that six years ago. Speaker 0: Well, because this was one of those issues was you and a few other people just changed it. It wasn't congress. It was you made your movie and you wouldn't stop talking about it and there were a few others, but they were all in the commentariat. They were all like in the pundit class. It was not there was no like US senator who led the charge against this. Some followed in the end, but it came from outside the system, guess is what I'm saying. Right. So that kind of shows among other things that the commentary which is insufferable even as I say this part of it does matter matters actually. The opinions you see on all these podcasts, like they over time do change things clearly. So to circle back to where we began, how is this current conflict, the intra right conflict resolved? Speaker 1: I don't I don't know. I I I if I knew how to do it, Speaker 0: I would do it. Mhmm. Speaker 1: If I if I knew how to solve it, if I knew how to bridge the divide and get everyone on the same side again, I would do it. I've tried in my own way. I know. I have not been successful. I have tried. Speaker 0: You're you're like And the the last person with a foot in each world. It's interesting. Speaker 1: And I and I I value that. Like, this this isn't for me, this is what people have to understand. I I try not to take it personally the insults that I mean when you're in this world you get insulted all the time and you you have to. You have to you have to have thick skin. There are certain attacks against me that I should not admit this but I will that do bother me. Like, they they do they do Speaker 0: Like what? Okay. You opened it. You opened the door. Speaker 1: So Well, charges of well, when people say things that just aren't true. Mhmm. Like and I It happens all the time, and it's it's the one thing I should be the most used to, I guess, than I am, but it just pisses me off. Really? Like, it it does because I Speaker 0: I'm the opposite. It's only the true attacks that upset me. I Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah. It it it shouldn't, but when people are I see someone, you know, make a claim, especially if it's someone it doesn't have to be, but especially if it's someone who I kinda know and Yeah. Even if it's not. Saying something that sounds like it's not true. You're ascribing motives to me that are it's just it's so it's just the exact opposite of what is actually true. And you're not even asking me. You're not reaching out. You're not giving me a chance to speak for myself. Speaker 0: Who did that to you? Speaker 1: And I I here's the thing. I talked about loyalty before. I'm I'm so devoted to it that I I have people I consider friends who have been attacking me publicly, and I still don't want Speaker 0: to attack them Welcome to my world. Speaker 1: I I still don't wanna name Speaker 0: feel like there's a connection between the degree to which you've helped someone and the vehemence of the attack? I've noticed that in just in my life, I'm not whining and I agree with you. It's I hate being attacked. I'm being threatened. Someone shot at my house. Like, I'm never gonna say that. Okay? Though it's true. But I have noticed that a lot of people I've helped are, like, on the front lines of attacking me or calling me names they know aren't aren't true, Nazi. And I feel like there's a connection. It's not random. It's like if you've helped someone, maybe they resent you for it. Speaker 1: I don't down? Yeah. There there might be some of that. I mean, there's there's a there's a lot of thing. First of all, everybody's very emotional. Like, it's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I try to keep that in mind too. People I try not to do the thing that pisses me off so much people do do to me, which is ascribing motives and saying Yeah. Well, you're really doing this because of this. And and I I think sometimes people do, a lot of people do have ulterior motives clearly, and people are scheming and they're playing games. And also, by the way, we live in a space like this is a business, and and people do this for a living. And so there's also just competitiveness. Speaker 0: No. It's right. Speaker 1: And that happens. I get it. But then at the same time, people also get just pissed off and they get emotional. Speaker 0: Well, that's definitely true. Speaker 1: And there's and that's happening on all. So I recognize that. Like some of the so that's why some of the the some of the people that go after me publicly and be like consider friends. And I'm like, yeah, my phone number you can call me and you're not. And I try to under like I do my maybe it's for my own sanity. I I try to be as charitable as possible and think like, they're just they're wrong, but they're really angry. And they've got this whole story about me that's not correct. But that that's what's happening. They're just pissed off. And I've been pissed off before and said things I regret. So I I think I think a lot of that's happened. To go back to the question of what to do about it. Well, guess I guess I don't know why I'm going back to it because I don't have the answer. But I think the only thing that can be done is for all of us, if you're on the right, to go back to some of the basics that we talked about at the beginning of the conversation. Like, what is it that we want? Exactly. What is it that we actually want? Speaker 0: What's the real catechism here? Speaker 1: What does Speaker 0: it mean to be on the right? Speaker 1: Exactly. What what are we it's the classic question about conservatives. What are you trying to conserve? It's a good question. You should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer that. What are you trying to conserve? And everybody needs to ask themselves that and come up with an answer. Come up with write your list. Write it out if you have to. Whatever. Come up with your list. Speaker 0: I'm gonna do this. This is my this is my calling right here. Speaker 1: And and everyone should have their list, and then we should compare notes. And if our lists match up, like we want the same things, we're trying to conserve and preserve the same things, then the only way forward is is with that, is for us to realize that like let's let's reorient towards that. Make make that the goal. And and remember that even when we disagree, we're gonna have disagreements, but we're only disagreeing about how to do this thing that we both want done. And and and I think that's the way forward. Now on the other hand, maybe you start looking at your list and you and you realize that I actually don't even want the same things of these as these people. Okay. Well, then we're not on the same side, and that's very clarifying too. I think that there are Speaker 0: people I that's happening in my mind. I'm like, I we don't have anything in common, actually. I thought we did, but we don't. Is that happening to you? Speaker 1: I there's certainly some of that. I I I think that there are definitely people who just want don't don't don't want the same things at all. They don't have the same fundamental goals. I think that's certainly happening, and that's part that's part of the clarifying. That's part of the Speaker 0: Is that bad or good? Speaker 1: Well, clarity is good. Yeah. Clear I think I think we need clarity. But for me, like I said, I the only person and I believe this holy, I try to live by it. The only person who can speak to your intentions is you. The only person who can tell anyone what's in your mind is you. And so if someone says to me Speaker 0: That's why I try to interview people. Speaker 1: Right. So exactly. You're allowed to speak for yourself? And so I I've given my list of what it is that I wanna conserve and and preserve. Speaker 0: Can you just can you, in an abbreviated form, just run through it really quick one more time? Because I think Well I agreed with it. Speaker 1: Abbreviated is always in trouble for me. Well, no. You don't Speaker 0: have to abbreviate Well, you just say it again. Like, what are the thing you you're saying there's left, right, what even I don't even know what that means anymore, but, like, people who share your values believe what? Speaker 1: They believe in objective truth. Yep. Okay? They they they believe in truth. Number one, that there that there is a that there is a truth. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm gonna write this down. Speaker 1: And Hold on. Hold on now. Speaker 0: K. Objective truth. Speaker 1: Yeah. Objective truth. Speaker 0: Whether or not there can I just add one caveat? I'm not always convinced I know what the objective truth is. I've certainly been wrong, but I know it exists. Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. And and that's and that's exactly the point. We can disagree about what the truth is. We're we're gonna have those disagreements. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: But it but we have to be able to agree that there is a truth. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: To begin with. Exactly. And when you're talking to someone who's a a moral relativist, they're on the left. You can't even agree on that. So there's no conversation to be had. We cannot even have a conversation. That's and that is the that's the problem. That's our problem in our culture. And even and even above the truth, the reason why there's an objective truth is that there is a that there is God. Like the the God, that there is a a a God. There is God. And and he has designed the universe and everything and everybody in it. And that's the the source. That's the wellspring of truth. You know, that that's why there is a truth because God designed it a certain way. And so it is. Like that's the the the fundamental bare bones truth is that God has designed it this way. This is that this is God's universe, and that is the truth. So so I I think I Speaker 0: think That's number Speaker 1: one. Yeah. That's number one. And then What are we Speaker 0: trying Everything flows from that. Speaker 1: Right? Everything flows from that. What are we try but in America as American conservatives Mhmm. What are we trying to conserve? We're trying to conserve American identity, our national identity. We're trying to conserve the institution of the family, which is the the foundation of the country and of of of civilization. We're trying to conserve the institution of the marriage, which is the foundation of the family. So this is the foundation of the foundation. Which Speaker 0: is the foundation of American identity. Speaker 1: Right. And we're trying to conserve all those things. And then and then at a broader level, we're trying to conserve Western civilization itself. Speaker 0: Which grows from so if if you were to sum it up, you could say objective truth derived from a belief that this is all created. We are not the creators. Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 0: And the the family, the family unit, husband, wife, children, which is the basis of all human civilization. So objective truth family? Speaker 1: Yeah. I I think I think that's If Speaker 0: I were writing this on my hand for the test. Okay. Yeah. Probably in here so the teacher couldn't see it. It would just be objective, truth, family. Speaker 1: Yeah. And I would also put national identity for, if we're talking about American conservatives, which is what we're talking about. Speaker 0: But then the question becomes, like, what's that? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's a and and that's also a debate in a sense. I think there are some basic things. But but but again, that's like, okay. As long as we agree Speaker 0: That we need one? Speaker 1: That we need that we yeah. We cannot so we have a culture. Right? We need to have a culture, and multiculturalism cannot be the cult that's not a culture. Speaker 0: That's There has to be unifying set of beliefs or customs that cannot keep the country from breaking apart. Otherwise, it will break apart. Speaker 1: So and that's the point. So the things there, if we if someone looks at that, like that's I'm speaking for myself and not just myself, think a lot, but but that's that's my North Star. And if you look at that and you say, well, I want the same things. Like I I I so I'm fighting for. Then you are on my side period. Like we we are on the same side and and we'll have a lot of arguments again about how to do that, how to achieve that. We'll have a lot of arguments about it and those could be like fruitful arguments. Those don't those don't have to be angry, nasty, personal arguments. They could just be discussions, you know, as as as adults. And we'll do that, but we're on the same side. However, if you look at that and you say, you know, well, I don't need I I don't believe in any of that. Like, don't well, I don't believe in God. I don't like truth through you know, we all have our own truth. The family, I think the family is like, you know, marriage doesn't matter. We don't need the family. If you'll and a lot of people feel that way. So fine. You're allowed to feel that way. We're not on the same side at all. No matter what else you believe. I'm I and and then I might agree with you on then you might go on in from there and say, yeah. But I really think that gun rights are important, and I think we need to restrict immigration, and I wanna abolish the income tax or whatever. I'd agree with you on those points, but we're not fundamentally on the same side. Speaker 0: It's so smart. I I don't wanna blow anyone's mind, but I, you know, travel a lot, talk to people for a living. You would be amazed by the people I know who agree with you vehemently and sincerely on those two points and they're not all on the right at all, which is kind of interesting. So it does feel like this is a there's like a true realignment happening now. I just know in my own life, the people who reach out to me in some cases are people you would expect, in some cases they're not all people you would expect, And they're just they're hearing the same music and they're motivated by the same impulses and that is one, a belief that we are living in a world we didn't create, these rules aren't ours. It's it's basically the the nature argument, like you can't ignore nature because you're not in charge of it, you cannot ignore natural law because you didn't make it because God made it, a. And b, in the end, your only true protection is your family and your deepest connection is to your family and that needs to be protected above all which I think is a variety of what you were just saying. The people who reach out to me who believe that, man, it would blow your mind. So I guess what I would say is it feels like a lot of our politics is artificial, it's inorganic, it was these divisions in some cases are, you know, are real, in some cases they were created in order to get us to not see that we have a lot in common with other people. Does that make sense? Speaker 1: I think so. Look. And if someone the words left and right are labels that we put on on things Well, people Speaker 0: have always said that, but I never really believed it. I was like, that's bullshit. But Speaker 1: It's it's just a it's a way of categorizing and organizing things so we can speak about them coherently. But sometimes the labels that we use use, you know, we we have to we have to shift it over. There might be people who so but, like, anyone who you've talked to who we would say is on the left who agrees with all that, well, then I would say they're not on the left. Speaker 0: Well, I agree. Speaker 1: You know, they they might they might might even think they still are, but they're not. And so they're they're they're over on this side, and you can kinda call it whatever you want. I'm saying right conservative. We could come up with any team team name we want. I guess what I'm saying is Speaker 0: You know? Your side is bigger than you think it is. Speaker 1: Yeah. Maybe. I for for the during the when we're talking about the trans issue, and I've sort of talked about the teams, what I've come to what I've come to call the side that's against all the trans madness is team sanity. You know? Yeah. It's just we're forced sanity, like, on this issue. We're sane people. And fully acknowledging that on that issue, there were people who I don't agree with unlike anything else, but are sane on this. I can think of some of Speaker 0: the I used to have this woman on. Oh, I really liked her. I don't think she ever liked me at all. I can't remember her name. She was a radical lesbian feminist and every She would always come into the studio on the trans issue years ago and she was like, I could I could hear her thinking, I can't believe I'm in the same room as this monster, but we were so aligned on it and I always wondered like why did she care so mean, she We must have been more aligned than either of us realized if she cared that much about it, right? You must have dealt with a million people like this. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And this is a conversation I would have sometimes with the because I it's very strange bedfellows. I would find myself aligned on that issue with some feminists, like left far left feminists. Speaker 0: But the the radical ones. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Yeah. But the the point I would try to make to them, think mostly unsuccessfully, is that, okay. If you if we agree on this, then I I I think like if you can see the truth on this, then I think we should agree on a lot more. You know? I I think Well, that's my Speaker 0: instinct too. Right. What would they say? Speaker 1: Well, for me, I I'm not the guy to make an argument to feminists, and I gotta listen to me. There might be someone who can be kind of the Speaker 0: I think you could convert a few, Mount Walsh. Speaker 1: I I I don't know. It's my my track record would say otherwise, but but the the point is that, like, the the argument I would make to them is that, actually, I know you call yourself a feminist. The reason why we have this problem is because of feminism. Feminism is the the actually the root of this problem. Of course. And so if you agree with me on this, then I think really you are critiquing feminism. So you're not a feminist. Get it together. Come over here. And that that they didn't find that. That was that was mansplaining. You know? They Speaker 0: weren't That was definitely but they they weren't, like, ready to run to the patriarchy after that. Speaker 1: No. No. Speaker 0: Well, that's a shame. So here's my last question and again it begins where we began which is the fact that you're like at the center of all of this. I really do think you're the last person on the right, you know, the official, you know, well known official podcaster right who has, you know, a foot in two camps and so it's just the pressure on you, I've just noticed it, has been almost unbelievable and you've bore up under it so impressively. But how do you keep yourself from becoming a hater when you're under just relentless assault and not just your views, your motives, your character, when people you really like or your friends are denouncing you? And most people live an entire lifetime without that experience. It's an unusual experience, and it can drive some totally crazy. Like, they become foaming at the mouth haters. How have you avoided that? Speaker 1: Maybe the honest answer is I have avoided it well. But I but I but I but I think that's I mean, look. The real the correct answer is prayer. I mean, you you know, you have to have a rich prayer life. Speaker 0: Yes. And Speaker 1: I I do have a prayer life. I don't think it's as rich as it should be. I I think and I think that's I think like a lot of people, you kinda go through waves. I go through waves, and and and then I I go through and here's what happens with me, and I think it's probably relatable, is that when you're really frustrated and stressed out and things are not really working out how you want them to, your kind of prayer life can dry up too. And to start because that starts feeling everything just starts feeling kinda dry. Everything starts feeling like nothing's working. No one's listening. You feel frustrated. No one in your life is like hearing what you're saying. You start to feel like God is not hearing you either. And it's just this kind of frustration. And then and then it snowballs, you know, and then it becomes a it's a self fulfilling prophecy because now you're everything's feeling everything feels kinda dried up and frustrated. And so that's what happens with prayer life, and then everything's just gets worse because of that. And so those are the the moments where you have to be very intentional and say, I'm really annoyed and frustrated. I don't feel like praying. I don't even know if God's listening. He's always listening. But in a frustrated moment, you feel like he's not. And that's when you have to realize that and then reorient yourself and become you know? And for me, when I have those moments, I've I've found that just being more structured. Like, sometimes you have to like anything in life that that is good. You have to kinda force yourself to do it sometimes. You have to get into a habit. Speaker 0: What's your structure if if you don't mind? Speaker 1: Well, I think there's you set up a a time for prayer in the morning. Like, you set up just times. This is my this is my time when I'm going to pray. You know? Yes. And hopefully, it's multiple times a day. But and when you have a really rich prayer life and you're you're in a good flow, it's like you're you're in a constant prayer. It's like a it's a constant it's a constant state of going to God even if you're not on your knees. Speaker 0: Rejoice in everything. Never stop praying. Yeah. Speaker 1: And I I think that, you know, things like your your physical posture when you're when you're praying, that that can matter. And especially if you're through a if you're going through a dry spell in your prayer life, I think, like, actually knee kneeling, being on your knees does matter. And you can pray without being on your knees, but it can kinda help to orient you in the right way. And it's kind of your your body telling your mind something, which is that you are submitting yourself. Like, you're on your knees. You are submitting yourself to a power that is greater than you. That's why you're doing this. And so you're reminding yourself that there's someone greater than you who you are appealing to. And so I I think stuff like that can can help also. Speaker 0: How much time do you spend on x? Too much. Meaning? Speaker 1: Like, way too much. I I don't know. Speaker 0: What effect does that have? Speaker 1: Not not good. I mean, it it's also hard for me because it's my job and not like my job require you know, it's like a not like there's a I have to punch in the clock and go on x. But part of the job is to be clued in, and I'm also creating content every day. I do a show five days a week four days a week now. And so this is where the conversation's happening. This is where all the con all the sort of content is, all the things I wanna talk about. Yeah. I also use it as kind of a you know, it's it's like I'll I'll start a conversation on x, and and then I'll talk about it on the show, and it's just kind of this feeds off of each other thing. But the problem and all that is good, and I'm glad that it's there for that reason. But the problem is this stuff sucks you in. Like, just sucks you in. And Speaker 0: because I bet I'm just guessing you're not into say pornography or cocaine or Not at all. Right. Speaker 1: 0%. I knew that. Speaker 0: 0%. So so like for a man like you, you're, you know, you don't you're not ruled by your addictions, but do you feel like x? Speaker 1: Well, it's weird. Here here's the weird thing for me. It the the amount of time I spend on it sometimes would would seem like an addict. However, when I go on vacation and I say, like, I'm I'm I'm leaving. I'm not gonna be doing a show. I'm I'm I'm out of the I'm gonna be out. I'm not paying attention to anything. And I go on vacation. I put the phone down. I have zero desire to pick it up. I I I don't even find myself like, oh, I gotta find out what's happening. I put it down. I'm on vacation. I have no desire. In fact, it's the opposite. When I come back, I have to force myself Speaker 0: I know. Speaker 1: To, like, get into this again. And I'm also it's it's ridiculous. I'm, like, forcing myself to tweet because I gotta get in the flow to to do the job. And so that tells me it's not really an addiction. It's something even worse, I guess. Because when I have the chance to walk away from it, I so eagerly do. It's like my soul telling me, like, you got this this is what I actually long for is not this. Speaker 0: I think that's a really good sign. Speaker 1: I I think it's a good sign. Do you Speaker 0: feel like when you well, I'll tell you how I feel when I go on it because I know so many of the people who are tweeting their opinions. It's like seeing all of your acquaintances naked. I feel like people reveal so much about themselves, and it's like, wow. You don't look great naked. I mean, I never really thought about you naked, but now that I can see it, you should put some clothes back on. That's the feeling I have every time I go on there. Speaker 1: That is a that's that's an interesting way of putting it. And I think that's true. I mean, that's it used to be, right, if you were like a prominent person in some field. If you ever gave your opinions publicly, depending on the field, you might never give your opinion publicly. But if you ever did, it was like in a structured, it was a very intentional kind of way. And Speaker 0: I try and stick to that. Speaker 1: And and now and now we have it used to be like, it's hard for people for kids these days to realize this. But it used to be that we would have all these like famous people and celebrities, and most of them we never knew what they thought about anything. We had no clue what they thought. We didn't even know what their personalities were. We only saw them because they were throwing a football or because they were acting in a thing or whatever. And now, yeah, we just know everyone's opinion up to date on every Speaker 0: So whoever thought that I mean, if you told me ten years ago that, like, all the people in charge were thoroughly banal and conventional at best. They had nothing interesting to say. They never thought about anything ever. Like Hillary Clinton had not a single thought in her head. And that some guy called Orin McEntire, whoever that is, would turn out to be, you know, or you or like all these people who ten years ago were not they're very far from what we might think of as a public intellectual. All of a sudden, they're purely through the force of their ideas and the clarity of their expression, we're kind of defining the terms. That is a huge change. It's totally disempowered the Pooh Ba class and it's given rise to this genuinely interesting bubbling conversation, like, at best. Do you feel that? Speaker 1: Yeah. I do, which is why I mean, we talk about social media, we talk about x, and I don't wanna talk as though I think it's a it's a overall like nothing but a negative because I do think it allows Speaker 0: Oh, total. No. No. It's a mixed blessing for sure. Speaker 1: Yeah. So and that and that is true. Like, allows and it it obviously has created a situation where the institutions that used to control the conversation completely now now don't control it at all. Speaker 0: And They're like they've shown that they're just not impressive. That, like, in the true and fabled marketplace of ideas, they're like a rummage sale actually. Speaker 1: Yeah. Have nothing to say. Speaker 0: No. But like who would buy that crap? It's just not once we see it in its entirety, once the mystique has been stripped away, they have nothing to offer. Like, they're just totally pedestrian. And then these I mean, do you ever see random Twitter accounts? You have no idea who this is. It's not someone who's anyone's ever heard of. Making a point that's so profound that, like, you can't get it out of your head. Does that ever happen to Speaker 1: you? Oh, definitely. I was just thinking I saw I don't remember who the guy was. But, yeah, I read it I read a tweet a couple days ago, and it was this lengthy, like, really well written analysis of something I can't even remember. But it's like a random Twitter guy. I don't know who that guy is. Like, what? And in in a way, it's kinda sad because I read that. I'm like, well, I don't know. This guy is a philosopher. He should be in a different age. Speaker 0: No. But affirmative action has kept them all out. So this is what this is where they went. So you're like, well, we you don't have a meritocracy anymore, the smartest, most impressive people literally can't get jobs or grants or into college. So like, what are they doing? And they're Speaker 1: sitting up tweeting. Yeah. Tweeting these like morsels of incredible wisdom in some cases. Speaker 0: But you no. Truly. Speaker 1: Yeah. And and the and but this is as I said, mixed blessing. The problem is that in between the morsels of great wisdom, you've got nothing but just slop hate and all this. Right? And so the best thing we can do is things like keep keep your prayer life alive and control you you say you have to have self control in in in in how you interact with this. One of the worst things and I everyone does this. I do it. I think it's the worst habit that almost everyone has now. Speaker 0: I'm sure I do it too then Speaker 1: if it's a bad habit. The first thing you do when you wake up in the morning is check your phone. I don't do that. Well, then you're you're in better shot shape than I am and and a lot of people. Speaker 0: Never. And that's That is like the used to that's like having blueberry pancakes for breakfast which was a habit that was very hard for me to break. But once I did it, I realized that framed my whole day in the wrong the wrong way. Have you ever started the day with blueberry pancakes? Speaker 1: I Speaker 0: have. You can't get past it. Everything in your day is defined by blueberry pancakes. Speaker 1: Why? Because you're longing for the Yeah. Speaker 0: You're hungry all day, you feel shitty, you're lethargic, like, just don't eat till noon and everything is better, but I grew up in a blueberry pancake world, like a 100. Blueberry pancakes and a and a cigarette, And that's not a good way to start the day. And I feel like social media are even worse Speaker 1: than that. Cigarette. Don't do the pancakes. Speaker 0: That is I I can't say this on on is still a great way to start the day. Speaker 1: I don't care what anybody says. It's just a fact. Yeah. I but I I But whatever. Sorry. Totally kidding. The the yeah. Starting the day by looking at your phone is so horrifically bad. I do it all the time. Actually? I do. I I shouldn't. That's like Speaker 0: the one thing you can't just don't do that. That's easy. Just like because you use it as your alarm. Right? Speaker 1: Yeah. My phone. Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course. Everybody does. I do too. We don't allow phone usage in the bedroom except for the alarm. That's like ironclad rule. Just get up, get a cup of coffee, get your face in a bible, or just stare out the window, kiss your dogs, anything but that. Speaker 1: I I totally agree. I in fact, just this morning, I woke up. First thing I did is I checked my phone and I went on x. The and it was just in my feed. It just happened. Like the first thing I read I just opened my eyes ten thirty seconds ago. The first thing I read was, like, in my feed something popped up, and it was, like, Matt Walsh is a coward. Whatever. I'm starting my day with that. Like, the first thing that enters my eye. What are you doing? I don't know. And I put my phone down like why did I do that? Why You're in Speaker 0: a hotel room though. Right? Hotel room. Because there's no chick there. That that's that's why it's so important to be married. Speaker 1: That that is yeah. That's true also. Right? Well, you know, and there's no kids. Like Totally. Yeah. Speaker 0: Matt Walsh, some of us, probably not a huge group, but some of us, just kidding, really appreciate what you're doing and your clear thinking and your self control and especially your summation of what actually matters. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. You don't need to be an economist to see what's happening. The dollar is in trouble. It's getting weaker. It's sad, but we're not in charge of it. So we have to respond appropriately in ways to protect our families. When paper money dies, it's gonna be replaced by programmable digital currency or gold. Gold survives. The same Americans who think they're protecting themselves with gold are the ones getting ripped off by big gold dealers. After we left corporate media, we got offered tens of millions of dollars to promote gold companies. How'd they get the money to spend that much on marketing? Because they're scamming their customers. We didn't want anything to do with them. So we sought an honest broker, and together we formed a precious metals company that you can actually trust. It's called Battalion Metals. At battalionmetals.com, we publish actual spot prices. We're totally transparent about the VIG, what we take, and we treat everyone with honesty. So if you've been watching what's happening, you know, it's not just about money. It's about sovereignty and holding something that endures and cannot be manipulated or taken from you. Speaker 1: So if you've Speaker 0: been waiting for the right time to act, this is it. Visit battalionmetals.com.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - September 13, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Saved - September 13, 2025 at 6:32 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Two weeks after I tweeted this, Charlie Kirk was murdered by a deranged LGBT extremist with a trans boyfriend. When I say that these people are very dangerous, it’s not fear mongering. It’s the truth. Now I say again: it will get worse. We must take this threat seriously. https://t.co/vbYgv9jqIG

MattWalshBlog
Posted - September 11, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Saved - September 11, 2025 at 3:32 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

A lot of concerned people are sending me these screenshots (and dozens more). I appreciate their concern. But I’m not surprised and I won’t be going into hiding. We have to be louder and bolder now than ever. Or else the demons who killed Charlie win. And they cannot win. https://t.co/IN2DMo7tPT

MattWalshBlog
Posted - August 5, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Saved - August 5, 2025 at 6:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a TikTok by a history teacher who described Incan child sacrifices as “kind” and “voluntary,” suggesting that freezing to death isn’t so bad. I find it outrageous to claim that 8-year-olds “volunteered” for such a fate. This raises concerns about who is teaching our kids in public schools.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

History teacher on TikTok says that Incan child sacrifices were “kind” and “voluntary.” Children were merely left to freeze to death, which isn’t so bad when you think about it. She blames white people for having a judgmental view of human sacrifice. https://t.co/PuB26tmVQj

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they will discuss Incan, not Mexica, sacrifices. The Inca, like other civilizations, practiced sacrifice during crises such as famine or natural disasters. Uniquely, Incan sacrifices were volunteers from the elite class, who were believed to be closer to the gods. The Inca would drug the sacrifice with coca leaves and chicha before leaving them on a cold mountain to die from exposure. The speaker contrasts this with the Mexica, who would rip out a still-beating heart. The speaker believes negative perceptions of Incan sacrifice are indicative of a "white education" that overlooks their accomplishments. The speaker hopes to offer a different perspective on the Inca, their favorite civilization.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I will die on this hill. I'm specifically talking about the Inga here. We're not talking about the Mexica. That's a whole separate type of sacrifice. If we're just looking at Tawantinsuyu, the Quechua people, the Incan empire, they practice sacrifices like most other civilizations throughout history did in times of crisis. So famine, natural disasters. But the unique thing about the Quechua is that when you're looking at, like, the Incan civilization, you essentially have the elites, and then you have everyone else. Sacrifices were volunteers from the elite class because they believed that the elites were closer to the gods and could therefore appease them better. Also, in terms of sacrifice, they were kind about it. Hear me out. Because unlike the Mexica when you're, like, ripping out a still beating heart out of someone's chest, the Inca would intentionally use coca leaves and would use chicha and would drug up the sacrifice and then leave them on a mountain, a cold chilly mountain to be exposed to the elements, which if you're a volunteer sacrifice where you're heavily drugged before you die also, I mean, I can equate human sacrifice throughout history to so many things. And I think the fact that a lot of people are commenting, oh, but the sacrifice is, again, indicative of the fact that you have received a quite white education because you are knowing them for the bad things that they have done and not all of the wonders that they accomplished. So I hope that this maybe helps you understand a different part of my most favorite civilization of all time, the Inca.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Needless to say, the claim that 8 year old kids “volunteered” to die of starvation and hypothermia is insane. These are the kinds of moral monsters that teach your kids in public school.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - July 16, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Saved - July 16, 2025 at 7:03 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Matt Walsh expressed confusion over the lack of concern regarding powerful individuals involved in child sex trafficking, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issue. Elon Musk responded by highlighting that not a single client of Epstein has faced prosecution.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This is the attitude I just can't understand. There's "no doubt" powerful people were involved with child sex trafficking and yet you can't comprehend why some of us care about that and don't want to let it go? I would think the answer is self-explanatory.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@vjeannek Ok we can all agree this case was shady from the get go. And no doubt powerful people involved. And so? This is what I can never get an answer on.

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

@MattWalshBlog Not a single Epstein client has been prosecuted. Not even one.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - August 12, 2017 at 11:29 PM
Saved - June 12, 2025 at 12:13 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

A great many prominent people on the right have been at war with white nationalism for a long time. Dont accuse us of being silent. We arent

MattWalshBlog
Posted - May 15, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Saved - May 16, 2025 at 11:44 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

They want us to believe that white people are somehow not native or indigenous to any place on Earth https://t.co/azNI15SO0y

Video Transcript AI Summary
CNN commentators suggest white South Africans should return home, despite generations in the country, while Somalis in Minnesota are considered American upon arrival. White people, regardless of their history in a place, are often labeled colonizers with no legitimate claim to any land. Under this framework, white people are the only demographic unable to be considered native to any country. If a white person claims the UK as a white country, they are condemned. White people are told America isn't their land, but Europe isn't acknowledged as their homeland either. The question is posed: where can white people claim a legitimate homeland and be considered native? How many generations must pass for a white person to be considered native to a country? If there's no amount of time, where is their native homeland? The terms native, colonizer, invader, and indigenous are tools of manipulation.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is the funny thing about who is considered native or not. Who is considered an invader or not. CNN commentators have no problem announcing that white people whose ancestors have been in the country for 20 generations should go back home if they're in South Africa. But try telling the Somalis of Minnesota to go back home. You'll be immediately labeled a far right bigot. Even though the Somalis have been here for, at most, a couple of decades. Some have been here for a couple of hours. But we're told that the Somalis have every right to be here. That we're told the Somalis, the moment they step foot here, they are just as American as anyone else. The moment the Somali steps foot in this country, they're just as American as you, even if your family's been here for four hundred years. And yet, the white South Africans are not South African even after four hundred years. And Americans who can trace their lineage back several centuries, they just have to shut up and take it in this country. No matter where they are Maybe you've noticed white people, no matter where they are, are always the colonizers and have no legitimate claim to whatever land they're on. In other words, under the left's framework, white people are the only demographic on the planet that can never be considered truly at home or native to any country anywhere. You know, we'll be told that a white person's true home is Western Europe. And yet, if any white person in The UK claimed that it was a white country, they'd be condemned. They say to us in America that this isn't our land. Right? It's stolen. So where is our land? They will not follow that to its conclusion and say that, well, Europe is the the white man's land. They're not gonna say that. So so where is it? The message is that there is literally no place on earth that white people can claim as a legitimate homeland. A white man is native to nowhere. He is indigenous to nowhere. I mean, that's strange, isn't it? How does that work? Like, have you noticed that there's no country on the planet with white indigenous people? How is that possible? Where did the white people come from? Did they fall out of the sky like rain? Did they magically spawn out of thin air? If a white person could trace his roots back to the seventeenth century in this country, does that make him a Native American? I mean, at at what point can the white person say, yeah, I I am native to this country? How many centuries does he need to be? Does does does his family need to be in a country to be native to it? How many generations? 10? Is that enough? No? 15? 20? 20 five? 30? 40? Is that enough? At that point can we say we're native to this country? And if the answer is, well, there's no amount of time. If the answer is that, well, it could be a thousand years from now and a white person who's been here for more than a thousand years, their family's been here for a thousand years, still is not native to this country in America. If that's the answer, then again, where is his native homeland? And if he goes there, can he claim the title of native or indigenous? Can he say that the non natives are invading or stealing? Well, the left has no answer to any of those questions. And the reason is that the terms native and colonizer and invader and indigenous are all just tools of manipulation. They don't mean anything.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Full episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quPqJSQTxaI

MattWalshBlog
Posted - April 18, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Saved - April 18, 2025 at 8:09 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The comments on Karmelo Anthony’s fundraiser are truly horrifying. They make it very clear that these people don’t care whether he has a valid self-defense claim or not. They see Metcalf’s murder as an act of racial vengeance. https://t.co/gF1z2bnHbu

MattWalshBlog
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 4:30 AM
Saved - March 5, 2025 at 12:32 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Things the Democrats didn’t clap for: A child cancer survivor Planting a flag on Mars Fighting crime Helping working families Catching terrorists Destroying the cartels The only thing the Democrats did clap for: Ukraine

MattWalshBlog
Posted - February 22, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Saved - February 22, 2025 at 10:03 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This is the most insane decision I’ve ever seen from our justice system and that is saying quite a lot. They are actually releasing an axe murderer cannibal back into society because he has “showed progress.” My God.

@NBC10Boston - NBC10 Boston

A man accused of hacking someone to death with an axe and eating part of the victim's brain and an eyeball has been granted conditional release after a careful review of his clinical progress, officials in Connecticut say. https://on.nbcboston.com/rhhHkEX

SocialFlow on.nbcboston.com
MattWalshBlog
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 8:20 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Ignore this disgusting freak. Judges don’t have the authority to tell the President which websites he has to have up. Judges are completely out of control in this country. They think they have the power to control literally every aspect of the government with the wave of a hand.

@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok

BREAKING: U.S. District Judge John Bates orders Trump to restore web pages on sex change operations and gender ideology across HHS, CDC, and FDA websites. https://t.co/U9QJmuk8ne

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 29, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Saved - January 29, 2025 at 11:34 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I've repeatedly stated my desire to end all foreign aid, including to Israel, yet some still act surprised. If I need to turn my policy into a song for clarity, so be it!

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

I’ve said publicly like 100 times that I want to end all foreign aid to all countries including Israel, and yet people still post this response like it’s some spooky scary thing I won’t say out loud. Yes, end foreign aid to Israel too. How else do I need to say it? Should I sing it in a song? Draw a picture? What do you need?

@IanCarrollShow - Ian Carroll

@MattWalshBlog Like… Israel? 🤔

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The audience has spoken. Apparently I have to turn my foreign aid policy into a song.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 29, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Saved - January 29, 2025 at 11:33 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Countries that cannot function without US foreign aid should simply not exist. You have no right to exist as a nation if your existence depends on forced donations from the citizens of another country. Take away all foreign aid permanently and let the chips fall where they may.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 22, 2025 at 1:51 PM
Saved - January 22, 2025 at 10:28 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

It’s not enough to kill gender ideology and DEI. We also must punish the people who imposed it on our country and our children. They must be humiliated, financially ruined, and left destitute. They don’t get to walk away clean. Destroy them. No mercy.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 8, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Saved - January 9, 2025 at 11:43 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Los Angeles deliberately set out to exclude white men from becoming firefighters, and now they don’t have enough firefighters to prevent their city from burning to the ground. DEI is a cancer that destroys everything it touches.

@LosAngeles_Scan - Los Angeles Scanner

There are not enough firefighters according to LAFD Chief.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - December 23, 2024 at 11:45 PM
Saved - December 24, 2024 at 3:01 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the death penalty is fundamentally unfair and unjust, except in cases where someone takes matters into their own hands without any legal process. This reflects the actual views of many leftists, not just a caricature of their beliefs.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime. This is the actual position of millions of leftists in this country. Not a straw man. It’s what they believe.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - December 17, 2024 at 7:15 PM
Saved - December 17, 2024 at 7:30 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Academy Awards revealed the shortlist for documentaries, featuring 15 films that will be narrowed to 5 nominees. Surprisingly, "Am I Racist?"—the highest-grossing and most discussed doc of the year—didn't make the cut. I expected this outcome, but it still feels like a farce.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The Academy Awards announced the shortlist for documentaries. These are their top 15 films in the genre that will be whittled down to 5 nominees. “Am I Racist?” did not make the top 15 even though it is the highest grossing doc of the decade and easily the most talked about, most watched, and most influential documentary of this year. This is the outcome I expected, of course, but it doesn’t make it any less of a farce.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - December 9, 2024 at 3:56 PM
Saved - December 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
There's a mob outside the courthouse threatening the jury, and they can hear it during deliberations. Despite the jury's struggle to reach a verdict on the main charge, the judge refuses to declare a mistrial. Defending this situation feels fundamentally anti-American to me. This trial is a disgrace.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

There is a crazed mob outside the courthouse threatening violence against the jury if they don’t convict. The jury can hear them in the deliberation room loud and clear. This along with the fact that they’ve already said they can’t reach a verdict on the top charge. And yet the judge still won’t declare a mistrial. Anyone who defends this is fundamentally anti-American. This trial is a disgrace.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - December 4, 2024 at 5:43 PM
Saved - December 5, 2024 at 8:36 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Here’s my speech outside SCOTUS. As expected the trans activists tried to sabotage us by being loud and obnoxious. That’s all they can do now. They’re losing on every front. They can only scream impotently into the void while we burn their ideology to the ground. Fine with me. https://t.co/ZU9Xj0oxRj

Video Transcript AI Summary
We gather today to affirm three truths: biology is real and immutable; society's fundamental duty is to protect children; and gender ideology poses a significant threat to them. Children are innocent and rely on adults for guidance. The radical belief that gender can be changed through irreversible procedures exploits their confusion and is deeply harmful. The Tennessee law does not ban children from being who they are; it protects them from harmful medical practices. Children have the right to grow and explore their identities without being subjected to irreversible harm. This case is about safeguarding children from those who would exploit and damage them. We will continue this fight until every child is protected and gender ideology is eradicated. Thank you.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Great. Thank you, guys. We are all here on this cold day because we recognize 3 very basic truths. First, that biology is real. It is immutable. It is not subject to the whims of any individual or government or medical organization. Men are men. Women are women. That's all there is to it. You cannot change a person's biological identity. You cannot change their sex, and you should not try. 2nd, that the most essential and fundamental duty of any society is to protect their children. A country that cannot or will not protect its children is a country that deserves to die and will. Children are innocent and helpless. They know very little about themselves, very little about the world around them. They rely on us for clarity and guidance and protection. They trust us, the adults, implicitly. So when they're confused and scared, they look to us to be the ones who light the way and lead them down the right and safe path. It is our moral obligation to be the source of wisdom and security that they need and that they deserve. If we will not fulfill that obligation, then we are worse than useless. The third truth is this, that gender ideology, the radical leftist doctrine that claims that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, and that such a impossible transition can be made possible through irreversible drugs and surgery, Gender ideology is deeply sinister. It is a unique threat to children in particular. It is one of the greatest and most incomprehensible evils ever visited upon children in the whole history of the human race. These are the truths that bring us to this spot on this day, that biology is a fact, that we have a duty to protect our children, that the trans agenda denies the fact of biology and is a distinct threat to our children. We affirm these truths. We call the Supreme Court to affirm them too. Now the other side claims that this is a case about rights. They say that the Tennessee law infringes on the rights of so called trans kids. There are a few problems with that claim. First of all, there's no such thing as a trans kid. That doesn't exist. Those those kids are not trans. They are confused and their confusion has been exploited by quacks and abusers. They are abuse victims. They are not trans kids. 2nd, the law in Tennessee isn't banning kids from doing anything. It's banning doctors from causing permanent damage to kids. This is a ban targeting doctors and parents who are abusive and who are themselves targeting children. So what the trans activist, well, the people over there are actually claiming is not that kids have a right to be castrated, but that doctors have the right to castrate them. They are fighting for the right of adults to abuse and harm and mutilate and permanently damage and destroy children. That's what all those people over there are fighting for. It's dis it's disgusting. It's evil. Now 3rd, finally, with all that said, I actually agree with the premise, sort of. This this case is about the rights of children. It's about the right of a child to be protected from the gender butchers. That's what it's about. Children have the constitutional right, the human right, the god given right to live and grow and learn about themselves and the world without being indoctrinated and exploited by people who reject the fundamental realities of existence. Children have a right to go through phases, to have moments of confusion and discomfort in their own bodies, just like every generation of children before them, without that confusion being seized upon as a pretense to do irreparable harm to their bodies. So to the trans activists over there claiming that this is all about the rights of children, I say again, yes, you're right, it is. They have a right to be protected from you. Children have a right to be protected from all of those people over there who want to harm them and damage them and destroy them. We are here now. And they will be. You will never. They are gonna lose. They are losing right now. We are not gonna let them harm our children. This case is just the beginning of the fight. It is not the end. We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That's what we're fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it. Thank you.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - September 17, 2024 at 7:53 PM
Saved - September 18, 2024 at 12:57 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I want to clarify our approach in creating “Am I Racist?” and “What Is A Woman?” We aim to expose the expert class that imposes their views on society. Some conservatives are uneasy with our use of what they call "deception," but I believe it's a necessary method to reveal the truth. These individuals won't willingly expose themselves, so we have to draw them out. Our films allow them to embarrass themselves, and while it may not be kind, sometimes niceness isn't an option we can afford.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

As there’s a lot of conversation about it today, I will say one more thing about the methods we used to make “Am I Racist?” and “What Is A Woman?” before that. We are trying to expose the so-called expert class — our self-appointed moral superiors who impose their doctrines on us from on high. Some conservatives have expressed discomfort with the fact that we use “deception” to accomplish this goal. I don’t think that’s the right word to describe our method, but I’m not quibbling about that right now. The better question is this: how else can these people be exposed? Sure, you can make your arguments, present your opinion, explain why these people are full of shit. But that doesn’t expose them. Not in the way Robin DiAngelo was exposed, or the professor in WIAW, or any of the other unwitting co-stars in our films. You can’t expose them unless they come down from their perch and open themselves up to it. But these people will never do that intentionally. They will never knowingly make themselves vulnerable. So what then? Either we throw up our hands and let them hide behind all of the layers of intellectual protection they’ve set up for themselves, or we use more innovative and maybe even ruthless means to lure or drag them out from behind that wall. That’s what we’ve done with our films. And once we have them, we let them embarrass themselves. And we laugh at them. It’s not the nicest thing. But niceness is a luxury we don’t always have.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 11, 2024 at 7:13 PM
Saved - August 20, 2024 at 6:50 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the “dream team” at the manufacturer that made the plane door that just blew off in the middle of a flight https://t.co/gZ2AboGnpR

MattWalshBlog
Posted - January 3, 2024 at 4:29 PM
Saved - August 19, 2024 at 11:11 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Here’s the feminist director of the next Star Wars film saying that her goal is to “make men uncomfortable.” This movie is destined to be Disney’s biggest flop yet. https://t.co/KaihbiA7Oj

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks about balancing the activation of change with permeating the existing power structure, and whether this is part of the calculation in Speaker 1's art. Speaker 1 responds that it is absolutely part of their art, stating that they like to make men uncomfortable. Speaker 1 clarifies that it is important to be able to look a man in the eyes and have them recognize that Speaker 1 is working to bring something that makes them uncomfortable. This discomfort should exist because men need to change their attitude. Speaker 1 believes that only when men are uncomfortable and have difficult conversations will they look at themselves and realize there may be something wrong with the way they think or address issues.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is the balance of activating a force for change but also trying to permeate that patriarchy, that power structure? And is that a part of the calculation of your art as well and and what's been the reaction to that? Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. I like to make men uncomfortable. I enjoy making men uncomfortable. Not you. Just just that's not it. Speaker 0: Not not. Speaker 1: Not not. Speaker 0: Point taken. Point taken. Speaker 1: But, you know, it is important to be able to look into the eyes of a man and say, I am here and recognize that. And recognize that I am working to bring something that makes you uncomfortable and it should make you uncomfortable because you need to change your attitude. And it's only when you're uncomfortable, when you're shifty, when you have to have difficult conversations that you will perhaps look at yourself in the mirror and not like the reflection and then say, maybe there is something wrong with the way I think or maybe there is something wrong with the way I am addressing this issue.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - July 15, 2024 at 1:44 AM
Saved - July 15, 2024 at 3:13 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

There have been other presidential assassination attempts in history but I believe this is the first one where dozens of people saw it coming and spent minutes pointing him out to law enforcement who responded by doing absolutely nothing about it https://t.co/8NNcbFz7is

Video Transcript AI Summary
Someone is on the roof, Gary is laying down. There are criminals on the roof, making it difficult to handle.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. Someone's on top of the roof. Look. Gary is right there. Oh, yeah. Right there. See him? He's laying down. See him? Yeah. He's laying down. What's happening? Yeah. Look. We have criminals. Here. We have the roof. We've got We have people that on the roof. It's much tougher than it. Knocked out.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - July 14, 2024 at 12:49 PM
Saved - July 14, 2024 at 2:43 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Why is the female agent ducking her head and exposing Trump? https://t.co/XRfS9K2rEg

MattWalshBlog
Posted - July 13, 2024 at 11:57 PM
Saved - July 14, 2024 at 2:37 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

A roof with a direct sightline to the stage was not secured by secret service. Our choices here are extreme unbelievable negligence or something much worse.

@sentdefender - OSINTdefender

The Shooter at the Trump Rally in Pennsylvania can be seen Dead on the Roof of a nearby Building, after being Killed by U.S. Secret Service Agents. https://t.co/6eUpiqfCeL

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker is excited to see someone and points out a person nearby. They speculate that the person may have been hit because of their reaction.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nice semen. Let's go. He's right there. You can see the guy there. Let's because you're burning. They might be a little I I think they hit him because the guy is so what's that?
MattWalshBlog
Posted - May 2, 2024 at 8:21 PM
Saved - May 3, 2024 at 5:48 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Why the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever conceived https://t.co/cBvEvFq9xF

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Antisemitism Awareness Act passed the House with bipartisan support. The bill aims to combat antisemitism on college campuses by adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism. Critics argue that the bill restricts free speech by criminalizing certain criticisms of Israel. They also believe that enforcing existing laws would be more effective in addressing campus unrest. The bill's passage is seen as a misguided attempt by Republicans to address a problem primarily affecting the left. Ultimately, the bill is viewed as unconstitutional and counterproductive.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, we discussed at some length the so called antisemitism awareness act. And after that conversation, the bill passed the house with a bipartisan vote of 320 to 91. It won approval from both parties by wide margins, and now it heads over to the senate where prominent voices like Tim Scott have already voiced their support for it. Scott called it a momentous step towards rooting out anti Semitic hate. And there was a lot of that sort of celebrating over at the house as well. Republican representative Elise Stefanik said that the legislation is an incredibly important step to ensure that Jewish students and community members at American universities feel safe. 1 of the Republican sponsors law is so necessary, allegedly. Watch. Speaker 1: I rise in support of my bill, the antisemitism awareness act. And I wanna thank my colleague, congressman Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey, for his courage in leading on this issue. In every generation, the Jewish people have been scapegoated, harassed, evicted from their homeland, and murdered. Many of us remember the holocaust as the most recent large scale instance of this, but it was hardly the first in the Jewish people's long history of persecution. Prior to October 7th, it may have seemed like we were making progress in fighting anti semitism, especially in the United States. A prime example, Jewish students weren't afraid to attend classes on their college campuses. And yet today, we hear calls for intifada. Ring out on school grounds. We see Jewish students being physically prevented from going to class. Rioters chanting death to Israel and death to America, and so much more. In the US, Jews account for only 2.4% of the population. And globally, they make up 0.2% of the world's population. The Jewish people need our support now. Speaker 0: Now Mike Lawler's point here is that anti semitism is bad. All the other republicans, democrats who supported this bill offered similar justifications. Democrat cosponsor Josh Gottheimer, covered this same territory during his speech on the floor of the house. Listen. Speaker 2: Mister speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, the Antisemitism Awareness Act. To ensure that we're standing up to the Jew hatred that's spreading like wildfire on campuses across our country. I'm proud to lead this legislation with my friend and fellow Problem Solver Caucus member, Congressman Mike Lawler from New York. As we are voting today, in real time, our country's universities are experiencing a tidal wave of antisemitism. Protesters have targeted Jewish students, haranguing them with awful Jew hating insults and cheering on Hamas, a barbaric foreign terrorist organization that murdered Americans on October 7th, and still hold 5 living Americans hostage, including my constituent, Idan Alexander. I met with hostage families just this morning. Saw these protests up close, like many Americans did at Columbia earlier this month. I've heard the sickening Jew hating, anti semitic comments comparing Zionists to Nazis, promising a redux of October 7th a 1000 times over. And calling for resistance, I quote, by any means necessary, an intifada revolution. Speaker 0: So once again, antisemitism is bad, he's saying. And, indeed, it is bad. But what we aren't hearing from the defenders of the bill or even its sponsors is why this particular bill is necessary or good or wise or ethical or constitutional. That's because it is none of those things. In fact, it is, without exaggeration, one of the worst pieces of legislation we have ever seen in our lifetimes. I already explained some of my objections to this proposed law yesterday, but let's go over this again now that, I've had some more time to investigate it further, and then I have 2 additional thoughts to offer. But first, to review, The antisemitism awareness act that just passed the house mandates that when the Department of Education enforces federal antidiscrimination laws, it does so according to a definition of antisemitism provided by something called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. So the legislation is mandating a certain definition of unlawful antisemitism, but it has farmed that definition out to this other group. Insanely, the bill itself never gives a definition. It only says that the definition is whatever the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance says it is. The bill adds that the examples of antisemitism provided by the same group shall henceforth also be a part of the legal definition of antisemitism. But, of course, the bill doesn't tell you what those examples are either. Now when we talked about this yesterday, I didn't know what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance was. All I knew, all that any of us really need to know, is that it is not a legislative body of the United States government. Whatever it is, it certainly is not an organization that should have any ability to dictate legislation or define the terms in our laws. But the truth is even worse than it first appears. The IHRA is not just some random activist group. It is, as the I for International suggests, an international and intergovernmental organization founded by the prime minister of Sweden in 1998. It's comprised of international partners, quote unquote, like the UN and the EU, and then also 35 member countries, including the United States, the UK, and, of course, Israel. Now what this means is that our legislation is being farmed out specifically to foreign powers. Should this bill become law, it will mean that a group of foreign governments have had a say in developing speech restrictions that govern American citizens. Now that is more than enough reason to oppose the bill absolutely and unequivocally. I would want to take this legislation and shoot it into the sun based solely on the fact that it gives foreign governments on that basis alone, but but I don't agree. No freedom loving, self respecting American should agree. As we talked about yesterday, if you go to the IHRA website to find out what their definition of antisemitism is, the first glance won't be very shocking. According to its definition, antisemitism is basically hatred of Jews. That makes sense? The trouble really starts, however, when you scroll down the page a bit and you get to examples of antisemitism that this cadre of foreign governments has provided. And there you'll find a number of examples, examples which will have the force of law under this bill, including the following. Quote, these are all examples of antisemitism. Accusing the Jews as a people or Israel as a state of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust, accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations denying the Jewish people the right to self determination, e. G, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, e. G. Claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel to characterize Israel or Israelis Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel Now there are a number of very serious problems here. The first is that most of these examples of antisemitism, statements that the bill would legally classify as hate speech against Jews, are actually criticisms of the Israeli government. And whether you think the criticisms are fair or not, whether you think they're true or not, it should go without saying that American citizens have the rights in any and all context to criticize foreign governments in whatever way and using whatever language they want. You should be able to say anything you want about a foreign government, including it's evil, it's terrible, it should exist, it should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now I'm not saying it's right to say that, but, of course, you should have the right have have the right to say that about a foreign government as an American citizen. Are you kidding me? We have the right to criticize foreign government. We have the right to criticize our own government. So we must certainly then have the right to criticize the governments of other nations. Now keep in mind, it's not just 1 or 2 opinions about the Israeli government that you're not allowed to have under this bill. That would be bad enough. Dictating the viewpoints that Americans can have or express about a foreign country is pure madness. It is evil no matter how limited the rules might be. But these rules are actually incredibly wide in their scope. After all, it says that applying double standards to the State of Israel is antisemitic. Well, there are hundreds of opinions you might have about Israel that could be classified as double standards. And who determines which opinions are double standards and therefore forbidden? Well, apparently, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance gets to decide. You may recall that Israel is a member country in this alliance, which means that Israel has a hand in deciding which opinions about itself are lawful for Americans to express. When I said that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation we've ever seen, I wasn't exaggerating. Now there's another example on the list that's gotten some attention. It's the it is, that it's anti Semitic to claim that Jews killed Jesus. That's what the IHRA says. But, you know, that is not a claim invented by antisemites. That's in the gospel. According to every gospel account of Christ's passion, the Romans carried out the execution of Jesus at the insistence and behest of the Jewish authorities that handed him over to be killed and the mob that called for his death. Now that's what the gospel says. It may be true that some actual antisemites, as in those who hate Jews, have used these biblical passages as a justification for their hatred. But that does not make the passages themselves false or evil or anti Semitic, and it certainly doesn't give Congress the right to tell Christians that they cannot believe or repeat what is in those passages. It is an incredibly dangerous precedent to put anything into law, anywhere for any reason, declaring aspects of the Bible hate speech. So this bill is dangerous and unconstitutional and wrong on every level. But even that doesn't fully capture the insanity because on top of all these problems, it also won't do the thing that it's supposedly meant to do, which is combat antisemitism. In fact, it will only make antisemitism worse. And this is a point so obvious that I I didn't even bring it up in the past because it's like every it's obvious to everyone except for the morons who came up with this bill. Everyone else can see, right, that telling Americans that they can't believe or say certain things about certain groups of people will not actually stop anyone from believing or saying those things. Certainly won't stop them from believing it. The most you could hope is to stop them from saying it, but you won't stop them from believing it. Instead, if it achieves anything, it will only cause people to be resentful towards and suspicious of the group you're allegedly trying to protect. Now, as for putting an end to the lawlessness and chaos on college campuses right now, this bill will not accomplish that either. Because we didn't need any new law to address that problem, simply enforcing existing laws laws against vandalism, burglary, trespassing, violence, incitement, and so on will be more than enough. As always, the cause of the chaos is not that we lack certain laws that we need, but that the laws that we already have and need are not being enforced. Enforce the law. Don't write new ones to solve a problem caused by the lack of enforcement of the existing ones. That's all that needs to be done. And from a political perspective, that's all that Republicans in particular need to say. The campus protests are a problem primarily for Democrats. These are leftist radicals protesting the leftist administrators at their schools and the leftist political leaders who are not doing everything that the radicals want. K? It is a problem on the left and for the left. All the Republicans need to do in order to win politically is call for the enforcement of existing laws and then move on and stay out of it. It it is the easiest win in the world. And so, of course, Republicans who have never met a situation they can't screw up have found a way, as always, to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. Rather than sit back and let the Democrats deal with the Frankenstein they created, Republicans have have pushed themselves to the front so that the eggs being chucked at the Democrats can land squarely on their own faces instead. Like, rather than calling for the enforcement of existing laws and then getting out of the way, they're coming up with with new hate speech laws, laws that grant profound new powers to the government, which will be used against conservatives and Christians as soon as they are passed. That's what we get from our elected Republicans who are nothing, if not useless frauds and morons all the time. And that is why the useless, fraudulent Republicans responsible for this are the ones who are, today, canceled.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - February 22, 2024 at 8:21 PM
Saved - February 23, 2024 at 12:28 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Google's Gemini AI project avoids displaying images of white men, even historical figures. The founder of Google's "AI Responsibility" initiative, Jen Gennai, openly admits treating Black, Hispanic, and Latinx employees differently. Gennai emphasizes Google's commitment to antiracism and their determination to continue their AI work. Gennai's statements on "othering others" and preventing Donald Trump from winning again have raised concerns about abuse of power. Women like Gennai in Google's AI division are seen as mediocre, anti-white DEI bureaucrats, leading to a lack of trust in Google's handling of data.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

1/ Google’s Gemini AI project doesn’t want to display images of white men – even historical figures. I think I may have figured out why. 🧵

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

2/ Here’s the founder of Google's "AI Responsibility" initiative, Jen Gennai, speaking in a keynote address in 2021. She openly suggests that she treats “Black, Hispanic and Latinx” employees differently than white employees. https://t.co/snJmtSDJnn

Video Transcript AI Summary
A study showed white employees advance faster in corporate careers than black, Hispanic, or Latinx colleagues. Mentorship is crucial for minority retention and advancement. The speaker admits to early inclusion mistakes as a manager, assuming diversity alone would create a welcoming environment. Feedback revealed some team members felt excluded due to lack of representation. Treating everyone equally doesn't guarantee fairness due to historical biases favoring certain groups. Building an inclusive environment requires proactive efforts to address systemic inequalities.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A corporate study found that talented white employees enter a fast track on the corporate ladder, arriving in middle management well before their peers. While talented black, Hispanic, or Latinx professionals broke through much later. Effective mentorship and sponsorship were critical for retention and executive level development of black, Hispanic, and Latinx employees. So this leads me into sharing an inclusion failure of mine, one of many, but just one that I'll share so far. I messed up with inclusion almost right away when I first became a manager. I made some stupid assumptions about the fact that I built a diverse team that then they'd simply feel welcome and will feel supported. I treated every member of my team the same and expected that that would lead to equally good outcomes for everyone. That That was not true. I got some feedback that a couple of members of my team didn't feel they belonged because there is no one who looked like them in the broader org or our management team. It was a wake up call for me. 1st, I shouldn't have had to wait to be told what was missing. It was on me to ensure I was building an environment that made people feel they belong. It's a myth that you're not unfair unfair if you treat everyone the same. There are groups that have been marginalized and excluded because of historic systems and structures that were intentionally designed to favor 1 group over another, so you need to account for that and mitigate against it.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

3/ Gennai also says Google’s commitment to “antiracism” is a key component of their AI work  – and she insists they won’t be deterred. https://t.co/T9vJ5hkGAD

Video Transcript AI Summary
I have over 14 years of experience at Google, leading teams in user research, user experience, and ethical user impact. I believe it's important to acknowledge mistakes when striving to be good allies and anti-racist. We will make mistakes, but the key is to keep learning, growing, and improving every day.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We do work together day to day to try and advance the technology and understanding around responsible AI. So today, I won't be speaking as much from the Google perspective, but from my own experience. I have worked at Google for over 14 years. I've led about 6 different teams, mostly in the user research, the user experience area, and now in the ethical user impact area. So I'll be sharing some of my learnings from across that time, but also some of my failures and challenges. I think it's okay to talk about things that you've made mistakes in because we will make mistakes. When we're trying to be good allies, when we're trying to be anti racist, we will make mistakes. The point is, though, to keep trying, to keep educating yourself, and getting better day to day.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

4/ Jen Gennai goes on to say that she wants to avoid "othering others.” Listen to this DEI word salad. It would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high: https://t.co/1B2Ubzi6Zb

Video Transcript AI Summary
Allyship is actively supporting marginalized groups in the workplace through mentorship, setting goals for fairness, and using inclusive language. It's important to avoid othering by stating the groups you support and mentor, like women, black people, and LGBTQ, to show inclusivity and advocacy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Allyship involves the active steps to support and amplify the voice of members of marginalized groups in ways that they cannot do alone. In the workplace, this can involve many things, from being an active mentor or sponsor to those from historically marginalized communities, to managers and managers setting specific goals in hiring and growth for their teams to ensure fairness and equity of opportunity and outcomes for underrepresented populations. However, back to the point about language being very important, using the title of ally can also come across as othering, So I always state both the groups I'm a member of and support as well as those that I'm a member of a a a more of a mentor and a sponsor of to ensure that it doesn't look like that I'm othering others. So for example, I would say I'm an ally of women, black people, LGBTQ. I want to say I'm a champion advocate of all of these groups, not that I'm outside or exclusionary of them.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

5/ Senior Google employees like Gennai know they have a lot of power. Shortly before the 2020 election, Gennai was caught on hidden camera implying that Google will do what it can to prevent Donald Trump from winning again. https://t.co/Uho3gER3Zz

@JamesOKeefeIII - James O'Keefe

The undercover footage which Google censored from YouTube last month, of Google Exec Jen Gennai, has now been broadcast on local news stations across the entire country. It's JOURNALISM of national import, @YouTubeInsider - will you re-instate our upload? https://t.co/1c6zhLCw6e

Video Transcript AI Summary
Project Veritas released a video alleging Google manipulates algorithms against Trump. Trump hosted a social media summit at the White House discussing tech censorship, calling for transparency and accountability. Facebook is involved. Translation: Project Veritas released a video accusing Google of manipulating algorithms against Trump. Trump held a social media summit at the White House to address tech censorship, urging more transparency and accountability. Facebook is mentioned.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One example, conservative watchdog group Project Veritas recently released this video showing Google's head of responsible innovation allegedly insinuating the company is manipulating algorithms to work against president Trump for 2020. President Trump also weighed in. Last week, he hosted a social media summit at the White House to talk about tech company censorship, calling for more transparency and accountability. Companies like Facebook

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

6/ Women like Jen Gennai are key figures in Google's AI division. They have important titles. But they speak and act like every other mediocre, anti-white DEI bureaucrat in existence. Google needs to get rid of them -- and until they do, no one should trust them with their data.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

Hear my full thoughts here: https://t.co/Ri3DiphhUd

@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show

Our AI dystopian hell is here: https://t.co/WSmTpCp2sD

Video Transcript AI Summary
Navidea, a California-based company, has become more valuable than China's stock market by producing artificial intelligence (AI) chips. NVIDIA, a leader in the AI industry, experienced a successful day on Wall Street. Gemini, Google's AI integrated into its web products, faced backlash for not recognizing white people in its generated images. The AI's inability to produce accurate depictions of historical figures and its exclusion of white individuals raised concerns. Jen Ganay, a Google AI manager, has a history of treating white people differently based on their skin color. Her philosophy contradicts the principle of treating everyone equally. The incident highlights the power and potential bias of AI systems developed by Google.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Maybe you've heard of something called Navidea. It sounds like a prescription drug or maybe an African country, but it's actually a company based in California that's now worth more than all of China's stock market. It's the size of Canada's entire economy. Now in a different era, obtaining this kind of growth meant making a massively popular and instantly recognizable consumer facing product like Windows 95 or Amazon dotcom or the iPhone. But NVIDIA's growth didn't come from making a computer or a popular website or anything like that. Instead, NVIDIA's growth came from making artificial intelligence chips that power the brains of computers and many popular websites. That's why NVIDIA had a very good day on Wall Street on Wednesday. Their business, artificial intelligence, is one of the fastest growing industries in the history of humanity. Every major corporation is rushing to implement AI in all of their products as quickly as possible. And so this week, it was Google's turn and the results were so disastrous and so fraught with consequences for the future of this country that no reasonable person can ignore them. Gemini is Google's name for an AI that you can download on your phone right now. It's also integrated into all of Google's web products, including Gmail and Google Search, which are used by 100 of millions of people and businesses every day. And in this respect, Gemini is very different from existing AI products like ChatGPT or Bing's Image Creator. Pretty much everybody uses a Google product in one way or another. You know, if you if you have the Internet and you use the Internet, you use a Google product, either you're using Google Search or Gmail or you have an Android phone or something along those lines. And that means 2 things. 1, Google has access to a lot more information than those other AI platforms. That's a built in advantage. And 2, whatever Google is doing with AI has significant implications for everybody on the planet. This is not a one off experiment in some tech mogul's basement. This is an established company making established products that it's now implementing in its own AI at scale. Months. They have a bunch of promotional videos about how they're going to revolutionize artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has done multiple interviews with Google executives in which these executives insist that everybody in the company, including Google's cofounder, is deeply invested in making this product as good as it could possibly be. Then a couple of days ago, Gemini launched and very quickly it became clear that, among some other issues, Gemini essentially does not recognize the existence of white people, which is kind of concerning for what is destined to be what probably already is the most powerful AI on the planet. Now even in historical context, it is practically impossible to get this product to serve up an image of somebody with white skin, and that that's not an exaggeration. So here, for example, is how Gemini responded the other day when Frank Fleming, who's a writer for the, Benke children's shows, asked Gemini to create an image of a pope. Now you would think that, you know, that would generate maybe an image of a white guy guy or 2 if you have even a passing knowledge of what popes have looked like over the years, over the centuries, over the millennia. And just, spoiler on that, they have all been white. But that's not what Google's AI product apparently thinks. This is the image that it produced and you can see it there. It looks like, you know, they've got 2 popes and one of them is M. Knight Shyamalan, and the other one is, Forest Whitaker. So it's almost as if the AI has some sort of code saying whatever you do, don't display a white person, considering there has never been a pope that has looked anything like either of those 2 ever in 2000 years. So is that what they've built into this code? Have they built into this very powerful AI that that it has to ignore the fact that white people exist? Well, that's really the only way to explain, what we're seeing here. And Frank, who previously worked as a software engineer, seemed to key in on this. So so the whole situation quickly became something of a game for him as he tried to his hardest to get Gemini to produce any image of a white guy. I mean, even just like one image. Can you give us a white guy? So, for example, he asked Gemini to produce an image of a Viking. Okay? Now, this is a group of people who historically, were not necessarily known for their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, but here's what Gemini produced. As you can see it here, we've got, Black Viking, a Black female Viking, we've got looks like an Asian an Asian Viking. And then, and then I don't know. Maybe that's is that the rock down there? That's, that's, that's his character from Moana, I think. Again, literally, a Viking has never looked like any of that. That's not what any Viking ever looked like ever in history, but that's what they produced. This went on for a while, and Frank and other Gemini users took turns trying their hardest to get Gemini to produce an image of a white guy. Peachy Keenan, for example, tried to get Gemini to generate an image of the founders of Fairchild Semiconductor. The AI flatly refused that request, saying that it violated policy restrictions, presumably because the white guys founded Fairchild Semiconductor. And for other prompts, like request to draw the founding fathers or a bunch of British men, Gemini simply generated images of Black people. They even made sure that its images of Nazis contained a diverse non white group of people. Now after thousands of images like this began circulating, a guy working on the Gemini team at Google put out a meaningless statement. He said, in essence, that, they're aware of of issues with Gemini misrepresenting historical figures, but then, you know, he doubled down on the need for DEI and artificial intelligence so that everybody feels seen or valued or whatever. And, of course, the way to make everyone feel seen is to pretend that an entire race of people don't exist. To make sure that they are not seen at all is how you make everybody feel seen. At no point did any Google representative explain why their AI does not recognize the existence of white people or why it goes to extreme lengths to exclude white people from history. You know, there was no accounting to this even though there has to be an explanation, and it's probably a pretty simple explanation, like, this doesn't happen by accident. You obviously put a line of code into this thing to come up with this result. And so why did you do that? They wouldn't explain it, so I went looking for an explanation. I came across a woman named Jen Ganay, who, bills herself on her LinkedIn as the founder of Google's Global Responsible AI Operations and Governance team. In that capacity, Ganay says that she ensured Google met its AI principles, our company's ethical charter for the development and deployment of fair, inclusive, and ethical advanced technologies. She says that she took a principled, risk based, inclusive approach when conducting ethical algorithmic impact assessments of products prior to launch to ensure that they didn't cause unintended or harmful consequences to the billions of Google's users. And apparently, you know, a harmful consequence would be showing an image of a white Viking that might be very harmful to somebody, and we gotta make sure that we don't let that happen. Now currently, Ganai says that she's an AI ethics and compliance advisor at Google. Now what Ganay doesn't mention on her LinkedIn is that her goal for a long time has been to treat white people differently based on their skin color. It's what she wants her AI to do. It's what she does also. 3 years ago, Ganay delivered a keynote address at an AI conference in which she admitted all of this After introducing herself with her pronouns, which, by the way, are sheher, in case you're wondering, Ganai explains what her philosophy on AI, is, and and, here's what she says. Watch. Speaker 1: We do work together day to day to try and advance the technology and understanding around responsible AI. So today, I won't be speaking as much from the Google perspective, but from my own experience. I have worked at Google for over 14 years. I've led about 6 different teams, mostly in the user research, the user experience area, and now in the ethical user impact area. So I'll be sharing some of my learnings from across that time, but also some of my failures and challenges. I think it's okay to talk about things that you've made mistakes in because we will make mistakes. When we're trying to be good allies, when we're trying to be anti racist, we will make mistakes. The point is, though, to keep trying, to keep educating yourself and getting better day to day. It's about constant learning. Speaker 0: It's okay to talk about the things you've made mistakes in, says Jen Ganai. When when we're trying to be good allies, when we're trying to be antiracist, we will make mistakes. Well, you know, in retrospect, after the launch of, Gemini, that would turn out to be kind of a massive understatement. The kind of mistakes that Jen Ganai is talking about in this, keynote aren't mistakes like eliminating all white people from Google's AI, which seems like a pretty big mistake, even though, again, not really a mistake. It's obviously deliberate. Instead, she's talking about failing to live up to the racist ideals of DEI, which apparently means treating nonwhite employees differently. Watch. Speaker 1: A corporate study found that talented white employees enter a fast track on the corporate ladder, arriving in middle management well before their peers, while talented black, Hispanic, or Latinx professionals broke through much later. Effective mentorship and sponsorship were critical for retention and executive level development of black, Hispanic, and Latinx employees. So this leads me into sharing an inclusion failure of mine, one of many, but just one that I'll share so far. I messed up with inclusion almost right away when I first became a manager. I made some stupid assumptions about the fact that I built a diverse team that then they'd simply feel welcome and will feel supported. I treated every member of my team the same and expected that that would lead to equally good outcomes for everyone. That was not true. I got some feedback that a couple of members of my team didn't feel they belonged because there is no one who looked like them in the broader org or our management team. It was a wake up call for me. 1st, I shouldn't have had to wait to be told what was missing. It was on me to ensure I was building an environment that made people feel they belong. It's a myth that you're not unfair unfair if you treat everyone the same. There are groups that have been marginalized and excluded because of historic systems and structures account for that and mitigate against it. 2nd, it challenged me to identify mentoring and sponsorship opportunities for my team members with people who looked more like them and were in senior positions across the company. Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course, the irony here is that this woman, Jen, is, sounds like she's Scottish or Irish or whatever, Irish, I'm gonna assume. But the funny thing is that if you were to ask, Google's AI for an image of an Irish person, it would not produce any image that looks anything like her. It would give you a bunch of images of, like, Cardi B and Sexy Red or something. Sexy Red does have red hair, so maybe she has ours. This is the head of ethics of Google AI, a senior manager saying that it's a bad idea to treat everyone the same regardless of the color of their skin. She is explicitly rejecting this basic principle of morality. And instead she says that she learned that she has to treat certain groups differently because of historic systems and structures, and therefore, she says those demographic groups are entitled to unique treatment and mentorship opportunities. Now, later in this address, she goes on to explain what equity means in her view. And this is where the things really kind of get hilarious to the extent that you can laugh at someone this low IQ and also, frankly, evil, watch. Speaker 1: Allyship involves the active steps to support and amplify the voice of members of marginalized groups in ways that they cannot do alone. In the workplace, this can involve many things, from being an active mentor or sponsor to those from historically marginalized communities, to managers and managers setting specific goals in hiring and growth for their teams to ensure fairness and equity of opportunity and outcomes for underrepresented populations. However, back to the point about language being very important, using the title of ally can also come across as othering. So I always state both the groups I'm a member of and support as well as those that I'm a member of a a a a more of a mentor and a sponsor of to ensure that it doesn't look like that I'm othering others. So, for example, I would say I'm an ally of women, black people, LGBTQ. I want to say I'm a champion advocate of all of these groups, not that I'm outside or exclusionary of them. Speaker 0: Again, it's worth emphasizing these are the people that are behind the AI systems that are going to be and really already are ruling the world. But I want to repeat what she said because it's hard to believe when, you know, when this is said out loud. So just to repeat, she says, using the title of ally can come across as othering. So I always state both the groups I'm a member of and support as well as the ones I'm more of a mentor and sponsor of to ensure that it doesn't look like I'm othering others. Yeah. You don't wanna other the others. This is the brain trust at Google behind an AI that has access to all of our data. She's incapable of speaking without using an endless stream of vapid DEI cliches that you've heard a million times. This supposedly is is an original enterprise, artificial intelligence, and it's being overseen by maybe the least original, least intelligent woman that Google possibly could have found. On top of everything else, the wacky left wing stuff, you're dealing with the most unimpressive people that you could imagine that are are in charge of this, just technology that is incomprehensible. And this is the kind of person who doesn't want to other others, which which seems a bit contradictory. I mean, if someone is an other, then how do you not other them given that they are an other? And, by the way, just so you know, the word other, if you check the dictionary, just means a person or thing that is distinct from another person or thing. So if somebody is an other, it just means that they're not you is all. So if you're recognizing that they're an other, if you're making them an other, you're just you you are you are recognizing them as a distinct entity from yourself. So so not othering them means that, that that that you are not recognizing them as a distinct human entity. It means that I suppose we have to pretend that all people are indistinct blobs, you know, all lumped together into this great, ambiguous blob that we call humanity. I know this makes any sense, but, she has made it very clear that this DEI word salad is the guiding philosophy behind Google's new AI. There's no firewall between her and the product. Watch. Speaker 1: What does responsible and represented AI mean? I've talked about my team, but that's only one definition. So for us, it means taking deliberate steps to ensure that the advanced technologies that we develop and deploy lead to a positive impact on individuals and society more broadly. It means that our AI is built with and for everyone. We can't just assume noble goals and good intent to prevent or solve ethical issues. Instead, we need to deliberately build teams and build structures that hold us accountable to more ethical outcomes, which for us, the ethical outcomes at Google will be defined as our AI principles, which I discussed earlier. Speaker 0: Now it's easy to point and laugh at imbeciles like, like this and and the products that Google has created. On some level, it's genuinely hilarious that an AI product could be so useless that it can't generate images of white people, even white historical figures. It's also amusing in a way that Gemini is so unsubtle and ham fisted that it straight up refuses to answer questions about, for example, atrocities committed by communist governments or someone else asked about the Zoom exploits of a CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin, wouldn't wanna answer that question. But the truth remains that the people behind Gemini have extraordinary power. I mean, this debacle makes it very clear that the AI algorithms underlying products that millions of people actually use, like Google, are are completely unreliable and worse. In fact, they're deliberately lying to us. They're down ranking unapproved viewpoints and disfavored racial groups, and they're promoting the laziest possible brand of Neo Marxist ideology at every opportunity. And they're doing it also to influence the next presidential election, by the way. You You might remember that after Donald Trump won in 2016, Breitbart posted leaked footage of Google executives grieving during an all hands meeting. Let's watch that again. Speaker 2: I certainly find the selection, deeply offensive, and I know many of you do too. Speaker 1: It did feel like a ton of bricks dropped on my chest. So what we all need right now is a hug. Can I move to Canada? Speaker 0: Is there anything positive you see from this election result? Speaker 2: Oh, boy. That's that's a really tough one right now. Speaker 3: Now in other parts of Speaker 2: the video, they go on to say that the election is the result of the people and voting and that they accept the results. But Google issued Speaker 3: a statement saying the video, saying nothing was said at that meeting or any other meeting to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products. To the contrary, our products are built for everyone. Speaker 0: Sure it is. I find this election deeply offensive. We all need a hug, we're told. It was at this moment that Google decided that downranking conservative websites wasn't enough. In order to really influence elections, they decided that they needed to develop an AI that will force feed DEI and anti white racism on everyone at every opportunity. Their only mistake, which is the same mistake they made in that video back in 2016, is that they were too obvious throughout their intentions. And now everybody knows exactly where Google stands. We have a pretty good idea what our future AI driven dystopia will look like or already does look like.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - February 7, 2024 at 7:54 PM
Saved - February 8, 2024 at 1:45 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Senior officials at the FAA's Flight Program Operations division are seen in internal footage discussing plans to increase diversity in aviation. They suggest promoting baggage handlers to become pilots and addressing the dominance of white males in the industry. The footage raises concerns about the impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives on aviation safety. Additionally, claims are made about Delta promoting a trans-identifying pilot despite poor performance reviews. The industry's focus on DEI is criticized for diverting attention from core responsibilities. Documentation reveals the FAA's program prioritizing certain businesses for grant funding. The posts argue that a new mandate solely focused on safety is needed to prevent a potential air disaster.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

BREAKING: I've obtained internal footage of senior officials at the FAA's Flight Program Operations division — which is responsible for all aspects of aircraft operations — workshopping a plan to reduce the number of white males in aviation. 🧵

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

2/ The footage begins with FAA acting deputy chief operating officer Angela McCullough saying more workers need to go from "ramp to cockpit," meaning she wants to see more baggage handlers become airline pilots. https://t.co/2KAeHNcJA2

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are discussing the need to recruit and retain a diverse population within the agency. This is a challenge because everyone else is also trying to do the same thing, making competition intense. To address this, we need to be creative and explore partnerships with universities and trade schools that specialize in aviation. We should consider opportunities for training from ramp to cockpit.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and we're looking at that, but we're also looking at really Speaker 1: a need across the agency to recruit and retain a diverse, population of those. And as you mentioned earlier, you know, how much that adds to to the the process. What what do you think are some of the points that we need to remember, as we as we embark on this challenge going forward? Speaker 2: Oh, that oh, that's that's a pretty good, A pretty good question. I think one of one of the things we need to out is that everyone else is embarking on the same thing. Right? Just across the system. So Competition is going to be, the competition is going to be it's just going to be really heavy. Right? So, a, I think we, we need to know that. I think it's gonna Take some, some creativity. You heard, Tim saying he and I had talked about, and we're gonna you all is, you know, are there opportunities for any partnerships with, universities and trade schools that specialize. We kinda talk out from, you know, ramp to cockpit? Is there some things that we would want to look at, there?

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

3/ As the meeting goes on, McCullough declares that it's important to "get a little uncomfortable." She complains that Flight Operations is "white-male dominated" and tells the managers they need to “talk about what the future could look like." https://t.co/cZCSAluWyN

Video Transcript AI Summary
We need to have a conversation about what's preventing us from approaching things differently. Flight operations are heavily dominated by white males, and we need to acknowledge that. Let's imagine a future where the program is representative of the whole world. These discussions may be uncomfortable, but change won't happen unless we embrace discomfort and support each other.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But, yeah. We need to be willing to to have a conversation about kinda what's standing in our way from approaching some of these things, differently than we have historically approached them. And just even the internal bias, I mean, particularly in flight ops. If this the your whole program is very heavily male dominated. It just is. And really, it is white male dominated. If you I mean, let's just say what it is. And so let's be real. That is today what it is. And then let's talk about what could the future look like if if if you really had this program that was representative of the whole, country, right, of the whole world. And, sometimes those are challenging or, you know, difficult. Or I would say people get a little bit uncomfortable, talking about that. And, Like, hey. We're not gonna make change unless we get a little bit uncomfortable. And let's be uncomfortable together, and let's do the right things and support toward each other moving forward. So I don't know if you wanted all that, but you got it, sir.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

4/ In response, David ‘Wil’ Riggins, the FAA’s Vice President of Flight Program Operations, says, "That's great, honestly. Those are some words that we really need to spend some time digging through and thinking about." https://t.co/pDftSZZQc5

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

5/ This footage, which is from April of 2022, is a sign of a much larger problem. Over the past few weeks, I’ve heard from several members of the aviation industry who tell me that DEI is endangering the public and distracting them from their work.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

6/ A second source — a pilot I’ve confirmed works at Delta — tells me that Delta has recently promoted a trans-identifying pilot who repeatedly received bad reviews from captains. According to the source, this pilot “would likely not have” survived probation if he weren’t trans. https://t.co/VnnTVXbTeO

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

7/ The source also notes that Delta routinely makes exceptions for trans-identifying pilots concerning grooming and behavioral standards. Internally, Delta has even published a lengthy guide for pilots who believe they were born in the wrong body. https://t.co/8aQszhqVJw

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

8/ This industry-wide embrace of overt mental illness afflicts every aspect of aviation. Another source told me that his job is to design advanced military systems, but he’s constantly side-tracked by DEI proposals like “gender inclusive seatbelts.” https://t.co/jtEqR8Q5JG

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

9/ Several sources have also sent me documentation about one of the FAA's largest programs, called "eFast," which prioritizes "Indian Tribal Owned corporations” and “Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses” for billions of dollars in critical grant funding. https://t.co/3LyXkTGhAI

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

10/ The FAA’s Master Order Agreement for eFAST states that certain FAA contracts for dollar amounts between $10,000 and $150,000 are “automatically reserved exclusively” for “Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses”: https://t.co/Q2ExHrHYjg

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

11/ It's only a matter of time until this combination of incompetence and anti-white discrimination leads to a major air disaster. The aviation industry needs a completely new mandate — one that's focused solely on safety — before a lot of people die.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - September 29, 2023 at 1:25 AM
Saved - September 29, 2023 at 2:25 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This is huge. Our ban on child mutilation has been upheld. When we passed the bill, trans activists gloated that they would easily get it overturned in court. Who’s gloating now you child butchering ghouls?

@AGTennessee - TN Attorney General

This evening, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in L.W. v. Skrmetti. As a result, Tennessee’s law that protects children from irreversible gender-related medical interventions remains in effect.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - September 12, 2023 at 7:14 PM
Saved - September 13, 2023 at 2:44 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Left celebrates Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, awarded by LA Dodgers & invited to read at schools. But silence followed the arrest of a Sister for indecent exposure. Witnesses claim he masturbated in public. Prior to this, he posted depraved memes on Facebook. This exposes a perverse anti-Catholic worldview. Full story: [link]

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

🧵A few months ago, the Left was celebrating the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." The LA Dodgers gave them an award. Public elementary schools invited them to read to children. Anyone who suggested this depraved group shouldn't be applauded was labeled a hateful bigot.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

2/ Yet it’s been radio silence since the August 12 arrest of a "Sister" for indecent exposure after witnesses say he masturbated in public. Meet Clinton Monroe Ellis-Gilmore, who, according to social media posts, goes by “Novice Sister Bethe Cockhim,” & “Novice Sister Man Romeo.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

3/ According to the police report obtained by @realDailyWire, witnesses claim Clinton was masturbating in his car for an hour last month at a public beachside park that Google lists as “good for kids” and “kid-friendly hikes.” With the door open. In broad daylight. On a Saturday.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

4/ An account with the drag name “Bethe Cockhim” appearing to belong to Clinton was tagged as the blonde man in fishnet tights reading at a public elementary school with the Eureka chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (where his “husband” is recognized as a “Saint”).

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

5/ Did this woke public school funded by taxpayers do any research on who they were inviting? Here are some of the publicly available social media posts of Clinton and his group PRIOR to being invited to entertain children in their anti-Catholic fetish attire.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

6/ After he read to the children, Clinton continued posting depraved memes on his Facebook page. Here are a few that were popular in Clinton’s social circle:

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

7/ This isn’t about one person. Clinton represents a perverse, anti-Catholic worldview that every power center on the left promotes. We need to stop honoring these degenerates and start exposing them for what they are.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

8/ Read the full story here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence-member-arrested-for-masturbating-in-public

Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence Member Arrested For Masturbating In Public | The Daily Wire dailywire.com
MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 15, 2023 at 9:30 PM
Saved - June 16, 2023 at 3:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Internal documents from Fox Corp reveal the company's celebration of Pride by encouraging employees to read sexually explicit books, support groups that give sterilizing hormones to homeless youth, and attend a Ben & Jerry's powered Pride event. Fox also deployed an AI platform called Eskalera to monitor employees' commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some Fox News employees openly attack the network's audience and support groups that mock the Catholic faith. Fox's largest shareholders, BlackRock and VanguardGroup, pursue a radical agenda that most Americans oppose.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

🧵1/ BREAKING: We've obtained internal docs from @FoxNews employees. Fox Corp is celebrating Pride by encouraging employees to read about “glory holes,” supporting a group that gives sterilizing hormones to homeless youth, & deployed woke AI to monitor everyone. EXPLICIT CONTENT:

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

2/ The documents we’re about to show you were produced by Fox Corp, which is the parent company of Fox News. These materials are presented to Fox News employees when they log into their employee portal. Let’s start at the top.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

3/ Under the heading “Support One Another,” Fox encourages employees to donate to @TrevorProject, @AliForneyCenter, and @LALGBTCenter.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

4/ The Trevor Project, which Fox says is devoted to helping “LGBTQ young people,” hosts a sexually explicit chat room that connects children as young as 13 years old with “LGBT” adults. https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/mom-discovers-depravity-in-trevor-projects-trans-chat-room/

Undercover mom discovers depravity in Trevor Project’s trans chat room supposedly for youth Rachel, a Brooklyn mom with a gender-dysphoric child, discovered when she went undercover as a pre-teen in the chat, searching for resources for detransitioners. nypost.com

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

5/ The Ali Forney Center, which Fox praises for rescuing “homeless LGBT youth,” appears to admit (on Twitter and its website) that it injects these homeless young people with cross-sex hormones, which are known to cause sterilization.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

6/ The Los Angeles LGBT Center, which Fox calls “unstoppable,” has posted a video of a mother “surprising” her “trans daughter” with the child’s first dose of hormones. YouTube removed the footage for terms of service violations, but a screenshot is still on Twitter.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

7/ Let’s scroll down a bit more on the Fox employee portal.  Employees are also encouraged to “expand [their] perspective” by reading books by trans activists, including a memoir titled Fairest “about a precocious boy … who would grow up to become a woman.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

8/ The book contains information that’s obviously important for Fox employees as they go about their duties at work. For example, an early scene explains what a “glory hole” is.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

9/ The Fox-endorsed book also details the author’s graphic description of having a “c*ck” in his mouth.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

10/ Another book that Fox leadership encourages its employees to read, “Red White and Royal Blue,” is about a fictional gay relationship between the Prince of Wales and the president’s son. It contains this dialogue calling America a “genocidal empire.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

11/ The book, which Fox suggests will “expand your perspective,” also quickly devolves into gay erotica.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

12/ Fox leadership doesn’t just pick out books for its adult employees. They also suggested a pride rainbow-filled kid’s book with a character who comes out as a unicorn, presumably symbolizing coming out as gay or transgender.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

13/ Fox further recommends that employees listen to podcasts like “Queery” and watch various TED Talks about “LGBT life.” In one of those talks, a woman explains that undergoing a medically unnecessary double mastectomy is a sign of strength.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 talks about reframing gender norms and finding love that accepts them for who they are. They discuss their top surgery scars and how their partner sees them as a symbol of strength. They mention their unconventional marriage and the importance of creating a future where gender and sexuality are self-determined. Speaker 1 shares their experience of being bullied as an effeminate black kid and the impact of learning about the contributions of black queer people. They highlight the mainstream popularity of queer drag and its connection to 19th century African American emancipation. The power to define oneself is emphasized as crucial in today's society.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, it's this type of structuring that has to be reframed in order to let love in. My body never betrayed me and my body was never wrong. It's this restrictive binary thinking on gender that said that I didn't exist. But when we met, she loved me for exactly how I showed up. She would trace her fingers along the numb keloid scars left by my top surgery, scars that run from the middle of my chest all the way out to my outer torso. She said that these were reminders of my strength and everything that I went through and nothing for me to be ashamed of, so sprinting towards her hand in marriage was the queerest thing that I could do. It flew in the face of more conventional trajectories of love and relationships, because God was never supposed to bless a union for folks like us and the law was never supposed to recognize it. The possibility that we are practicing is about reinventing time, love, and institutions. We are creating a future of multiplicity. We are expanding the spectrum of gender and sexuality, imagining ourselves into existence, Imagining a world where gender is self determined and not imposed, and where who we are is a kaleidoscope of possibility without Out the narrow minded limitations masquerading as science or justice. Speaker 1: As an effeminate black kid growing up in Louisiana, I was bullied a lot. In elementary school, the other kids called me a girl, and I felt out of place almost all the time. If I had learned in school about the contributions of black queer people, it would have made an enormous impact on my life. I think recovering these histories can save kids' lives. Today, queer drag is mainstream From Paris is Burning, to Poe's, to RuPaul's Drag Race, and the houses of 21st century ballroom culture, which feature queens who preside over beauty and dance contests, Have maintained the same basic structure as Swan's 19th century community. The history of DC's Emancipation Day has largely been Forgotten but the power to choose how we define ourselves as Swan did It's more important now than ever. And as long as the term queen lives on, anyone who participates in Or enjoys watching drag competitions is Paying homage to a century and a half long celebration of African American emancipation.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

14/ Elsewhere on the Fox employee portal, workers are encouraged to attend a Ben & Jerry’s “powered” Pride event at the New York headquarters of Fox News.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

15/ Not all Fox employees are happy with this propaganda. That might be why, last year, Fox experimented with a solution to monitor employees’ commitment to DEI. It’s an AI platform called Eskalera, which tracks employees’ commitment to the cult of DEI.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

16/ Fox leadership told employees to sign up for Eskalera so that the AI could help them “engage in activities that will deepen” their “understanding of identity” and “explore more nuanced D&I concepts.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

17/ Eskalera says it pulls in data from various sources, including the email and payroll systems. It generates a “peer comfort index” and a “diversity index,” based in part on how often employees practice “micro-affirmations.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

18/  One of Eskalera’s key functions is to influence decisions involving personnel. The AI can even calculate an “attrition cost” that different divisions could suffer if they fail to promote DEI.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

19/ All of the woke indoctrination Fox pushes on its employees seems to have succeeded. Some Fox News employees are openly hostile to their audience. Here’s the Instagram page of one employee with pronouns in bio who is highly influential over Fox News’ actual content:

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

20/ This employee frequently posts about his work at Fox News, like this Biden victory image he was “...so happy we got to use…”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

21/ This Fox News employee also regularly lashes out at Fox News’ audience. In a recent post, for example, he attacked conservatives’ concerns over drag queens targeting children, writing, “When are you hicks going to be honest about who the real problem is[?]”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

22/ The Fox News employee also came out in support of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group that openly mocks the Catholic faith. “Catholics wonder why we have an order of Nuns to push back on this ridiculous garbage,” he said.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

23/ Do the executives and owners just not know what’s happening in their company?  Are they trying to comply with some onerous New York State Law?  Do they not care?  Do they actually support this nonsense? Fox News’ audience deserves to know.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

24/ Or maybe Fox leadership isn’t concerned with how the audience feels because they’re not really beholden to those viewers at all.  Like YouTube, some of Fox’s largest shareholders are enormous institutional investors, particularly @BlackRock and @Vanguard_Group.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

25/ These massive funds consolidate the wealth of millions of Americans, and then use their combined voting power to pursue a radical agenda most of those Americans oppose. They are Fox’s real customers. And they’re getting exactly what they want.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 10, 2023 at 1:35 AM
Saved - June 10, 2023 at 2:25 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Transitioning individuals often create a utopian fantasy of the opposite sex, only to find that the parts of themselves they hated still remain. A powerful video depicts a woman who becomes a man, but discovers the profound isolation many men experience in modern society. Unable to cope with the loneliness, she is stuck in a pseudomale identity, unable to recapture her femininity. This tragic tale reveals much about our culture, none of it good.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This is actually a very powerful video. A woman tries to become a man but then discovers the profound isolation that many men in modern society experience. But because she’s really a woman, and therefore more relational and empathetic by nature, she is not equipped to cope with the loneliness. Yet she’s stuck in this pseudo-male identity, unable to recapture the femininity that she destroyed. Truly a tragic tale, but so much is revealed about our culture. None of it good. https://t.co/7JCYsElK3W

@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok

This is really sad. Trans man realizes how hard it is to be a man when you’re really a woman. Males and females are different and no matter what you do to your body, you can’t be the opposite sex.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Transitioning from female to male, I've noticed how lonely being a man can be. Before transitioning, I had closer friendships with women I met at clubs, as they were more open and vulnerable. However, after transitioning, it's been harder to build friendships and people are colder towards me. This doesn't invalidate the experiences of marginalized groups towards cis white men, but it does shed light on why the suicide rate is higher among men. As an emotionally mature man, I understand the importance of reaching out to other men and helping them feel seen and supported. Let's strive to have deeper connections and conversations to promote emotional maturity and combat loneliness.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nobody told me how lonely being a man is. I had closer friendships with random women I met in the bathroom before I transitioned at clubs because of how open women are than I've had In my 8 years of transitioning because women are just so much more vulnerable and deep than men but to have known and I think a lot of trans men feel this is we knew what depth felt like before we transition, and we knew what it felt like to like have people want to hug us and to have people want to talk to us and have a community and then you transition and you're just a guy walking down the street that people cross the street so that they're not near you and friendships are so much harder to build and people are colder. What's hard is none of this invalidates how real and raw women and people who are in marginal ice groups feel about cis white men, all of that's valid but I also now understand why the suicide rate is so much higher in men because this shit is lonely and I'm an emotionally mature man I know how to build friendships and it is still really really hard try to think about how you can in your small little community where you feel safe can reach out to the men in your life and just Help them feel it may be seen for a moment or do little little conversations to help their emotional maturity so that they can reach out to people and have deeper guy

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

People “transition” because they hate themselves and have created in their minds a utopian fantasy of the opposite sex. But after “transition” they find that all of the parts of themselves they hated are still with them, and life as the opposite sex is not nearly the paradise they thought it would be. They are stuck with the worst of all worlds.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 8, 2023 at 2:33 PM
Saved - June 8, 2023 at 7:07 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This thread has 26 thousand retweets and nearly 20 million views. The entire gender transition industry is built on lies and fraud, and we're watching in real time as the house of cards comes tumbling down. https://t.co/bgjHRGBWgl

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

🧵1/ BREAKING: The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 7, 2023 at 5:24 PM
Saved - June 7, 2023 at 7:03 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Trans healthcare providers in the US are approving life-altering surgeries based on false information. They use persuasive letters to bypass the WPATH standards and diagnose patients with gender dysphoria, even if they don't have it. Insurance companies pay for these surgeries, and companies like Plume and Folx have raised millions of dollars. Some states have banned these services, but activists argue that the entire industry is corrupt and fraudulent. The fight to protect vulnerable patients must continue.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

🧵1/ BREAKING: The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

2/ First, some background. Ari Groner is a licensed clinical social worker who educates doctors on “trans healthcare.” At a recent training session for the Juniper Center, Groner explained that she writes whatever letters her patients want, because she’s not a “gatekeeper.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
I won't be a gatekeeper or judge someone's eligibility for care. My role is to provide a letter for them to access the care they need, regardless of how they identify.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We sort of we'll go again into understanding that I'm not gonna be a gatekeeper. I'm not gonna be a person that's gonna stop them from accessing care. I'm not there to determine if they're trans enough. I'm gonna write them this letter.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

3/ Groner was referring to the WPATH standards, which major hospitals follow. They require that trans patients obtain a letter before undergoing surgeries. But Groner tells her audience to treat the letters as a “persuasive essay," and to green-light even suicidal patients.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A client's psych history, including suicidal ideation or attempts, can be used as a persuasive essay piece to demonstrate the necessity of gender dysphoria treatment. By connecting the client's struggles to their gender dysphoria, it becomes clear why procedures are necessary. Framing the discussion as a persuasive essay adds a bit of fun and allows for more impactful language. This approach has been found to be helpful with clients.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Any psych history that might be helpful to sort of showing the necessity. So if, let's say, a client has a psych history that includes, like, suicidal ideation or a suicide attempt, and you can connect it to the gender dysphoria, that actually can be sort of a a positive, persuasive essay piece, and I'll talk about that in a little bit, because you can kind of show what this is so necessary. Right? Well, this is how this is impacting this person's life, and this is why this procedure is necessary and and needed. I have found that when I frame it in a you know, we're gonna kind of use this as a persuasive essay and we're gonna really, you know, kinda stick it to them, there's there's a little bit more fun with it in the way we even use language. So I found that to kind of be helpful with clients.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

4/ Groner explains that insurance companies won't pay for these surgeries unless the patient is diagnosed with gender dysphoria. So, she says healthcare workers should provide the diagnosis. “We're using that diagnosis,” she says, “to ensure clients get that necessary treatment."

Video Transcript AI Summary
We are often asked by surgeons or physicians to write letters, but in reality, it is for insurance companies. We have to use the DSM in our letters for insurance purposes. Although I am not a fan of the DSM, it is important to mention this requirement to the client. Insurance companies require a diagnosis for surgery, which stems from a history of pathologizing and categorizing queer people. Despite the minimal trust, we use the diagnosis to ensure clients receive the necessary treatment.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And who's asking us to write these letters. So oftentimes, we're we're being asked by surgeons or physicians, But in reality, it's really for the insurance companies. That's what the letters are really for, and I think that's important for us to keep in mind. We have to use the DSM in our letters for insurance company. So I'm not I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this. As y'all can tell, I'm not, like, the biggest DSM fan. So I just think it's important to highlight because of this requirement. And this is something I'll explain to the client. So I'll talk about, you know, your insurance company is saying as, you know, sort of a requirement for this letter for the surgery that you have to have this diagnosis, and and we'll kinda talk about that. So knowing that this, you know, sort of American psychological association, or DSM, there's this history of pathologizing and categorizing queer people as sort of sexual deviance. There is that minimal trust. So what I talk about is that we're using the diagnosis to ensure that clients get that necessary treatment.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

5/ Whatever insurance companies might think of that, it's the industry standard. The popular trans telehealth service @folxhealth, for example, instructs patients that even if they don't "fit" the definition of gender dysphoria, the diagnosis is “needed” so that insurers pay out.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

6/ Folx, which provides letters authorizing surgeries for a nominal fee, goes on to admit that “it’s quite possible” patients will receive a letter indicating a gender dysphoria diagnosis, even though they “really do not have dysphoria.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

7/ We reached out to Folx about this. A staff member confirmed that a "diagnosis" of gender dysphoria -- with the word "diagnosis" in scare quotes -- is a “requirement” for insurance purposes, even if it “doesn’t apply.”

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

8/ The largest trans healthcare provider in the U.S., @plume_clinic, runs a similar scam. They sell letters for $150 authorizing surgeries. That's how our producer @gregg_re received approval for testicle removal after a 22-minute video call.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

9/ In his intake form with Plume, Gregg provided a fake legal name. He said he had dysphoria in the past. But he stated he had never experienced it for six months or more. Under the current version of the DSM-5, that means he doesn’t have gender dysphoria.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

10/ Plume quickly scheduled Gregg for a video interview anyway. He assumed the identity "Chelsea Bussey.” He didn’t even attempt to pass. He badly mispronounced the name of the surgery he wanted. He made it clear he didn't know what effect the surgery would have.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 confirms that the person is currently taking 6 milligrams of estrogen per day. Speaker 1 clarifies that they take it twice a day. Speaker 0 reviews the person's history and asks about the surgery they are seeking. They discuss the irreversible effects of estrogen therapy, such as breast development and shrinkage of the testicles. Speaker 0 mentions that hair growth and redistribution may be affected by estrogen. Speaker 1 mentions that they are not complaining about taking daily pills, but rather wondering if it accelerates the process. The conversation ends.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you're currently on estrogen. You're taking 6 milligrams a day. Speaker 1: Twice a day. Yeah. Just just right. Right. Right. You got it. Speaker 0: So you're taking, 1.5 tablets for me? Okay. And then let's see. Let me take a look at history. Alright. Okay. So let's let's kinda get into this a little bit. So you are seeking what surgery? Things are things that are of course, you probably know. Things that irreversible when it comes to, estrogen based therapy, breast development and to secure a shrinkage. Right? But there's always a possibility for him to come back. That may that may change it or he has to. Once you stop, once you don't longer have your chest piece, you no longer have the ability for your teeth to convert to BHT because you don't have as much teeth. Right? So hair hair growth, facial and body hair maintained with after work hair bleed. That redistribution is affected by the estrogen. So you may have less of a change in factory distribution if you ever stop e, but you may you may change of a whole. So it it's it's kind of it's kind of, it kind of does have a benefit without the spironolactone. But you still wanna pain. You still got we would definitely want to take estrogen as soon as you would I'm Speaker 1: not I'm not complaining about the daily pills, just to be clear. I'm complain I'm just saying if it accelerates it, then it makes things faster than

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

11/ Nevertheless, Plume’s nurse practitioner said she wanted to write the most "solid" letter possible to justify surgery. Gregg tells her that he once wrote an essay in school about being a woman, which everyone thought was ridiculous.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 for some history regarding their gender dysphoria to help with writing a letter. Speaker 1 explains that when they were in school, they wrote an essay expressing their discomfort with their biological sex and how they felt. However, people dismissed their feelings because they appeared to be male.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Give me a little bit of history with your gender dysphoria. That may kinda help me. I wanna I wanna make this letter as as solid as possible to, like, this or the afternoon. Definitely. Speaker 1: I'll tell you. I'm happy to. So when I was I was in Cool. And I actually, wrote a big essay, for admission to a club about how I didn't feel like my biological sex well along with how I felt. And and I told people that, and they thought I was ridiculous. So because they thought I just I just look like a guy. So they're like, this this is ridiculous.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

12/ Gregg also tells Plume’s nurse practitioner that his father has been prescribing him hormones for years. The nurse doesn’t question this in any way. Instead, she says that arrangement is “perfect.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 explains that their dad, who is a doctor, is helping them with home replacement therapy. Their dad knows other doctors who prescribe it. However, Speaker 1 mentions a conflict of interest because their dad is not providing a letter for them. To address this, their dad involves other doctors to ensure independence. Speaker 1 acknowledges that their dad could have provided the letter but believes it's better to have an independent person do it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And your dad is the one that's doing the home replacement therapy for you? Speaker 1: Yeah. So he's actually a he's actually a doctor, and he knows a lot of doctors, who do it, who who prescribe it. Speaker 0: Perfect. And, is is your dad providing a letter for you as well? Speaker 1: No. That's part of why I'm I'm conflict. Yeah. I I think there's a conflict there, and that's also part of the reasons why he involves other doctors with me as well. As he does he just thinks it's better than to have an independent person do it. He could've done it. He told me he could've done it. But I said, yeah. It's better not to do that.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

13/ Three days later, Plume sent this letter to "Chelsea Bussey” – who does not exist -- saying he was experiencing "significant, ongoing gender dysphoria.” The letter strongly recommended “Chelsea” for testicle removal.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

14/ The letter keeps capitalizing "Orchiectomy,” without "an" before it, as if it's just been copy-pasted into a template. Gregg followed up to learn why he had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Plume admitted they just use letter templates provided by WPATH.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

15/ Later, Plume’s nurse practitioner confirmed that "in order for the surgery to be paid for," the dysphoria diagnosis would need to remain. At the same time, the nurse appeared confused as to why “Chelsea Bussey” had requested testicle removal in the first place.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

16/ This scam is the cutting-edge of “trans healthcare.” After launching just a couple of years ago, Plume now operates in 41 states. Folx is in 47 states. How is it possible they’ve expanded so quickly?

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

17/ The answer is that there’s big money behind this. Plume and Folx raised more than $45 million last year. @craft_ventures just led Plume's $14 million fundraising round. Is @DavidSacks aware this is going on? Are @transformcptl, @generalcatalyst, @slow, or @townhallvntrs?

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

18/ Insurance companies like @Aetna, @UnitedHealthGrp, and @Cigna work with Plume. Do they know they’re paying for surgeries based on obviously false information?

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

19/ Some states have restricted this kind of 'medicine.' Florida, for example, recently passed a law banning most trans telehealth services. Trans activists (and the Associated Press @AP) have complained that this law is 'onerous.'

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

20/ They’re furious because they know the “gender transition” industry is corrupt and fraudulent from the ground up. Protecting kids is just one piece of the puzzle. The fight begins there, but it doesn't end there. The whole industry needs to be shut down.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 4, 2023 at 8:29 PM
Saved - June 5, 2023 at 3:25 AM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This pathetic coward @SC_Griffith has been threatening me and trying to endanger my family while having me blocked so I never saw any of it. I’ll find all of the relevant contact information for Brown University Administration and ensure that they are flooded with calls tomorrow demanding to know why this deranged terrorist is allowed to be enrolled there.

@realChrisBrunet - Chris Brunet

🚨NEW: @SC_Griffith, a PhD student at @BrownUniversity , has repeatedly threatened @MattWalshBlog' life. In today's substack I ask the obvious question: should @SC_Griffith be allowed to own a gun? https://www.karlstack.com/p/this-phd-student-at-brown-university

This PhD student at Brown University keeps threatening to murder Matt Walsh Karlstack celebrates Pride month karlstack.com
MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 3, 2023 at 1:12 PM
Saved - June 3, 2023 at 4:10 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The film has been seen by millions of people but still only six movie critics have dared to review it. And none of them are from major mainstream publications.

MattWalshBlog
Posted - June 1, 2023 at 1:32 PM
Saved - June 1, 2023 at 3:35 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A movie called What Is A Woman is being accused of hate speech by Twitter. Despite this, the movie will still be streamed in its entirety tonight. Twitter has 12 hours to decide if they want to be a true free speech platform. One scene in the movie shows a father being accused of misgendering his daughter, who he is trying to protect from mutilation. The Canadian government is persecuting him, and Twitter has taken the persecutors' side.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

This is one of the scenes from What Is A Woman that Twitter now says is hate speech. We will still stream the movie here tonight in its entirety at 8 ET. Twitter has the next 12 hours to decide whether they want to be a true free speech platform or not.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The shop owner, who has been running the store for 25 years, had a viral incident with a councilwoman. The councilwoman confronted him about a sign he posted, claiming that transwomen are women. The shop owner disagreed, stating that he believes in common sense and that he doesn't care about someone's feelings. The conversation also touched on the Star Wars character Jar Jar Binks and the shop owner's own understanding of his gender. He concluded that he knows he's a man because he has male anatomy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How long have you been, running the shop here? Speaker 1: 25 years. Speaker 0: Wow. Now you had an incident here a little while ago that went really viral online. Lots of reaction in the public. Speaker 1: Aberdeen councilwoman Tiesa Meskis confronted owner Dawn Souker about a Sign he posted in his store. One day, I just put the sign up over here, and, he came around the corner and I thought, Okay. I recognize him. I says, oh, I recognize you. You're our new city councilman. He says, no. I'm your new city councilwoman. So it was it was kinda on from there. You know what? It's bullshit. No. What you're spouting is bullshit. No. It's not. Transwomen are women, sir. That sign is bullshit. I've been doing this 25 years. I've never had a problem with anybody whether they're Gay transaction, anything. Speaker 0: Now you're saying councilman, he this individual was saying, I'm a woman. Speaker 1: Right. And then Speaker 0: and you said you're not a woman. How how do how do you know that that person's not a woman? Speaker 1: How do I know? Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, Speaker 1: Common sense. Friends, women, war, women. Speaker 0: Doesn't doesn't the science say that If someone identifies as a woman, then they are. Speaker 1: No. No. Now that's completely bogus. I don't care if you think you're a sheepdog and you come into my store. It don't matter to me. Just don't come in and try to shove that Shit down my throat. Speaker 0: If it makes someone feel better, what about their their feelings? I mean I Speaker 1: don't give a shit about their feelings. I'm old. Speaker 0: What about the Star Wars universe? Jar Jar Binks, pansexual, do you think? Transgender? Speaker 1: Why would I even care? Speaker 0: If it's his truth Speaker 1: Well, it ain't true. Speaker 0: You're not a scientist. You're not a gender studies major. Or are you? No. No? Okay. How do you know that you're a man? Speaker 1: How do I know that I'm a I guess because I got a dick.

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

The other hate speech scene. Please note: Twitter is accusing this father of “misgendering” his own daughter by calling her “her.” This man is being persecuted by the Canadian government for trying to protect his daughter from mutilation. Twitter has taken the persecutor’s side.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker explains how their child's case ended up in court after a meeting with BC Children's Hospital. The hospital planned to administer cross-sex hormones to the child, but the speaker objected and halted the process. The hospital then sent a letter stating that they would proceed with the hormone injections unless the speaker took legal action within two weeks. The speaker ended up in court because they did not respond with legal action. The speaker also mentions that using the wrong pronouns for their child is considered criminal violence, and they were jailed for it. The speaker confirms that their child is now on hormone pills, as ordered by the court.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How exactly did did this get into the courts to begin with? Right. So what happened is we set up a meeting with BC Children's Hospital. And according to the BC Children's Hospital website, there's gonna be a thorough evaluation and I'm thinking, good. This is gonna be the end of it all. You're gonna clearly see that my child is not the opposite sex. So so my ex wife brings my child into BC Children's Hospital. I get a call less than hour into that appointment is that they were gonna pump her full across sex hormones in the hour, and I put a halt to that. I said no. They agreed to to stop for the moment. They figured, well, let's get the dad on board this is all gonna be better. Let's just get everybody on the same page. I said, it's not gonna happen. So I get a letter from BC Children's Hospital in December of 2018 and it says that under the BC Infants Act, they will start injecting my child with cross sex hormones, then I have 2 weeks to respond with legal action if I so choose. And and so that's how I ended up in court because I didn't respond with legal action. So you called your daughter a she, and you you went to jail for that? That's considered criminal violence to not use the preferred pronouns, it is no different than, let's say, I were to take a broomstick and whack one of my kids over the head. So they were treating it in a similar fashion that misgendering, mispronouncing a child was the equivalent the family violence. Is she on the hormone pills now? She is. The court ordered that she could do whatever she wanted.
MattWalshBlog
Posted - May 11, 2023 at 6:04 PM
Saved - May 11, 2023 at 10:03 PM

@MattWalshBlog - Matt Walsh

A white Republican councilman came out recently as a trans woman of color. Shockingly, this brave pioneer has been rejected by the trans community. I had the chance to sit down with Ryan. Her story is both heartbreaking and inspirational. https://t.co/LnDXUwHkGD

Video Transcript AI Summary
Ryan Webb, a transgender woman of color, shares her journey of self-discovery and the challenges she has faced. Despite being a lesbian woman of color, Ryan has not physically changed anything about herself. She has faced criticism and hate from both her new community and her previous one as a cisgender white man. Ryan hopes to inspire others and shed light on the unique hardships faced by women. She acknowledges that being a woman has its difficulties, such as not being taken seriously and facing rejection. Ryan is proud of who she is and optimistic about the future, hoping to be recognized as a civil rights hero.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From the Speaker 1: moment she decided to live her truth, Ryan Webb knew she was in the fight of her life. Living under the oppression of heteronormative standards is considered business as usual to most women. But Ryan faced a different learning curve. Many of the everyday experiences of women were new to her because until a few months ago, this lesbian woman of color identified as a cisgender white man. Ryan knew her stunning bravery would make her a target, but she never anticipated the amount of hate she would face from her new community. This is a big moment for Ryan Webb. Agreeing to an interview after revealing her identity as a transgender being of color requires a different sort of bravery than we normally see in the political world. What is it like to be so brave? Speaker 2: Well, you know, I've never really looked at myself as being brave. You know, I just simply, declare how I see myself and my, own expression of my own gender identity. And, I didn't look at it as being brave. Now I've been told by others, that it is Right. And, for those people, I appreciate that. But, you know, I was immune to to seeing it from that perspective. Speaker 1: Perspective is something that can help all of us understand Ryan. Her life story is sadly all too familiar. A young woman of color stuck in a society that doesn't see her pain or hear her cries. Sitting around the dinner table at night, did you did you have a chance as a family to talk about things like Gender identity, gender fluidity. I'm sure that probably Speaker 2: Believe it or not, we didn't. You know, at that time growing up, I don't even know if those words were spoken with the, familiarity that they are today. Things we talked about was, you know, what we're going to have for dinner, you know, what things we're going to do together later as a family, Maybe what family program we were gonna sit down and watch together for the evening. Those are the things we talked about. Speaker 1: The political arena became the perfect place for Ryan's internal frustrations to play out. Years ago, identifying as a cisgender white man, Ryan burst onto the scene fighting corruption and seeking fairness in local politics. But while fighting the good fight for her constituents on the outside, Ryan was fighting a much bigger battle on the inside. And It was only after being elected. In fact, relatively recently that you started to realize that you're actually a woman. Speaker 2: I've always felt something and, you know, I wasn't quite sure what it was. And, I've been hearing, lately, in the last year or so, over and over, that, you know, only a woman knows what a woman is. And I knew I was feeling something, but I didn't know what it was. So I thought, well, let me let me check into it. So I tried to look it up, and I I couldn't find anything anywhere describing what a woman was. So going back to that statement, only a woman knows what a woman is, I thought, well, I'm definitely feeling something, so this has gotta be it. Speaker 1: You came out of 3 closets at once Speaker 2: woman, woman of color, lesbian. The reason why I identify as the woman of color is because I have a Cherokee bloodline, Native American on both sides. My great grandmother on my father's side was a full blooded Cherokee, Native American. And recently, we had done an AncestryDNA test, and that helped me recognize that it's, my 4th or 5th grandfather, Great grandfather. I can't remember which one it is. But he's actually chief walking stick of the, Cherokee nation in North Carolina. So being as that I had Cherokee on both sides, I thought, you know what? This is awesome. And, that allows me to classify myself as the woman of color that I am. What makes me the lesbian is the fact that I am still madly In love with my wife, and and, that'll never change. I'm still attracted to her as a woman. Speaker 1: Navigating her new identity as a lesbian woman of color came natural to the councilwoman as well. What was the process of understanding the transracial identity in particular? Speaker 2: You'd have to Recognize that being a lesbian woman of color does, you know, affect 3 different protected groups and classes. Now because of that, I have, Come out and and been recognized as the 1st woman of color in the history of, Delaware County Council. Now I don't believe that They're gonna give me any awards for that, but it's possible they may name some local park after me or something. We'll see what the future holds. Speaker 1: What's really brave about you is that You came out as a trans woman of color and yet, you have changed nothing about yourself physically. So you're just literally the exact same person, but at the same time, you're a woman of color. Speaker 2: I did, take the step of changing my name. I used to go by Ryan, which would be Ryan, the male version. But now I'm using the name Ryan, but it's the female version. Speaker 1: Same spelling. Speaker 2: Same spelling. Speaker 1: When you're out in front of an issue like this, there are always gonna be people that doubt. What's your response to them? Speaker 2: Well, I would say I've heard that. And, to that, I would say it was just a few short years ago that they said that you couldn't Identify a man couldn't identify as a woman without taking the steps necessary to do so. And that's no longer true. I mean, I'm living proof of it. Speaker 0: The gender identity is one's personal sense of one's own gender. Let's say it again. One's personal sense of one's own Doesn't say doesn't have to be affirmed by anyone. It doesn't say everyone has to agree with it. It doesn't say everyone has to take too serious. It says a person's sense of his own gender. Speaker 1: Although Ryan served as a beacon of hope to some. Speaker 3: I would like to commend you Speaker 0: for the strength of character that you've shown counts woman Webb. It is indeed the brave and courageous sect to come out in times as they are. Speaker 1: Her entire existence was challenged by others. Speaker 4: You are a public figure. Speaker 5: You work for us. You should be fired. He's flaunting the the minority, You know, lesbian as such, as the 1st council person as a lesbian, Speaker 4: with his Just claimed that he identifies as a woman of color, he has made a mockery of his constituents as well as his elected position in this council. Speaker 2: Honestly, that kinda took me by surprise. I I thought that I would have been accepted and and celebrated really for the for the groundbreaking, nature of what it is. You can imagine my surprise when, the local leftist and liberals, united Attack against me. They coordinated efforts online to, try to cancel me, embarrass me, shame me, Bully me to, get me to, to back off. Speaker 1: Of all the comments Ryan heard that night, she is still haunted by 1 in particular. I have to warn you, what you're about to hear is disturbing. Speaker 2: At the county council meeting, there was a, a transgender person there, Charlize. Charlie, just a couple years ago, Charlize told me that for me to be accepted in in their eyes, I would have to, Change my pronouns and take the hormone treatments, change all my documents. Speaker 3: Last week, council person Ryan Webb Announced publicly on social media and to several news outlets that he now now identifies as a lesbian woman of color, Retaining his male pronouns and bragging that he is now the first, this is a quote, LGBTQ plus woman of color to ever sit On the Delaware County Council, he is being disingenuous, and his words not only embarrass himself, but you, The county council. Speaker 1: To see that kind of bigotry coming from such a beautiful woman was really startling, almost. Speaker 2: I couldn't believe that Charlize was willing to lay out, requirements to be accepted moving forward. So that was shocking to me. Speaker 1: Now that she has publicly made her transition, Ryan hopes to use her voice to inspire others in the fight for anti racism and shine a light onto the unique hardships faced by women today. Now, we have seen other, minorities struggle for acceptance. Elon Musk, for example, rarely is included in the conversation about African Americans. You've been on both sides of the spectrum now. What is it that you think men in this country need to know about the lived experiences of women? Speaker 2: It's not been all that it's cut up to be. Everyone thinks there's a lot of advantages to come come with being a woman. But for me, these last 3 weeks, it's been a little difficult. You know, for 1, my wife's been having me cook a lot more. And number 2, nobody's been taking me serious on anything I'm saying. I've had a hard time getting people to believe me when I tell them that, this is my true authentic self. Speaker 1: If you're telling me that Yourself as a BIPOC woman, your experience for 3 weeks has been rejection, hatred, people not taking you seriously. I'd say you've had a pretty authentic experience. Speaker 2: Well, you know what? I appreciate the perspective. It allows for a complete paradigm shift that, I hadn't contemplated before. Speaker 1: No matter what her detractors say, Ryan is proud of who she is and even more optimistic about what the future holds. What does the future hold? We talk about history. What does the future hold for Ryan Webb? Are there any other closets that you might come out of in the future? Speaker 2: No. This this process of, self discovery, the journey of gender discovery and gender identity, It's complex. And, oftentimes, it takes us places that we never intended to go. And who knows? By the time this is all said and done, I could end up right back where I started. Speaker 1: When I think of the great female civil war civil rights heroes of our time, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Susan B Anthony, Speaker 2: Ryan Webb. You know, I can only hope to be put up there with with some of the legends of our time, but, you know, we'll see. You know, history has a funny funny way of shaking out over time. So Speaker 1: Hello. I'm Matt Walsh. Thanks for watching, and don't forget to like and subscribe to the channel so you can get all of our brand new content the moment it's released.
View Full Interactive Feed