reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @MattWalshShow
@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show
If we don’t reject the cult of multiculturalism, it will slowly destroy the country. https://t.co/gywE04PaTA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform party in the UK, stated that anyone who has lived in Wales for five to ten years, paid taxes, and obeyed the law is fully part of the Welsh community.
The speaker suggests that this sentiment is indicative of a larger problem, where multiculturalism leads to the decline of Western values. They claim that politicians and public figures in the UK are unwilling to acknowledge this.
The speaker references Pat Buchanan, who questioned what would hold the US together when whites become a minority and there is no common religion or beliefs. The speaker asserts that this question has been answered with "nothing."
The speaker concludes that countries embracing diversity are becoming unrecognizable and that this change was forced upon people by their leaders. They believe reversing this "disastrous experiment" should be a top priority, otherwise violence and dysfunction will worsen and potentially destroy the United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Meanwhile, The UK, Nigel Farage, the leader of the reform party, has just announced that if you've, lived in Wales for a few years, then you're Welsh. And you're no different from people who've lived there for generations. Watch.
Speaker 1: You say that you would like to give priority to people from Wales for pub housing. How would you define a Welsh person?
Speaker 2: Well, it's a very fair question from your channel. We hadn't proposed the Welsh language test. No. Look. He's gotta be somebody who's lived and is settled in Wales, has paid taxes, and obeyed the law.
And if someone's done that for a five or ten year period, then I think they have every right to say that they're fully part of the Welsh community.
Speaker 0: Now if the former leader of the Brexit campaign is talking like this, then, you know it's pretty bad. But at least they're being honest overseas. In this country, we don't have many politicians or public figures who are willing to acknowledge what they're doing. They won't admit that multiculturalism inevitably means the decline of the West and everything we value. We have to sit back and watch our civilization decay in real time.
Now one of the few commentators who did see this coming was, Pat Buchanan many years ago. Listen.
Speaker 3: When whites are minority in this country in 2041 and Hispanics are a 150,000,000, what is gonna hold us together when we don't have a common religion, we don't have common beliefs about right and wrong and morality as we used to? We are at war over over, you know, whether or not equality means equality of rights or equality of rewards.
Speaker 0: That footage is from around fourteen years ago. The question that Pat Buchanan asked, what will hold us together? It's a very good question. Has now been definitively answered, and it's nothing. Nothing will hold us together.
All over the world, countries that bought into the lie that diversity makes us stronger are rapidly becoming unrecognizable. And in many cases, the people people didn't vote for this. It was forced on them by their leaders. And until this disastrous experiment is reversed, which should be the Trump administration's top priority, the violence and dysfunction will only continue and get worse. We can either reject the cult of multiculturalism and diversity, or one large scale riot at a time, we can allow to destroy The United States.
reSee.it AI Summary
In this episode, I discuss the alleged right-wing plot to have babies and save humanity from extinction. I also cover the expulsion of a Columbia student who made controversial comments about Zionists. Jerry Seinfeld's criticism of left-wing ideology hurting comedy is examined, along with the comparison of the NFL draft to a slave auction. Lastly, I address the cancel culture surrounding those who prioritize animal deaths over abortions.
@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1357 - The Dastardly Right Wing Plot To Have Babies And Save Humanity From Extinction TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - 00:31 Opening 1:55 - 18:23 The Dastardly Right Wing Plot To Have Babies And Save Humanity From Extinction 19:14 - 28:51 Columbia Student Who Said Zionists Don't Deserve To Live Gets Expelled 28:52 - 37:11 Jerry Seinfeld Criticizes Leftwing Ideology For Hurting Comedy 37:12 - 42:24 The NFL Draft Gets Compared To A Slave Auction 43:41 - 55:59 The Comments Section 58:12 - 1:12:40 Those More Outraged By Animal Deaths Than Abortions Are Canceled
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, various topics are discussed, including declining fertility rates worldwide, the impact of political correctness on comedy, and a controversial comparison of the NFL draft to a slave auction. The speaker expresses concern over collapsing birth rates and the need to address societal attitudes towards children and families. They attribute the decline in comedy to fear of offending others and the influence of political correctness. The speaker also criticizes a Columbia University activist who called for the death of Zionists, highlighting the inconsistency in the definition of racism. Lastly, they mock a hot take that compares the NFL draft to a slave auction. In a separate context, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is facing backlash for revealing in her book that she euthanized her aggressive and untrainable dog, Cricket, 20 years ago. Critics argue that Noem should have explored alternative solutions, highlighting the societal prioritization of animals over humans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ted and Matt Walsh show, the media has uncovered the dangerous right wing conspiracy to have babies and stave off human extinction. We'll talk about this dastardly plot today. Also, an activist at Columbia University gets himself expelled for calling for the death of Zionists. But what do these activists even mean when they talk about Zionists? We'll talk about that.
And Jerry Seinfeld says that comedy is basically dead and the extreme left killed it. Plus, Kristi Noem gets huge blow blowback from the left and the right after she reveals that she killed one of her dogs on her farm 20 years ago. Is the reaction justified? We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. If you owe back tax If you owe back taxes or still have unfiled returns, that can really weigh on your mind, especially when the IRS has become more determined than ever.
Their chief data and analytics officer revealed that the IRS is focused on an enforcement project with an average return of investment of about $6 for every $1 spent. They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't yet filed their returns. Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you with a record of negotiating over $1,000,000,000 in tax relief for their clients. Their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10,000,000 they can help.
Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up to date. Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move. Contact Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt. Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit their website at tnusa.com/walsh. They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt today.
That's tnusa.com/walsh. Over the past few years, the biggest knock you've heard against the field of public health is that they completely mismanaged COVID, mainly by exaggerating its impact. They told us that it was a potentially civilization ending epidemic, one that justified lockdowns, mandatory shots, etcetera. But in the end, they were wrong, of course. And for that reason, nobody will ever trust one of these supposed experts again.
But the really extraordinary thing about the field of public health isn't really the epidemics that they fixate on, it's the ones they ignore. And in particular, there is one ongoing public health crisis that these experts really don't want to talk about, even though if it continues for much longer, it will quite literally bring about the end of humanity. I'm talking about collapsing fertility rates all over the world, which is a problem you really have to put in context if you want to understand how dire things are. So right now, Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Ireland, Switzerland, Greece, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Qatar, the UAE, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, the UK, Germany, and of course, the United States, and many others have birth rates that are well below replacement level. The U.
S. Fertility rate, in particular, the fertility rate here in the United States is at its lowest point in nearly a century. And what that means is that people aren't having enough children to sustain the population. They are not replacing themselves with children, with a new generation. But not every country is affected by this crisis.
There are countries where fertility is much higher than replacement level, and they include such esteemed locations as Niger, one of the poorest countries on the planet, Chad, Somalia, Angola, Tanzania, Afghanistan, Zambia, Cameroon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and of course, best of all, Haiti. So it doesn't take a genius to see where this is heading. 3rd world hellholes are reproducing, while first world countries, the ones that sustain the global economy, that keep billions of people alive, are not reproducing. And as this goes on and third world inhabitants continue to pour into 1st world, the distinction between these two parts of the world continues to blur until they have become completely irrelevant, basically. Eventually, everywhere will be the 3rd world.
There will be no 3rd world because the whole world is the 3rd world. This is not a new problem, of course, but to the extent political leaders have tried to solve it, by and large, they have failed. That's the really bad news here. A decade ago, for example, China eased its barbaric one child policy, and they expected millions more births as a result. But the following year, the country saw only an additional half 1000000 births, and the country's birth rate has remained below replacement level ever since.
Beginning in the nineties, Japan undertook its own effort to raise the birth rate, including offering more parental leave, more childcare services, etcetera. The results? Well, nothing has improved. It's only gotten worse, in fact. Last year, Japan's birth rate was the lowest on record.
It's the same story in Hungary. Starting with Orban's government in, 2010, Hungary doubled its spending on families, in many of the same ways and other ways. And yet, last year, Hungary, like Japan, recorded its lowest number of births in history. So whatever the problem is here, it's clear that it cannot be resolved solely through spending or government intervention. Simply providing some ad hoc economic incentives isn't cutting it.
Although those policies are good, I think, they aren't sufficient. So what is the solution? You could say that the broader economy needs to improve, which is obviously part of it. But the declines I'm talking about have been in progress for decades. Singapore's birth rate has been dropping since the 1980s and their GDP per capita grew dramatically in the new millennium.
It's a similar situation in Taiwan. And birth rates in the U. S. Were declining pre pandemic for more than a decade beforehand, in fact, even throughout periods in which median household income were setting new records. So what this means is that figuring out the root cause of this problem is more complicated than looking at economic indicators alone.
It means analyzing culture and in particular, taking a close look at prevailing attitudes towards children and families and trying to change those attitudes. That was the main goal of the Natal conference, which took place at the end of last year in Austin, Texas. And speakers from all over the country gathered together to assess what's gone wrong and how to fix it. One of them was Kevin Dolan, who's an organizer of the event. And he made it clear that whether you personally like the idea of having kids or not, the collapse of fertility rates will have a devastating effect on you and everyone you know, one way or another, watch.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you already have kids, you don't have kids, if you hate kids, if you have a 401 k or a mortgage or a Social Security card or a checking account, this question is going to impact your life in a very direct way. The entire global financial system, the value of your money, and almost every asset you might buy with money is defined by leverage, which means its value is defined dependent on growth. Every country in the developed world and most countries in the developing world face long term population decline at a scale that makes that growth impossible to maintain, which means we are sitting on the bubble of all bubbles. But in the aftermath of a collapse like this, the shrinking number of productive workers have to support a growing number of older, sicker people, which in turn accelerates the economic pressures that make it difficult to start families. This problem isn't self correcting, at least not within your lifetime.
It gets worse as it gets worse.
Speaker 0: Now whether you agree with him or not, and, of course, everything he said there is correct, so there's nothing to disagree with. But one of the first things you notice one way or another is that is that Kevin Dolan is not a demagogue. He didn't hold this conference to berate anyone for not wanting to have kids. He's not some kind of cult leader who demands that everybody sign a pledge to create a certain number of children or something. He's a he's a normal guy, and he's trusting too, which is why he allowed a political reporter to attend the event and write about it.
And how did that turn out? Well, predictably, Politico published a hit piece a couple of days ago that's so bizarre and so totally disconnected from the event that it verges on self parody. Here's how Politico wrote about the conference on Twitter. Here's the tweet. Quote, the far right is so obsessed with making babies, they just held a whole conference about it.
Yes. You heard that right. Politico has uncovered the sinister right wing plot to have babies and ensure the survival of the human species. They caught us red handed. You know, we are anti extinction, much to our shame apparently.
And then if you click through to the article, you'll find this sinister sound sounding headline, quote, the far right's campaign to explode the population. Now it's not hard to see what Politico is getting at. Basically, they're saying that anybody who wants Western societies to produce children, which is to say, anybody who wants Western societies to continue existing, must be far right. It's reminiscent of how, you know, the word freedom has become a dirty word in Canada. The people who want to destroy Western civilization aren't doing a very good job of hiding it anymore.
And, well, they're not really trying to hide it. They're being quite open and explicit about it. But if you go online to the NATO conference's website, you know, you could find a bunch of speakers explaining very clearly what they think is happening in this country. They talk about everything from divorce laws to common fears people have about parenting and the impacts these considerations are having on fertility rates. None of this is a right wing conspiracy.
I mean, that's, that's, that is the familiar terminology that the left trots out whenever they know something is happening, and they want it to keep happening. So they deny that it's happening because they don't want us to notice because they want it to keep happening. And indeed, there's a very active antinatalism movement, right now. You spend any time on the darker corners of the Internet, you'll find quite a few people who fully embrace depopulation as a positive good. And it's pretty grim stuff, as you can imagine.
In fact, mainstream media outlets routinely run stories about young people who don't wanna have kids because it will hurt the planet somehow. Watch.
Speaker 2: As the climate crisis gets worse Climate justice. It's fueling a wave of anxiety in younger generations. Biden, justice. Some say they're rethinking whether they wanna start a family or even how they'll do it in a world with a very uncertain climate future.
Speaker 0: We're not
Speaker 3: sure that we're gonna have kids because we don't wanna bring our kids into a world like this.
Speaker 0: I don't have kids, but it has impacted my thoughts.
Speaker 1: I definitely wanna leave the world in a better place, for my kids. I wanna make sure to raise children
Speaker 0: who are aware of this.
Speaker 2: Now according to a recent poll, almost a quarter of them say climate change is impacting their decision to become a parent, and people under the age of 35 are more likely to report climate change as a reason not to have children compared to those born in the decade before them. Millennials and Gen z were born into the most rapid time of global warming.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yes. I wanna make the world a better place for human beings, so I'm going to embrace the extinction of humanity in order to bring that about. Now, that's the more but what you saw there is the more socially acceptable form of the depopulation agenda and it's being promoted by corporate media quite openly. But the antinatalism movement gets more organized and more explicit the deeper you look.
1 of the leaders of this depopulation agenda is a guy named Les Knight, who is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. And I want to show you footage of one of his recent conferences. And as you watch this, compare Knight's presentation with the one you heard earlier at the Natal conference. You have the Natal conference versus the antenatal conference, and just compare the 2 just in terms of the general sanity of the speaker, watch.
Speaker 4: But I would like to start with an acknowledgment of the first peoples of the land who we're living on, Multnomah, Wasco, Cowlitz, Clackamas, Chinook, Tualatin, Molalla, and many others. And I also would like to acknowledge the original inhabitants of this land, the grizzly bear, the dire wolves, Harland's ground sloth, and many others that are now extinct. I think we, need to honor them a little bit. That red line is the one that is always left out in the articles. You say birth rate is down by this much.
Growth rate is down by this much. It's the lowest it's ever been. But what about the actual numbers? They they don't seem to remember to put that in because it would it would give it away. Like, all the headlines for saying, oh, we've hit 8,000,000,000, but the growth rate is falling.
And I saw ones for we've hit 6,000,000,000, but the growth rate is falling. Same with 7,000,000,000. But the funny thing is it took 12 years to add the 2 previous 1,000,000,000, but it only took 11 years to add this one. So it kinda gives it away. You won't find that in the mainstream press.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's the, by the way, the first land acknowledgment that I've heard anyway that just, doesn't just acknowledge some of the tribes or whatever, but also acknowledges some of the wildlife and does so inaccurately, by the way, because he says that, acknowledging the original inhabitants of grizzly bears and ground sloths. So we got to pay homage to the ground sloths, but they weren't even the original, I mean, I guess really you should be acknowledging single cell organisms and bacteria, you know, they were, I guess, the original inhabitants before them. So this is as cultish and as creepy as it gets, but you will not see Politico running any articles on this guy and how he's a representative of the far left. They're not smearing Les Knight.
Instead, quite quite quite the opposite. New York Times recently published a glowing profile of Knight, quote, For the sake of the planet, Les Knight, the founder of the voluntary human extinction movement, has spent decades pushing one message, may we live long and die out. Now in that clip you just saw, you heard Knight mention that no one ever talks about the fact that the world population is increasing even as birth rates plummet. There are a couple of obvious explanations for this, and one is that, as I mentioned earlier, not all countries are experiencing plummeting birth rates. The most dysfunctional countries on the planet are actually reproducing at extremely high rates.
And additionally, just from a statistical perspective, it takes time for lagging birth rates to show up in world population figures. Know, there might be a lot of young couples now having kids in some places, but it doesn't mean that those couples will still be around in 20 years having children. Birth rates decline first and then population declines after it. When you get to the point where the population itself is starting to decline, that's when the catastrophe has really hit. So the goal is to prevent that from happening.
Reversing this decline should not be a right wing project. Yet there are very few prominent people outside of conservative circles who are willing to talk about this at all. Elon Musk is the only notable exception I can think of. And in fact, it should it should tell us something that Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men on the planet, somebody who's thinking about big things like going to Mars and all that kind of stuff, he considers depopulation to be the greatest existential threat we face as a species, which again should tell you something. This weekend, speaking of Musk, I I engaged in a back and forth with Elon Musk on Twitter about the causes of this existential threat.
The conversation started when someone posted this chart on social media. It shows the number of men under 30 who report having 0 sexual partners since turning 18, and that has increased from 8%. That number has increased from 8% in 2,008 to 27%, according to this chart, in 2018, which is obviously a striking increase and it demands an explanation. And I responded by saying a lot of theories can explain this, but it's very likely it's very clearly, like, 98% because of porn. That's what I said.
I made that observation because, you know, the iPhone and Pornhub were both born in 2007. And if you look at the chart, male virginity rates skyrocketed pretty much from that very moment as birth rates plunged in the opposite direction. Now in reply to my tweet, Elon Musk wrote this, quote, it's not porn which has been readily available from the days of VHS tapes, but rather the general temptation of the online world if you're going to blame it on anything electronic. Sex is not what matters, lots of people are having sex that have no kids, population implosion is what will end civilization. And what Musk is saying about pornography is obviously true.
Pornography clearly predates the year 2007, but it was nothing like the pornography that's been available in the past decade or so. So here's one small data point. Okay? Just to put this in perspective, Playboy, at its peak, at its absolute peak, sold around 7,000,000 copies a month, which is a lot for a magazine. K?
And that was back in the 19 seventies, I think. Pornhub, k, just one site gets something like 15 times as many visitors per day. So so and that's just, again, one site. So way more people are consuming porn today, way more often, starting at way younger ages. And on top of that, the porn itself is way more graphic and debased.
This isn't the whole reason that birth rates are declining, but it is a major plank in the depopulation platform. I think there's no question about that. And that's a strong argument for continuing to ban young people from accessing online pornography, which several states have already done. It's also a good reason for parents to limit or even eliminate their children's access to electronics, and that should just be the beginning of it. And if all of this sounds drastic, it's probably because you haven't been fully informed about the scale of the problem that Western civilization is now facing, and that's by design.
Now, a few months ago, I did a whole monologue on the JAFF memo and the origins of Planned Parenthood's very comprehensive campaign to depopulate the planet. Very powerful nonprofits and political organizations in this country don't want you to reproduce. That's not conspiratorial, it's just true. They've put it in writing. This is an actual agenda they have to make sure the population declines.
They want fewer people on earth. And the good news is that this is one of the few problems in our society that pretty much everyone can help solve. It's maybe the single most solvable crisis in history. They have to expend all this effort and push all this propaganda to discourage reproduction because it's one of the most natural things a person can do. But the propaganda is failing now, I think.
Because of, you know, conferences like the NATO conferences and efforts like it, as well as Elon Musk and other prominent figures, there's more attention to declining birth rates than there has been at any point in recent history. And that's why political and left wing activists are melting down about it. There's nothing they want to see less than more children being born.
Speaker 4: I mean,
Speaker 0: that that's the last thing they wanna see, which is why they mourn. They mourn when when we see children being born. And that tells you everything you need to know about their ideology, and it also tells you how to defeat it. Now let's get to our 5 headlines. Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe in equal opportunities and that the American dream is driven by purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree. GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University, Private, Christian, Affordable. Visit gcu.edu. That's gcu.edu. So you may have seen this video of an activist at Columbia University named Keimani James.
He's one of the ringleaders of the homeless encampment on university grounds, which has been allowed to continue, by the university so that these spoiled wealthy kids can cosplay as revolutionaries, basically. Anyway, this activist has very publicly called for violence. Here's probably the main clip that's been circulating. You prob maybe you've already seen it, but let's, let's take a look at that.
Speaker 5: If we can agree as a society, as a collective, that people, that person, some persons need to die if they have an ideology that that results in the death of 1,000, 100 of 1,000, 1,000,000? If there are people like that who exist, shouldn't they die? Zionists, they are Nazis.
Speaker 0: Zionists AKA Nazis. You know, carnivores AKA vegans. So he says that you need to die if you, have an ideology that result has resulted in the deaths of millions of people, which, of course, by that logic would mean that every communist needs to die by his own logic. If you saw that if you heard that phrase without any context, you would think, oh, he's calling for the death of communists. Given that, you know, communism has killed tens of millions of people, it is the most destructive and murderous and oppressive ideology in the history of the world and it's not even close.
Like, there's not even a second, there really is no second place. It's pretty much that. But that's not who he's referring to. He's referring to Zionists. And what does he really mean by Zionists?
Well, I've been explaining since all this began that when they talk about Zionists, they really just mean white people and that could have been more clear from, you know, Zionist, Nazis, white supremacists. It's just that these are just words. These are labels he's using to describe white people. That's it. And the fact that the labels are contradictory and make no sense, like how can you be a Zionist Nazi, That doesn't it doesn't matter.
Like, of course it's contradictory, it doesn't make any sense, but even so and to see the, you know, the the war in the Middle East, to see the war, in Israel right now as one between whiteness and and, and people of color, like, that doesn't actually make sense, objectively speaking, but it doesn't matter because that's how they see it. That's just that's why they care as much as they do. To him, white people are just every White person is a Zionist, just like every White person is a White supremacist and every White person is a Nazi. We're all of those things together. It has very little to do with Israel, in fact.
Like, that's not what this is about. He doesn't actually care about that. And to make that clear, here he is in 2021, talking about white people and giving his feelings on white people. Let's listen to that.
Speaker 2: Our next speaker is Keimani James.
Speaker 3: Hello, everyone. It's Keimani James. Yeah. I'm hearing a lot about bigotry and whatever the hell I just heard.
Speaker 5: Let me start by saying that I cannot believe we even have to have this conversation in 2021. This is pathetic. And white people, both politicians and otherwise should be disgusted with themselves that they even called for these 2 Latino women to be reprimanded and their character smeared all because they expressed their feelings towards the racism and hurtful remarks they receive from white people. Saying I hate white people is not racist. Period.
Is it prejudice? Yes. Racist? No. In order for white people to experience racism, they have to have socialized power structures against them, which they don't.
White people are the creators of those socialized power structures. And they're specifically designed to oppress black people and keep them from making their way into positions of power, let alone create change. To scream reverse racism is ignorant as hell and only exemplifies how you whack the metacognitive skills and basic cognitive sense.
Speaker 0: Oh, metacognitive skills. Very impressive. You you, looked that up in the in the nonsense thesaurus and and and pulled that one out. So, so we we get the the the cult definition of racism, the left wing religious doctrine about racism, which is that racism against Whites is impossible, because this is the, this is, you know, this is what the Left does. This is how they get around logical problems and this is how they get around contradictions in their ideology, they just redefine a word.
You know, the fact that black people can be racist against white people and that racism is not something that white people own, you know, it's you could find racism all over the world. In fact, you find a lot more of it You find a lot more of it in other parts of the world. If you go to a nonwhite part of the world, there are a few basic assumptions you can make most of the time and one of them is that there's gonna be a lot of racism there and that's generally how it goes. It's just how it goes. And that is a problem for people like this.
And so what do they do about that problem? Well, they say, oh, we'll just redefine the word racism. We'll just we'll just we'll come up with a new definition for the term and in our definition, automatically, whatever a nonwhite person is doing or saying, it cannot be racist because white people are now how do you defend that definition? Why should any of us accept that definition? Why do you get to just come in and make up a new definition for this term?
Well, they don't have to explain that. At least they don't feel any particular, any particular obligation to explain it. They just that's it, that's it. And because they own the institutions and they own the academic institutions in particular, they can teach this definition and, and they don't have to explain it, you know. But you can glean 2 things from this and from, from all this.
And the first is that, once again, this guy hates white people. Zionists, Jews, Israel, these are all proxies for white people and hatred of white people. That's what this is. That's what it's all about. And that's also one of the reasons why, you know, there are some corners of the right that have basically you know, taken the side of these pro Palestine protesters.
And what you should understand is that if you're on their side, especially if you're a white conservative, they hate you. They hate your guts. They they actually want you dead. So you're you're you're linking arms with them singing Kumbaya because, because for you, it really is like you hate Israel. But you should know that they actually hate you.
Right. They want, they actually want you to die. They would be happy if you died, so you should know that. And I don't need to perform any kind of deep psychoanalysis to arrive at that conclusion. It's just it's it's they're telling you.
You can listen to them. They'll tell you. They will tell you. Yes. I want you dead.
They will tell you that if you ask them. And the second thing you notice is just how weak and pathetic these left wing revolutionaries are. I mean, this guy wants so badly to be militant and radical, but he is the softest, least threatening, least imposing figure you can possibly imagine. And that's because he's not a revolutionary. He is a defender of the status quo.
He's a henchman for the establishment, for institutional powers. He's not challenging powerful people. He is parroting them. He's saying what they want him to say. And this is the problem for left wing activists in general now is they wanna preserve that spirit.
They wanna preserve the spirit, the flavor, the branding, let's say, of revolutionaries. But their parents and grandparents already won the Cultural Revolution and they seized power and now these people are defending that power. They are defenders of power. The revolutionaries are the ones that they oppose. They are fighting against cultural insurgents and they're doing that to protect their own cultural power.
That's what's happening. And which is why the only way that somebody like this will suffer any consequence whatsoever, no matter what they say or do, is if they say or do something to cause embarrassment for the to the powers that be. That that's the only time that they'll suffer consequence. They can say say and do whatever they want to the other side, to conservatives, whatever, it doesn't matter. But if they do or say something that causes political inconvenience or embarrassment for, the people that are facilitating all this and funding it, well, that's when it becomes a problem, which is what happened with this guy.
Now he went a little too far, he said a little bit too much, said the quiet part out loud, a little bit too loudly and publicly, And that's what brings us to this update. Here's from the Daily Wire. The Columbia University student who was one of the most vocal students in the antisemitic protests at Columbia University in recent days has been thrown out of school after the Daily Wire unearthed video of him stating that Zionists don't deserve to live. So that's, that's the update is that he's been, he's supposedly been expelled, I guess. And again, it's not because of what he said.
It's not because he, he said he doesn't like white. The bit about I hate white people, he said that, 3 years ago. So you can say that. You know, it's just saying it loudly enough and getting enough attention where it becomes an embarrassment, where it becomes a political problem, for the powers that be. That's the only time you suffer a consequence if you're in his shoes and that's why he's suffering it.
Alright, next, Jerry Seinfeld is in the news. He's out promoting a new film. It's a comedy, the film is, about, I think, the invention of the Pop Tart. And as I understand it, it's kind of a fictionalized retelling of the competition between the 2 top cereal brands to come up with a breakfast pastry, and, you know, which actually sounds like a funny concept for a film. It's a little bizarre, but that's what makes it funny.
I have no idea if it's gonna be any good or not. But, you know, it's a it's a clever concept. Anyway, people are talking about this clip from an interview he did with the New Yorker Radio Hour where he talks about, which is something he's talked about frequently, the death of comedy and why why don't we see very many funny movies or shows these days. Let's listen to that.
Speaker 6: Nothing really affects comedy. People always need it. They need it so badly, and they don't get it. It used to be you would go home at the end of the day. Most people would go, oh, Cheers is on.
Oh, MASH is on. Oh, Mary Tyler Moore is on. All in the Family's on. You just expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight. Well, guess what?
Where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC crap and people worrying so much about offending other people. Mhmm. When you write a script and it goes into 4 or 5 different hands, committees, groups, here's our thought about this joke. Well, that's the end of your comedy.
They move the gates like in skiing. Yeah. Culture, the gates are moving. Your job is to be agile and clever enough that wherever they put the gates, I'm gonna make the gate.
Speaker 0: So he's totally correct, obviously. But we have to understand that, that the and, of course, we've heard this analysis many times. It's correct. But the PC crap, as he calls it, and the wokeness and all that, that hasn't just made it I think I think when we talk about it, we make it sound like, the problem is that people are afraid to produce a funny comedy because they don't wanna offend people. Like, there's this barrier, wokeness is a barrier, and there are thousands of funny movies and shows being held back by the barrier of wokeness.
And if only we could tear down that barrier, then all the funny stuff will come flooding through. And I think it's that's not the case. I think it's worse than that because the fact is that if wokeness went away tomorrow, there still wouldn't be very many good comedies coming out this year or next year or in 5 years from now and or in 10 years. And that's because our culture has created a generation of people, multiple generations of people who aren't capable of making good comedy even if they wanted to, even if there were no, rules stopping them, even if there were no, you know, social pressure rather stopping them, they still wouldn't be able to do it because it's about the conditioning. People have been conditioned this way.
And breaking conditioning is much more difficult than breaking through a barrier. And that's where we are now. And also, by the way, it's not just wokeness. You know, there's a I think there's a perfect storm of factors getting in the way at the moment. A big part of it is the left and the conditioning and all that, but there are other problems too, like the glut of content in general.
There's just so much. People are inundated with so much stuff all the time that it's hard for anything to be seen and to make an impact. People's attention spans have dwindled. The audience is overstimulated. You know, all these these are all factors conspiring against any one piece of content, not just comedy, but it is part of the picture.
You know, there's just so much stuff, way too much. You know, Seinfeld mentioned, Cheers and MASH and Mary Mary Tyler Moore in those shows. Well, back then or even in the nineties, when shows like Seinfeld were on on air, back then on a on a Thursday night or whatever, I don't remember what what day Seinfeld aired, I think maybe it was Thursday. But on a Thursday night, let's say, everybody was watching Seinfeld because that's just what was on, like, that's what you did. And Seinfeld was competing with a few other shows on a few other channels.
Even when cable came along, it was still you you know, there weren't that many options, at that time slot. So that was the night that everybody, you know, they went home and they watched Seinfeld because that that's what that's what was on, or Cheers or MASH before Seinfeld. And those shows, they were a shared cultural reference point. Everybody understood the humor. They got the joke.
It was all understood in context. And there's just so much stuff all the time now that there are no shared cultural reference points anymore. We don't share anything. We don't have any shared, you know, culture at all anymore, especially by, especially, you know, we don't have it, like everything's so fractured, you break it down by generation, you break it down by ideology. How do you break it down?
It's like everybody has their own, they all live in their own world, especially when it comes to entertainment and culture and that's the stuff that they're consuming. There's not a lot of cross pollination, which also means, the point is that if somebody says something supposedly offensive, you know, as a joke in a podcast or in a tweet or on a show or in whatever context, most of the people getting upset about it have no idea about the context. They don't even know who the person is. They don't speak the same language. They don't understand the tone and the context of the humor.
So back in the '90s, yeah, people would get offended by Seinfeld on occasion. There'd be an episode here or there that caused a little bit of a dust up. But for the most part, if there was a joke or a plot point on Seinfeld that today would upset people, Well, back then, you saw that, and you said, oh, yeah. That's Seinfeld. You know?
That's that's their humor. That's what it's like, we get it. We understand the joke. We understand in the context with we We all understand what this is, and we just don't have that anymore. You know, it's like when that dumb controversy happened with Shane Gillis a few years ago and he got fired from SNL before he even started because of, I think, it was some jokes on a podcast.
And, and I think there were I don't remember the jokes. The jokes about Asian people, I think, were a few in there and other things too. Now, everybody that knew Shane Gillis at the time, they they were saying, Guys, it's Shane Gillis. Like, this is his type of humor. What are you really?
Are you serious? You're taking he doesn't actually hate Asian people, okay? This is his humor. Like, you don't understand. You don't listen to him.
But most of the people in the outrage mob never even heard of the guy before that. And and and that's something I think we don't quite grasp really or we don't quite appreciate, that that also is such a new dynamic that that didn't really exist prior to the Internet. Like, you would never have a national outrage at somebody that the majority of the nation had never heard of before the outrage. Right? So so people being upset because someone said something, I can't believe you said this.
And then if you ask them, well, who who is that? I don't know, but I can't believe you said it. Like that before the Internet, that would never happen. I'm sure people would get upset if someone said something sometimes, but everyone at least knew who the guy was, like they understood the context and now, it's this, it's this very strange dynamic where, because everything lives in these little buckets, right, everything is so fractured, It's like the only thing one of the only things that can break you outside that bucket and make you sort of known to people that are paying attention to other buckets is if you say something supposedly offensive. And now everybody else from their other buckets are going to chime in, even though they have no idea what's going on over here in this bucket.
You know, similar things have happened to me all the time where people get, people get upset or offended by some dumb joke, something I say, and then people who are an audience of the show, they're doing the same thing where they're saying, are you guys serious? Like, he's clearly kidding. This is the kind of he jokes about this stuff all the time. But the problem is that most of the people that are pretending to be offended have no idea, and they don't care. Right?
Because we don't have that there's that cultural reference point. Alright. Here's something, a little here's something fun. The NFL draft happened over the weekend, starting on Thursday. My Baltimore Ravens had a solid draft, I thought, by the way, filled some big positional needs.
Would have liked to see them grab a wide receiver earlier. They didn't grab one until, I think, the 4th or 5th round. Overall, I thought they did well. That's neither here nor there, but if you're one of the 5 people wondering, how I felt about that, now you know. Anyway, there was destined to be at least one draft related hot take to go viral, and, we got it from a guy named Boyce Watkins who apparently is an author or something.
I don't know exactly what he does for a living, but I do know that he has a PhD and I know that because he's the kind of guy who puts PhD in both his Twitter handle and in his bio. So, he just wants you to know he has a PhD. He works it into everything. I assume he works works it into every conversation. If he's at Applebee's ordering his meal, he'll probably work it in there.
Yeah. Can I get the whole lot of bacon burger? And also, by the way, I have I have a PhD. Who wants you to know? Just so you know.
Do do you have any specials? Any specials for somebody with a PhD? Any PhD specials? Did I mention I have a PhD? I got a PhD.
Did you know that? Did you know that? So we want you to know he has a PhD, and, his PhD is indeed proof of something. It's proof that PhDs mean nothing at all these days because here was the hot take that Boyce Watkins, PhD, offered up. He said this, The NFL draft is a lot like a slave auction, except the slaves aren't working for free.
Well, there you go. It's a lot like a slave auction, except the slaves aren't working for free. You know, in a similar way, you might say that, the ocean is a lot like a box of cereal, except you don't eat it for breakfast and it doesn't come in a box. A doorknob is a lot like an elephant, except it's not a large land mammal. Yeah.
Non sequiturs are a lot of fun. And Boyce Watkins, PhD, is saying that the draft is just like a slave auction except for the one single thing that makes a slave auction a slave auction. So if you take out the one defining feature of slavery, which is that people are being forced to work for free, if you take that out, then suddenly, like, everything is like slavery. Even an event where teams hire athletes and pay them 1,000,000 of dollars to play a game, athletes who, they don't not only do they volunteer to be there, but actually they've been working their whole lives to be there, even that event is like slavery, an event that is, in many ways, actually the opposite of slavery. If you were to ask me to show you something that is the opposite of a slave auction, just so I get an idea, like, what is the opposite of that?
I would well, the NFL draft is the opposite of a slave auction. And the thing is, as stupid as this hot take is, you realize that Boyce Watkins, PhD, is not alone. Infamously, Colin Kaepernick has made the same comparison And you kinda hear this every year. And I'm perfectly happy to see the race hustlers continue to go back to this well. I think I think it's great that they do, because it's the kind of thing that not only does it make them look so stupid, but it makes people just kind of throw up their hands and stop listening to these frauds.
Because if we're at the point where black men are being victimized, even when they're paid tens of 1,000,000 of dollars to play a game they love, even when they're given the kind of life that most people would kill to have, if even that is a form of oppression, well, then I guess there's nothing we can do about it. Like, this so there's no way to solve it, apparently. I mean, we don't even need to argue about the premise anymore. We could just say, okay. Fine.
They're that's oppressive too. Well, then okay. Well, I we can't they then I guess they're just gonna be oppressed. I don't know. I guess black people will just be oppressed forever.
Like, if even that if if we can't solve this by giving them 1,000,000 of dollars, even that, like and you can do you can have a great life and you can have a job that, like, 0.01% of people on earth can have, but 99% of people would love to have. If that's oppressive too, then then I think rather than us saying it's not oppressive, we could we should just say, okay, well, alright. I mean, sorry about your luck then. I don't know. We can't do anything about it.
It's just it's just the way it's gonna be. We might as well move on. It's it's you have told us, it is a totally unsolvable problem. Not one single thing can make it better and so let's just stop trying to make it better then. We just have to move on.
And, and I guess, thank God. The rest of us can thank God that we're not Black people who have been oppressed with 1,000,000 of dollars playing a game. And that's it. No reason to worry about it. If you can't change it, if it's something that cannot be changed no matter what, then, in a lot of ways, those are the problems that are, that you should worry about the least because there's nothing you can do about them.
So that's the silver lining, I guess. Let's get to the comment section. Regina Caeli Academy is an accredited pre k through 12 classical homeschool hybrid academy for Catholic families in cities across the US. They provide in classroom lessons 2 times a week and in home lesson plans that support parents the other 3 days a week. Regina Shelley Academy, with your support, has provided nearly half a $1,000,000 in student tuition assistance for the 2023 to 2024 academic year.
Your participation in the Courage Under Fire Gala, a significant event in our mission to evangelize, will help us continue to provide tuition assistance in the future. Come and join me on May 24th in Nashville, Tennessee for a night of encouragement and camaraderie. I'll be speaking alongside doctor Abby Johnson and father Calloway on how to have courage and stand up for the truth. No matter what adversity you face. We'll be joined by some of the most influential leaders in the conservative movement for a night of connection and inspiration.
VIP tickets will have access to an exclusive meet and greet with all speakers. And if you can't attend, please consider donating today to support families and continue to train the heart, mind, and the soul. Every dollar counts. For tickets, visit courageunderfiregala.org and use code dailywire at checkout. That's courageunderfiregala.org and use code dailywire.
Can't wait to see you there. First, Kevin says, when my teens talked about getting tattoos, I said, picture a shirt with a picture on it that you wore 10 years ago. Now imagine wearing that same image on your skin for the rest of your life. They got my point and thus avoided the visual mess we saw in the video. Yeah.
It's a good analogy. You know, I like to think of it I think of, tattoos more like bumper stickers. They're kind of human bumper stickers that you're putting on your skin. And it is possible, like and I feel the same way about tattoos, at this point, again, even though I have 2 of them myself. I feel the same way about tattoos that I do about bumper stickers.
It is possible to put a bumper sticker on your car that isn't embarrassing and that isn't too terribly tacky. You can put a little Jesus fish on your car or whatever and that's fine. You know, it's fine. It doesn't it doesn't add much. It doesn't achieve much.
It's no one's gonna be evangelized by your bumper sticker, but it's fine. It's not a problem. It's not gonna cause any issues and it's not again, it's not embarrassing to you and that's kind of how I look at tattoos, even my own, that, yeah, you can have a tattoo that's just fine, like, it's it's okay. Now is it worth putting something on your skin forever when the best you can hope for is that it'll just be fine and that you won't be embarrassed about it in the future? Probably not worth it, but that's, I think, the strategy that works.
The problem, going back to the bumper sticker analogy, is when you're peppering your car with dozens of bumper stickers and you're putting bumper stickers on that are ugly and tacky, and it's, like, make no sense. And, you know, sometimes you see the bumper stickers has somebody has on their car, and you think, really? What why did what made you think I need to put this permanently on my car? Like, why that? What what about that made you think, I want everyone who's behind me in traffic for as long as I have this car.
I want everyone to see it. Because when you have a bumper sticker on your car, what you're saying to everybody behind you in traffic is, hey, guys. Look at this. Look at this look at this thing. Look at this look at this statement that I've put here.
And many times, you see bumper stickers where you think, like, why do you want what is it about that that you want everyone forever to see it? I don't I don't get it. Or the worst is when it's a bumper sticker that, you know, one of those sassy bumper stickers that kind of insults the people, playfully insults the people behind you in traffic. And that one too, it's like, do you want I get it's a joke on the bumper sticker, but do you want really, you want to say that to everybody behind you without even knowing who they are? Is that a smart move?
So bumper stickers become tacky kind of in the same way that tattoos do. It's like you put too many on and they're just kind of weird, and they don't make sense, and, you know, it's like maybe you see a bumper sticker that in the moment, is kind of funny to you, but and you put it on your car. Is that still going to be hilarious to you 2 years from now when it's on your car and you can't take it off? Same thing with tattoos. Alright.
Next time it says, your tattoos are bad, but mine's okay because it's in a different place. Matt Walsh. Okay. That's supposed to be a quote quote of me. That's not exactly what I said.
Love you, Matt. But hypocrisy much? I'm a devoted Catholic, and I have a great job. Thank goodness. And you know what?
I've got over 80 tattoos, including my whole bald head and neck. Yeah, I guess, you know, I am saying that mine's okay and yours aren't. That is what I'm saying. I think it's fine. My tattoos are fine and yours are, like, not totally fine.
I mean, it's not I'm not saying it should be illegal. Like, you have them. I you should I'm not saying you shouldn't go out in public. You should hide your head in shame, but I wouldn't like, I wouldn't recommend anyone ever doing that to themselves. Never.
I think I think it's I think it's ill advised to do that. I think in all cases, it's ill advised. It will not add to your life in any way to cover your entire neck and head in these images. I'm glad that it hasn't gotten away of you getting a job and I'm glad that you, apparently, are still happy with them, but I would 100% advise anyone against doing that. And your argument seems to be that if I think 1 or 2 tattoos in a not very visible location are okay, then I must automatically be in favor of dozens of tattoos all over your body or else I'm a hypocrite?
Is that way is that your argument? Isn't that like saying that I can't judge your diet of fast food if I also have a diet of some kind? You're a hypocrite. You judge what I eat, yet you also eat food. Curious?
Look at that. I got you now. But, yeah, because the point is not simply the fact of eating food in general, it's what you eat and how often you eat. And I think with tattoos, now, tattoos are not necessary to continue living like food is, but a similar kind of thing. It's not not necessarily so much a fact of getting one, it's where you get it, how many you get, all that kind of stuff.
Finally, I was like that kid in the eighties about video games. It causes me some old pain to hear the slight disrespect for video games and kids playing them in your comments. Okay. Look, guys. Okay.
Look, guys. I I really need you to stop being so sensitive. I I it's I just need you to try to not be so sensitive. It's at the point where I can't say anything that relates to video games at all without people getting their feelings hurt. I'm not you think I'm exaggerating.
If I just simply say the term video games and then move on and say nothing else about them, I will get angry comments just for saying it. I'm not kidding. And if you think that I'm kidding, keep in mind that a few weeks ago, there was a whole massive outrage cycle against me and YouTube videos and everything. People did there were gamers doing like 2 hour long shows about something I said about video games when all I I did a monologue, maybe you remember this, where I was talking about wokeness in video games just like I've talked about wokeness in movies and TV shows and music, like I've talked about in every area of culture and I talked about it in video games. And I was taking a position that conservative gamers agree with, and yet I still had gamers vehemently criticizing me for daring to talk about the subject at all.
In fact, I was really told that. Multiple times, I was told that I shouldn't talk about it at all. I am not allowed to talk about it because I've been critical in the past, so I'm not allowed to talk about it. Which is just like imagine someone taking that position with TV shows or movies, like someone telling you, well, you can't you can't talk about movies at all. You've been critical of some movies, and so you no.
You don't you can't talk about it. Never mention the movies ever again. It's like, look, in this case, you know, you say in your comment that video games can be a passion in some cases that lead to a career. Okay. I said exactly that in the segment that you're responding to.
I made exactly that, stipulation. I said that. So I don't know, did you tune out for that part or what? I'm not sure. But my whole point was that talking about parenting, especially parenting of boys, that you should help your son find his passions.
And we were using the video of the kid at the tractor convention and he's really into farming and he knows everything about farming and just a great, like, you could tell just from a 92nd video, he's a great kid. Any parent would be proud to have a kid like that. And so how do you end up with a kid like that? I mean, everybody would like to have a son. Like, even if it doesn't mean that every son has to be into farming, it's just a boy that is really passionate about something, very knowledgeable, able to converse about it in an intelligent way, very positive.
And how do you end up with that? How do you help your son be like that? And the answer is one of the big answers, as I said, is helping them find what they're passionate about. And every, every boy has something and it might change over time, but there's something there that if you were to sort of And sometimes they'll find it on their own, and sometimes they need some help finding it. And they find it just it's the thing that lights their soul on fire, just the thing that makes them that it just clicks.
And you wanna find that for them. And I said that in most cases, right, if you don't help your son find his passion, he's going to substitute entertainment. And he's just gonna and that's what a lot of kids do. The screen becomes not really a passion. You can't call it a passion because, for most kids, when they're looking at the screen, it's a very, it's a hypnotic, very sort of depressive state where they're sitting sort of slack jawed, staring at it.
It's not passionate activity. But if you don't help a kid find a passion, that's what it becomes, that becomes the substitute. And I said that in most cases, entertainment is not going to be the lifelong passion that will lead to a career and a lifestyle and a, you know, make him a good, well rounded person. Doesn't mean that they can never engage in entertainment or that they can never watch TVs and movies and play video games. It just means that that can't be the focal point of your child's life because it will not be the focal point of a productive, happy adulthood, right?
And you want to help them focus on the things that will later in life lead them to having good lives and being good people. But, as I said, sometimes it will. Like, there will be cases where entertainment, let's say video games, actually are a real passion. And that, like in your case, in the case of the person leaving this comment, they'll go on to be a concept artist in the video game industry. Fantastic.
Wonderful. And if you probably look back at your childhood spent playing video games and it's not a waste to you because it led to something that it became your art, great. I think that's great. My point is that most of the time, it won't work that way. And just like same thing with movies and TV.
Okay. I don't I get accused of singling big video games out. I don't. I don't single them out. Okay?
I get singled out whenever I bring them up. I just lump them in. It's just like movies and television. It's the same thing. Movies, TV, streaming, video games, all the same kind of thing.
It's digital screen based entertainment. I'm not against it, like, across the board. Of course not. But most of the time, it should be consumed in, in moderation. And same thing with movies and TV.
Now, there are a lot of kids that, if you let them, they'll sit around watching TV, and watching movies and and bingeing, you know, streaming and stuff. They'll do that all day every day if you let them. For a small fraction of those kids, a small like, 0.001% of those kids, will actually it will be a passion of theirs and they'll go on to become film directors and they'll work behind the camera and they'll be actors and they'll be they'll actually work in the entertainment industry. In which case, great, like for those kids, that was not wasted time, but most of the kids won't. Like, they're not going to go on to have a career in the business, they're not going to go on to do anything with it, it just will be a distraction, it will just be, you know, it'll just be an amusement, and nothing more than that.
Nothing wrong with an amusement, but an amusement should not be the focal point of your child's life. Right. So I await the, the anger comments finding something wrong with what I just said, no matter how reasonable it might be. Sunday, May 12th, we here at The Daily Wire are setting out on a new journey with our first ever animated series, Mr. Bertram.
And we're rolling out the red carpet for all of you with a free series premiere exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Mister Bertram is the brain shot of the brilliant Adam Carolla. Bertram is a junior high woodshop teacher who's standing his ground in the wave of modern day lunacy. He's tough as nails, and he's not about to let some overzealous social justice warrior dictate the terms of his classroom or his life. And it doesn't stop there.
Our friend Adam Carolla has rallied an unparalleled lineup of talent for the series, including Megyn Kelly, Roseanne Barr, Sage Steele, Danny Trejo, Kyle Dunnigan, Patrick Warburton, Tyler Fisher, our very own Brett Cooper, and a whole lot more. Take a look at the official mister Bertram trailer right now.
Speaker 7: Tell me what you need.
Speaker 0: Jumping in the first one. Rolling, speed, action.
Speaker 3: Saw Buck's looking a little chubby, wubby. So I bought him some new food.
Speaker 2: It's organic and vegan.
Speaker 7: Dogs are supposed to eat meat. They're descendants of wolves. You ever see a vegan wolf on the Nature Channel?
Speaker 0: I'm a vegan.
Speaker 7: Coffee is for closers, ladies. Listen up. Hey. Don't make this a prison hug.
Speaker 0: I'm a heteronormative cisgender white male, for which I apologize.
Speaker 8: I'm black, and that used to be enough, but I'm also bilingual, and I'm nonbinary. We're the army. We drink more before 9 AM than you Navy pukes do all day.
Speaker 3: He rubbed all the fur off his emotional support. Farrah, the damn thing looked like a 4 legged
Speaker 8: Charity and work. Two words that should never go together. Like women and opinions.
Speaker 2: I want a burly man. They're salty and make me dizzy.
Speaker 7: Sorry, HSD, to find a thingy to fix my gaming chair. When I was on the construction site, my chair was a 5 gallon bucket. It was also my toilet.
Speaker 3: Hey. I'm done. I'm going back to bed. Thanks a lot.
Speaker 0: Prepare for the razor sharp comedy that only Adam Corolla and The Daily Wire can deliver. Don't miss out on the series premier streaming free, exclusive on Daily Wire Plus on Sunday, May 12th. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Christie Dome, the governor of South Dakota and potential of Trump running mate for 2024, though not anymore, I guess, has found herself in the middle of what meteorologists would call a massive epic storm. And it all begins with a revelation offered up freely by Noam herself in her forthcoming book about how she killed her dog.
The Guardian had the report quote, Cricket was a wirehair pointer about 14 months old, the South Dakota governor writes in a new book adding that the dog, a female, had an aggressive personality and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant. By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noam says she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds, and having the time of her life. Noam describes Cricket then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked.
And then on the way home after the hunt, as Noam stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noam's truck and attacked the family's chickens, grabbing one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another. Cricket, the untrainable dog, Noam writes, behaved like a trained assassin. When Noam finally grabbed Cricket, she says the dog whipped around to bite me. Then as the chicken's owner wept, Noam repeatedly apologized and wrote, wrote the shocked family a check for the price they asked and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime. Through it all, Noam says Cricket was the picture of pure joy.
I hated that dog, Noam writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself untrainable, dangerous to anybody she came in contact with, and less than worthless as a hunting dog. Okay. Now, Noam then tells us about how she decided that she had no choice but to put the dog down. So she led the dog down to a gravel pit and she shot it. And this, again, I remind you, is a story that Christi Noem chose to tell in her own book.
Nobody would know about the tragic demise of poor cricket if not for Noem writing about it in her book. Why did she tell this story? Well, in subsequent public statements, she has explained that this was meant to be a story about how she's a tough woman who isn't afraid to make difficult decisions. Here's what she tweeted on Saturday, or rather on Sunday. Quote, I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of cricket, one of our working dogs at a ranch, and my forthcoming book, No Going Back.
The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned. What I learned from my years of public service, especially leading South Dakota through COVID, is people are looking for leaders who are authentic, willing to learn from the past, and don't shy away from tough challenges. My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life. The fact is South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.
Whether running the Brent Ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle, even if it's hard and painful. I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. As I explained in the book, it wasn't easy, but often the easy way isn't the right way. Okay. Now this defense, as you might imagine, has not been persuasive to the vast majority of the public.
And over the past few days, after this excerpt from the book was made public, Noam has faced immense backlash from all corners of the political world. Left and right have blasted her relentlessly and ruthlessly. Just to give you some idea, the tweet that I just read to you, that with her, you know, defending herself has as of last night, it had 22,000 comments underneath it. And basically all of them, including many from prominent conservatives and, of course, a great many leftists, are condemning her in no uncertain terms. I scrolled through the first 100 comments just for reference, and not a single one of them, not one was sympathetic to her.
0 it's a a 100 to 0 against her right now is the verdict, and she's been trending now for days, and she's been discussed on every major news show. And all of the commentary has agreed that not only is she a dog murdering psychopath, but she's also killed her political career just as surely as she killed poor old Cricket. And we can honestly say without the slightest hint of exaggeration that no politician in modern American history has ever been this widely condemned for anything. I mean, ever. I I think of an example of any politician ever being this roundly maybe Anthony Weiner, is is the other example I can think of.
And so Anthony Weiner and Christina. What do we make of that? Well, for one thing, we can say for certain that Kristi Noem has the political intelligence and political instincts of a cantaloupe. Anybody with a passing familiarity with modern American culture can tell you that the very last thing any politician with national ambition should ever do is admit to killing a dog. You would be better off confessing to anything else, I mean anything, including killing a person, and we'll get back to that in a moment.
And I'm not she could confess in that book that 20 years ago, she got really mad at her neighbor and walked over and shot her neighbor in the face. And I promise you there would be less outrage over that than the dog. I promise you. But from a purely political perspective, this is the most egregious unforced error we have ever seen in our lifetimes. And and all for the sake of proving that she can make tough decisions.
I mean, does she not have any other anecdotes that could make that point? Like, is that really that's what you go with? It's like if you went to a job interview and the interviewer asked, like, what are your greatest strengths? And you said, well, you know, I'm really good at setting stuff on fire. Now even if you meant that in a positive way, like even if you only ever set things on fire for good reasons, it's just a bizarre fact to offer into evidence in that context.
Like, just choose something else. Don't choose that. It's too much baggage with that, right? Why choose that of all things? And the context in this case, is a book that exists surely to lend her, Nome, that is, some legitimacy on the national stage and earn some easy publicity.
Every politician writes a book like this if they're running for national office or if they expect that they might be nominated for vice president. Nobody ever actually reads these books. They'll sell 12,000 copies in the 1st month and then they're forgotten and not a single additional copy is is sold and, nobody remembers that it was written. You're not supposed to actually make news with these books. You're not supposed to say anything legitimately noteworthy.
And by all accounts, Noam's book is dutifully boring and pointless, full of Republican cliches and boilerplate with this one story about killing a dog and another about killing a goat apparently, randomly dropped into the middle of it. This is the only interesting thing that has ever been written in a politician's memoir. So, I mean, I guess you you could say that much in her defense, like, at least it's there have been many books like this and it's the only time that anyone any politician has ever read anything that made you go, oh, really? Only time. But now we see why they usually avoid, writing interesting things in their memoirs because it doesn't go well for them.
But even if it was politically suicidal for Noam to reveal herself as the anti John Wick, was she actually wrong for what she did? That's the question. Like, was it actually wrong to pull an old yeller on cricket? Well, I'm not much of an animal rights activist myself, you know that. I don't expect that my PETA membership card will be arriving in the mail anytime soon.
But even so, I would say that, yes, Noam was wrong to kill her dog in that situation. And look, if you've lost me on a topic like this, you're in trouble. If I'm not on your side, that's rough. You're in rough shape. Now granted, life on a farm is not like life in the suburbs.
Animals are kept for utility. They have to pull their weight. And, anyone who is not a vegetarian eats food every day that was once a defenseless animal, put down much like cricket was, and then butchered and consumed, okay, which presumably cricket wasn't, although she doesn't say. And you might be squeamish about it, but that's the way it works. And that's where your food comes from, and you should be an adult about it, when it comes to how things go on farms because, again, that's this is where this is the world would starve to death if we didn't eat animals and so, in general, we need to understand that about farm life.
But that does not let Noam off the hook in this case because it sounds like Cricket was poorly trained. At 14 months old, it doesn't sound like enough time was devoted properly training her to be a useful animal on the farm. You can't just kill a dog because you're annoyed with it. I mean, if I killed every animal that annoyed me, I would be like the Genghis Khan of Christine Ohmes, but I haven't killed any animals for the record because taking a life, even an animal life, requires greater moral justification than that. These are God's creatures after all.
So, Christy Noem was wrong for killing the dog. Even if plenty of other animals were killed in her farm for perfectly justifiable reasons, which they probably were because it's a farm. This one does not seem to be justified in my opinion. And if I could go back and rescue Cricket from her cruel fate, I would. Although if I did, she'd still be dead at this point because this happened, like, 20 years ago.
Still, I am opposed to the killing. I think it was wrong. And so I agree with the thrust of the criticism of Cristy Noland. Yet the reaction is still absurdly overblown. I mean, this amount of outrage over a dog killed on a farm 2 decades ago is a bit excessive, especially when you contrast it with politicians who have publicly confessed to killing people, not just people, but their own children.
Consider the fact that several prominent national politicians have in recent years admitted to getting abortions. And one example is representative Pramila Jayapal who wrote about her abortion story in The Washington Post in 2019. And according to Jayapal, her first child, who now supposedly identifies as non binary and who Jayapal refers to as they throughout the article, had a difficult birth and wound up in the NICU for a few months. Eventually, Jayapal divorced the father of her child and met somebody else and then she conceived another child with a new man but decided that she was going to kill the child because she didn't want to potentially go through another difficult birth. And you might find some similarities here in the reasoning.
Kristi Noem killed her dog because it was difficult. Jayapal killed her child because she thought the child might be difficult. And you probably don't remember this story about Jayapal because there wasn't much outrage in response to it. She didn't trend for days on end. She wasn't condemned by both sides of the political aisle or even one side, really.
There was nothing like the anger and vitriol being directed at Kristi Noem. The public, to include conservatives, have proven to be far, far, far, far less accepting of politicians killing dogs than of politicians killing their own human offspring. In fact, Jayapal was celebrated by many of the people now screaming at Kristi Noem. So it's not just that people are less upset by the murder of children than by the murder of dogs, it's that many people are actively in favor of the former. And those not in favor still can't muster the kind of disgust and visceral revulsion in the face of it that they can for a dead dog.
This is a sign of a truly sick society, one that will not and cannot survive so long as it prioritizes, you know, dogs over people. There has never been a human society that valued dogs over its own children. We are the first. This is a form of moral dementia that we are pioneering. Now whenever we have conversations like this, I'll be accused of of hating animals.
But the truth is, I don't hate animals. How could I? Animals are not, they're not moral creatures, first of all. They aren't capable of committing acts of evil, so they're, like, what, hate? There's nothing to hate.
But just as they're not capable of committing evil, so too are they incapable of performing acts of virtue. It is because human beings can be evil that they can also be virtuous. And it is virtuous to treat animals with kindness and love. It is good to love animals. But we are called to love and protect human children even more.
This is the kind of thing that shouldn't need explaining. It should come instinctively to every person. And for nearly all people who have ever lived on Earth, it has come instinctively. Only in our culture do we systematically murder 100 of thousands of human children every year while elevating dogs to the status of children. Indeed, many of the very same people who kill their children are also elevating dogs in this way.
They are actually quite literally replacing their kids with dogs. So, look, if you are pro life and you fight against the murder of the unborn and you have the appropriate emotional reaction to stories of mothers killing their own children, and you love and protect human children above all, and you also happen to love dogs and you cherish them because they're God's creatures too, then that's great. You have your priorities exactly in order, you should be commended, I have no issue with you whatsoever, you're exactly right when it comes to this. Fantastic. But we all know that you, sadly, are not representative of the majority.
The majority of Americans are either in favor of or indifferent to the mass slaughter of human children, and either implicitly or explicitly value dogs and other 4 legged creatures above humans, including children, including even in some cases, their own children. And that to me is the real scandal. I feel bad for poor Cricket. I feel worse about the approximately 20,000,000 human children murdered in this country since Cricket's demise. And that's why those who are outraged far more by the death of 1 dog than the 20,000,000 human deaths since then are today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day. Godspeed.
Speaker 9: South Dakota governor Kristi Noem shoots her dog, Russell Brand gets baptized, and an app predicts when you'll die and how rich you'll be. Check it out on The Michael Knowles
Speaker 3: Show.
@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show
Squatters Can Now Come In And Steal Your Home With No Consequences https://t.co/0cZGLIuNmt
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, several topics are discussed. Firstly, private property rights in the US are seen as being under assault, with laws and courts seemingly protecting home invaders more than homeowners. Joe Biden claims that the election is not about him, but rather about the previous president. Additionally, a study reveals that Americans are currently experiencing higher levels of unhappiness. Elliot Page speaks out against misgendering, expressing the trauma associated with being misgendered. A woman in Queens, New York, is arrested after a man claims to have a lease for her property. The US ranks 23rd in the World Happiness Report, its lowest ranking ever. Asia is found to have 99 out of the 100 worst air pollution cities. In a tragic case, a mother leaves her 16-month-old daughter alone for 10 days, resulting in the child's death. The need for the death penalty is highlighted in this particular case. The video then shifts focus to a woman who received a life sentence in prison without parole for starving her child to death, with the speaker arguing that capital punishment is necessary for crimes that demand severe punishment. The speaker also mentions a windshield cleaning device and a show about cannibalism. The Nickelodeon grooming scandal is discussed, with criticism directed towards those who defend the perpetrators. Lastly, Elliot Page's interview is mentioned, where they discuss the trauma of being misgendered. The speaker expresses a lack of sympathy for Page's perspective and discusses the limitations they may face in their acting career due to their transition.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, that will show private property rights are under severe assault all across the country. Increasingly, the laws and courts are protecting home invaders and giving them more rights than homeowners. Also, Joe Biden claims that the election is not a referendum on him. Instead, he says it's a referendum on the guy who hasn't been in office for 4 years. And a new study says Americans are more unhappy than they've ever been.
Why is that? Plus, Elliot Page, formerly Ellen Page, speaks out about the evils of misgendering. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. When you're running a business, time is money. That's why I'm so excited to introduce you to Ram.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then Ramp could be for you. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back into your pocket. With Ramp, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions. You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting. Ramp's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again, and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports. The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books 8 times faster. Ramp is so easy to use. Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have 5 employees or 5,000. Get $250 when you join Ramp.
Just go to ramp.com/walsh, spelled ramp.com/walsh. Again, that's ramp.com/walsh. Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank members, FDIC, terms and conditions apply. One of the most important ideas in the bill of rights is that your private property belongs to you. It wasn't exactly a novel concept, but just in case there was any doubt, the Bill of Rights spelled it out.
No one can seize your property without due process. And if you take a look at the major court cases in this area over the years, you'll find that you have the strongest privacy interest in your home, which makes sense. Now there's all kinds of exceptions that police can use to search your car or your locker at work, for example, but for your home, there aren't very many exceptions. Your home is your castle, as the saying goes. That's been true since the common law was created, but it's not true anymore.
It's not even remotely true, in fact. It turns out that when you flood the United States with a limitless supply of illegal immigrants, while at the same time shipping millions of jobs overseas, then housing becomes a very scarce commodity. Squatters, mostly out of desperation, pop up in every home they can find, even homes that haven't been abandoned. And then when homeowners try to enforce their rights and kick these criminals out of the property they paid for, they're finding out that the 5th Amendment to the constitution has effectively been suspended. As we've discussed briefly, Esre, squatters, home invaders, now have more rights than homeowners in many states across the country.
The government will assist them in seizing your property. The police universally will take the side of the criminal, the criminal home invader and and kick the homeowner to the curb. And then nonprofits and law firms rush in to represent the squatter in legal proceedings should they become necessary. And then somehow, courts will often still rule in favor of the squatter, the home invader, the person who isn't supposed to be there. We don't have to speculate about any of this.
It's all well documented at this point. No reasonable person can dispute it. And I'll start with an example that's gotten a lot of attention over the last couple of days. I want you to watch as a 47 year old woman in Queens, Queens, New York, is dragged away from her own home in handcuffs because someone claims to have a lease for her property. This guy can't show the lease to to anybody, including the police and the media, but because he doesn't actually live there, he's invading the home.
But because he claims he's been living there for around a month, they arrest the woman, the homeowner, instead. Watch.
Speaker 1: Today, I'm not leaving my house.
Speaker 2: Less than 10 minutes after police left and the locks were changed. The man who claims to be the one actually leasing the house shows up.
Speaker 1: Call the police again.
Speaker 2: With the other guy, police took off the property. Do you
Speaker 1: see this? This guy just literally broke down my door. Broke through myself and my daughter to get in here. This guy just forced himself into my house.
Speaker 3: No. He did not.
Speaker 1: Yes. He did. No. He did not. And so did you.
Yeah. You broke through the front door. All of a sudden.
Speaker 2: The man called the police on her.
Speaker 1: So why is it that I have to leave and he doesn't have to leave?
Speaker 4: Because technically, he can't be kicked out.
Speaker 5: He needs to go to court.
Speaker 2: They consider this a landlord tenant issue. And by law, it has to be handled through the housing court, not with police. If you own this house, you would not want her inside.
Speaker 6: Own the house.
Speaker 7: I don't own this. Exactly.
Speaker 2: She does.
Speaker 6: Yes. But then once again, you should know how the law works. I do know how
Speaker 2: it works.
Speaker 3: There's there's rules to
Speaker 6: the ask you gotta go to court and send
Speaker 3: me to civil court.
Speaker 2: He says he signed a lease in October, but wouldn't tell us with who.
Speaker 6: I got proof longer than that.
Speaker 2: Show us the proof.
Speaker 3: But who are you for me
Speaker 6: to show? I show it to cops.
Speaker 2: Dan with Channel 7 news. If you don't wanna show it, you don't wanna
Speaker 3: show it.
Speaker 6: Come here, bro.
Speaker 2: I like that. I would I would like to see it. He didn't show
Speaker 0: me a lease. This is a bill.
Speaker 2: This is A bill for work he says he had done to the house. He didn't show police a lease either.
Speaker 5: The police department doesn't have the lease? No. He's got no documentation.
Speaker 4: Just bills.
Speaker 2: So Adela, you're getting arrested right now? I'm being arrested. For what?
Speaker 3: For being in my For being in
Speaker 1: my for being in my own
Speaker 0: home. Arrested for being in her own home. That's exactly what happened. Unlawful eviction is what they call it, though. So they call it when you call the police because there's a home invader in your home.
That's what you get if you're not willing to wait 2 years or more for New York's completely overloaded housing court to review your case. And by the way, even once New York's housing court does review the case, there's no guarantee they'll side with the homeowner. This is a city that has outlawed the right of self defense after all. And once that's gone, good luck getting them to enforce any of your other rights. This is the norm in left wing jurisdictions now.
It's not just that the police don't care about squatters with 0 documentation whatsoever, it's also the fact that the courts don't enforce the law even when you bring flagrant crimes like this to their attention. In Washington State, as I mentioned, yesterday, a judge just granted a restraining order against a landlord whose tenant hasn't been paying rent for years. The landlord organized a protest to bring attention to the situation. The judge shut it down. This is a tenant who's apparently purchased 2 cars while refusing to pay rent.
And in Washington state, the court sides with him. This is not just a problem in New York City and Washington state. It's happening all over the United States. Consider this recent episode in Atlanta, for example. This is from just 4 months ago.
A woman listed her home for sale, not for rent, for sale, and then complete strangers moved in and changed the locks. And in response, the police did absolutely nothing. Watch.
Speaker 7: This is my home, and there's somebody in there, an intruder in there, intruders And who I do not know.
Speaker 8: This wooded corner lot in Tucker was for sale, posted as plain as day online for sale, not for rent. On closing day, homeowner Ronan McCabe discovered people, strangers, had moved in and changed the locks.
Speaker 7: They broke into my house and moved in. All the locks had been changed.
Speaker 8: Friday, October 20th, mister McCabe called Gwinnett County Police. The home had been empty for just a few weeks before it was filled with a stranger's furniture. He says the couple inside told police they had a lease.
Speaker 7: They have no contract, no agreement with me. Gwinnett County Police are saying that there's nothing that they can do.
Speaker 8: The Gwinnett PD's 3rd trip was different. Things changed very fast. A woman who told police she was his wife abruptly left. He came out, went back in. Suddenly, US Marshals started flooding the street.
It seems they had a parallel investigation. Finally over. Right? Nope. The female was back in the home.
She hadn't been arrested for anything.
Speaker 7: I'm asking her to move for a stool fight today.
Speaker 0: You can ask, but it might not pan out. I mean, it's beyond parody. So the police do eventually show up, but it's not to evict the home invaders who are stealing the home, because that's something you can do now in America. You can steal an entire home. No.
They show up because it's it's, because they have their own parallel investigation for some other crimes that one of these squatters, a sex offender, committed in the past. So the cops take one man away in custody, but they allow the other squatter to stay on the property. The cops say the homeowner can ask for her to leave, but it might not pan out. That's what law enforcement means now. You can ask people to stop breaking the law.
You can ask them, gee, will you stop breaking this law? Will you stop victimizing me this way? But, you know, it might not pan out. It needs to be said that these are not close cases. Okay?
It's true that if it's a confusing situation, say a tenant appears to have legitimate lease documentation, then in that case, it's probably best that the cops don't arrest the tenant. And then in that case, like, you have to settle it in court because it's not clear who's in the right, but these are not difficult situations like that. When sex offenders start living in your house without any valid documentation, the police should remove them. When somebody barges into your home by force and just sets up shop, there shouldn't be any question about it. Of course, they should be kicked out.
But apparently, that isn't happening anywhere. A similar scene played out, 7 months ago in Chicago. And this time, a homeowner tries to rent out the property and squatters show up. But once again, the police do absolutely nothing. Watch.
Speaker 6: My wife and I built our house 24, 25 years ago.
Speaker 4: Jim Johnson and his wife, Lark, were looking forward to some good neighbors when the for rent sign went up on this house in their cul de sac. But last week, they were shocked when a family seemingly moved in overnight.
Speaker 6: When they show up and immediately rip down the sign of the leasing company or the owner company, you're kinda like flat raises a, you know, little concern. And then the next move is a locksmith shows up. You're kinda like, that's even more of a concern.
Speaker 4: A call to the management company confirmed their fears. The new residents are not renters, but rather squatters.
Speaker 9: They they've gone to the grocery store. They've had cable come out. They are acting like they live there, but they have no furniture. They brought in a lot of blankets.
Speaker 4: Hi. I'm Maya from Channel 13. Can I talk to you guys? Were you guys supposed to be staying here? When we knocked on the door, a young woman answered.
Were you guys supposed to be staying here? Are you guys squatting? She didn't want to talk to us, but a short time later, the sheriff's department was called. The deputies have confirmed to us that they are investigating the squatting situation. But for now, this has remained a civil matter, much to the chagrin of the neighborhood.
Speaker 9: Well, what's been frustrating is that I have a 12 year old that I don't even let walk across the street to her best friend's house without watching her, and we've never had that problem.
Speaker 4: The ownership company says it has filed eviction papers, but our experience covering these stories shows sometimes it could take 6 months to a year for the process to work through the courts.
Speaker 0: So we can spend all day going from city to city showing you footage like this. There's footage from rural jurisdictions as well that, that I could show you. It's happening all over. These kinds of home invasions are so common that one handyman has opened up a business advising homeowners how to regain access to their own homes when squatters show up. Basically, the idea is that you need to generate your own lease so that you can show it to the police officers who are now trained to respect your squatters' rights, over your rights in your own home.
Watch.
Speaker 10: Well, squatters took over my mom's house, when after my dad passed away. We were trying to sell the home. I called local law enforcement, and as soon as they saw that there was furniture in the house, they said that I had a squatter situation and they had, basically no jurisdiction and they couldn't do anything. So I, you know, I dissected the laws over a weekend. I basically figured out that until there's civil action, the squatters didn't have any rights.
So if I could switch places with them, become the squatter myself, I would assume those squatter rights. And just in case they had a fake lease, like I hear some do, I had my mom, device, you know, write me up a lease. We got it notarized.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's hard to think of a more humiliating exercise than this. You own a property and to access it and to get the police to enforce the law, you need to draw up some fake lease for them. And this idea actually works, by the way. We know that because several years ago, the journalist, Charlie LaDuff, tried it in Michigan. He out squatted the squatters.
Watch.
Speaker 3: Wonderful.
Speaker 5: I'm coming to move in.
Speaker 3: You are? Yeah.
Speaker 5: I got the keys. What's for what's for dinner?
Speaker 3: I'm not cooking dinner. I'm gonna go pick up my chat.
Speaker 5: Oh, can Yeah. Can I get in?
Speaker 11: No, sir. But I have,
Speaker 5: I have the deed here.
Speaker 3: You do?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Here's the deed. Here's the check.
Speaker 3: Alright.
Speaker 5: Here's the deed, and I got permission from the landlord.
Speaker 3: Okay. So tell them what I'm working. I can
Speaker 5: I can legally go in there?
Speaker 3: Well, you know?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I can legally go.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You can legally go in there. Let me in my house. Alright. Who let you in your This is Lynn Williams' house.
Speaker 5: Oh, it's
Speaker 3: Lynn Williams.
Speaker 5: Lynn. It doesn't say Lynn.
Speaker 3: Well, of course not because she took all my paperwork, and everybody else know it.
Speaker 5: Is that power hooked up legit there?
Speaker 3: My power is
Speaker 5: That's not legit.
Speaker 3: Is not legit.
Speaker 5: No. You you you stealing the power.
Speaker 3: I am blessed until she is What do I what do
Speaker 0: I have now?
Speaker 6: Oh. I'm
Speaker 3: going to jail for squatting.
Speaker 5: What's a turn of events?
Speaker 3: Call my boyfriend next time.
Speaker 5: Are you gonna bail her out?
Speaker 3: This is in fact technically a violation of probation.
Speaker 5: So Oh.
Speaker 0: Are you stealing power? He asks. I'm blessed, responds the squad, or at least the, woman, I think, has a sense of humor. What's funny is that in this situation, unlike all the other ones, the police actually do take the original squatter to jail. This is the only time they'll take action to protect your property.
You have to hire a new squatter to kick out the old squatter. I guess the idea is that, you know, the most recent squatter gets dibs. This is a mockery of the idea of private property rights, obviously, and there's a reason it's happening. It's the same reason you see so much mockery of religion. It's the same reason BLM goes after the family unit.
It's why the corporate media pushes transgenders. Private property rights, like religion and a family unit, is a bulwark against total state control of our lives. As long as we have private property, the state can't control us, at least not as easily, at least not to the extent that they want to. Without private property, we're just renters. We are totally, at the mercy of the powers that be.
Renters can be evicted at will. You'll own nothing and be happy, as the saying goes. The Biden administration has done everything it can to normalize the destruction of private property rights. The administration fought to extend the COVID era eviction moratorium as long as they could, long past the time that there was any plausible argument that ending evictions would somehow stop the spread. And by the way, there was never any plausible argument that that was going to help stop the spread.
But even based on their original argument, they were extending it well, well past that. And that led effectively to the nationalization of private property in this country. Landlords lost the right to evict squatters paying no rent even when they own the property outright. Let's, watch that to remember.
Speaker 11: Yeah. And they're the ones paying badly. We're talking about a family, a young family with a 2 year old child who are actually packed in a room at the in laws because they cannot move into the house that they actually bought a year ago. Watch this.
Speaker 12: My husband and I closed escrow the day that we got married, July 24th last year. We are told because we are the new owners intending to live in the property, we would be able to evict them.
Speaker 11: Them being squatters that had been staying on the Shadeway Road home in Lakewood.
Speaker 5: So I I was confused on the fact she can't even walk into the house even though she owns the house. I mean, how what's that about?
Speaker 11: That's right. Because the person living there, they were trying to do a re a remodel trying, and she initially let them. They have to ask permission to go into their own home because she has a right to her peace in the covenant. And if they just show up there without letting her know and getting her permission, she'll call the cops, and they'll remove them. It's happened.
The neighbors were telling me about it. It's crazy.
Speaker 5: I I don't even know where to go with that. Hopefully, we can get her some help, and hopefully that shines a light on clearly a loophole that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The anchor says it's a loophole, but it's it's the opposite of a loophole. It's not a loophole at all. The policy was working as intended. The eviction moratorium had nothing to do with the virus.
It was intended to do something that's never happened in this country since the civil war, which is the wide scale suspension of private property rights. And once you pull off something as unconstitutional as seizing people's homes in a time of emergency, as the Biden administration defined it, then it becomes much easier to seize people's homes at any point in the future. And that is what we're seeing right now. We're seeing it play out again all across the entire country. And that means more homes for the millions of illegal aliens who are entering this country.
It means more humiliation and destruction for American citizens. And it means we're getting closer to some homeowner somewhere snapping and deciding to take back his property by force. At this point, you have to imagine that's exactly what the people running this country want to see happen.
Speaker 3: Now let's
Speaker 0: get to our 5 headlines. Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. GCU believes that our creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe in equal opportunities and that the American dream is driven by purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree. GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023. GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu. From the Daily Wire, it says the legal drama between Texas and the Biden administration continues after a federal appeals court ordered a pause in the state's law that allows authorities to arrest and deport immigrants suspected of crossing the southern border illegally. The appeals court's hold on the law comes just hours after the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed it to take effect as litigation continues. In a 2 to 1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order that stops Texas Senate Bill 4 from going into effect as the court hears the case brought by the Biden administration along with the ACLU and other groups that oppose the immigration law. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the case on, Wednesday, which is today.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority rejected the Biden administration's emergency request for a stay on the Texas law while litigation continues in the 5th Circuit while the high court's 3 liberal justice dissented. So the, as I said, the the court drama continues here. And I have no faith that the courts will ultimately arrive at the correct conclusion on this. We'll see. The problem is that you can't just analyze the letter of the law here.
You know, it's it's, it's not enough to look and say, oh, well, immigration enforcement is a federal matter, which it may be in theory. But the point here, the context is that the federal government has completely abdicated its responsibility, not just abdicated it. It's not just that it's fail like trying but failing or doing an incompetent job or an inefficient job. We're used to all that from the federal government. Everything they do, if they do it at all, is going to at least be done incompetently and inefficiently, and in a way that's much more expensive than it needs to be.
But what's actually happening is the federal government is involved in a deliberate conspiracy to undermine our immigration laws and erase our borders in order to increase the political power of the ruling party in the country. And so that's what's actually happening. And any court that doesn't recognize that basic fact, doesn't recognize that that is the situation, will probably not arrive at the right conclusion. Will not it will not give us the the right ruling because they aren't ruling on the actual issue at hand. And and you can't even really refer to the constitution on this one because as far as I know, there's nothing in the constitution one way or another describing exactly what to do when the federal government engages in this was not a possibility that our founders had seriously considered, and how could they?
But that is what's happening, and that is the context in which Texas passed its own border law and in which every other red state should be passing similar laws, if they haven't already or if they haven't already, if those laws are not already, you know, making their way through the legislative branch, then then they should be. But that that's that's the point, that, you know, you cannot assess this situation and look at it as if as if, you know, the scenario is that, well, the federal government is trying to enforce the border, but then Texas is coming along and trying to do their own thing, and and then you have this conflict and it's very confusing. That that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening. Instead, the federal government has said, we're not gonna force it at all. And you have to just sit back and allow the 3rd world to invade your state.
You have to allow your state to become the 3rd world. That's what we're, you know, that that's that's what we're saying. And we're gonna bring in, you know, we're gonna bring in drugs. We're gonna bring in drug dealers. We're gonna bring in violent criminals.
We're gonna bring people in who start who are murdering the citizens of your state. We're gonna bring them all in. We're not gonna do anything about it. And you have to sit and take it. That's what the federal government has said in, you know, in so many words.
That's what they've said. And any analysis, any legal analysis of the case has to include that reality or it's not gonna come to that conclusion. Here's another clip of president Dementia stuttering and babbling. You know, this one isn't even that bad compared to most, but there's a point that, I wanna make about it anyway. But first, let's watch
Speaker 13: it. Look, Forrest. The fact is that, I I shouldn't probably get started on it, but because I promised I'd be brief. I wanna say hello to everyone of you, but, look, this this election is is not a referendum on me. It's a it's an election between me and a guy named Trump.
Speaker 0: Okay. So he he started by saying, look, forks. So he's talking to kitchen utensils now. That's that's where we are. Nothing to worry about there.
But what he says at the end of the clip is, more important because he says that this election is not a referendum on him, which is a very different argument from the one that an incumbent would make, if he was confident in his performance. Right? It's it's, it's interesting that he would come out and say that, because if you're confident in your performance and if you're confident that the country is in a better place now than it was when you got into office, then you would say, yeah, this election is a referendum on me. This election is about me. It's about my it's about my performance.
And if you think I've done a good job, if the country is in a better place now after 4 years, if you're in a better place, then, then vote for me. Yeah. I mean, this this is a performance review. You should be reviewing my performance. That's what he would be saying, but he's not.
I mean, an incumbent saying that the election is not a referendum on him, it's like an employ it is like an employee it's like it's like a performance review. Imagine an employee going in for a performance review with his boss and starting it by saying, look, Forks, this this performance review, it's not about me. This is not really about me. This is not a referendum on my performance. No, it's not about this is about, Dave in accounting.
That's that's not about me. It's about him. You know, when you open that way, it tells you something about, about this person's confidence in their own performance. But, you know, we we're we're not usually, a a president will not come out and be that open about the fact that they want to, you know, make this not about them because they're not sure of their own performance, you know, Biden is more honest about that than presidents usually are. Not because he's an honest guy, he's not, he's a despicable lying scumbag, but he also has dementia.
So, you know, sometimes he blurts out the truth, inadvertently and that's what's happened there. So we're not used to that level of honesty about it, but we do know that this is usually this is how the game is played and, you want the election to be, you know, as we've talked about plenty of times, and this is a basic political analysis that many have offered, but it's true that you don't want the election to be about you. Whoever the election is about, usually, they lose. And, which is why it's so important for Trump to allow the election to be about Biden. And I think so far, that is how it's playing out.
But, really, the you know, even though Trump has had the the the nomination secured, you know, effectively for a while now, for months, It wasn't officially secured until a few days ago. And so now we're, like, officially in the general election, I suppose, so we'll see how it plays out. But, really, the less that Trump, you know, puts himself in the spotlight, they're gonna try to put him in the spotlight, obviously. And, you know, trying to throw him in jail with 50 different, court trials is is is one way to do that. But the more that he allows like, this this is all it is.
Just allow, Joe Biden to be in the spotlight, shine the spotlight on him, make it all about him. Every question that it goes to you, throw it right back at Biden every single time, back to him, back to him, and make people focus on this old doddering, senile, bumpkin in the White House who has made everyone's life work. Like, you know, the country is not in a better place today. That that that is the the fundamental basic question you have to ask about an incumbent who's running for reelection. And it's not always, you know, we say, are you in a better place?
Well, of course, that's something people take into account. But, you know, someone could do you could have a president who does a fantastic job, and that doesn't automatically mean that you individually be in a better place because things can happen in your own life that, that get in the way, just like you could end up in a better place even though the president is doing a terrible job. So what you have to ask is the country generally. Does anyone really believe that the country as a whole is in a better place today than it was before Trump before Biden took office. And that's a broad it's a broad category, you know, a better place.
Well, what do we mean by that? Well, you break it down economically, politically, culturally. Whatever level you wanna look. Is there any better place on any of those levels? And, of course, the answer is no.
Alright. CNN has, has this report. All but one of the 100 cities
Speaker 3: with
Speaker 0: the world's worst air pollution last year were in Asia. So 99 of the 100 worst polluters are in Asia. With the climate crisis playing a pivotal role in bad air quality that is risking the health of billions of people worldwide, the vast majority of these cities, 83, were in India. Eighty 3 of the 100 worst polluters, according to this report, are in India. And all exceeded the World Health Organization's air quality guidelines by more than 10 times.
The study looks specifically at fine, particulate matter, which is the tiniest pollutant, but also the most dangerous. Only 9% of, more than 7 800, cities analyzed globally recorded the air quality that met, the World Health Organization's standards, which says average annual levels of PM2.5 should not exceed 5 micrograms per cubic meter. And I definitely know what all that means. Or maybe I don't, but I do bay understand the the basic fact here that, almost all, by this measure, World World Health Organization, you know, however much you trust them, almost all of the worst polluters are in Asia. And we add to that something we talked about recently when the subject came up of, plastic straws against that, again, I believe.
But you add to that that, almost all of the pollution in the ocean is coming from Asia and then you also throw in Africa. But Asia and Africa together are causing almost all of the pollution in the ocean, and the reason for that is pretty simple. You know, all you have to do is look at an image or a video of rivers in a lot of these third world countries And the rivers themselves are, you know, basically treated like conveyor belts where they just dump the trash right into the river and it just ferries it out into the ocean. So water pollution, the pollution in the ocean, plastics in the ocean, all the, you know, all the poor, sea turtles that are getting, you know, whatever plastic straws stuck in their nose, most of that almost all of it happening because of Asia and Africa. And then we're told air pollution also, that's almost all Asia, vast majority of it, with India contributing, most of all.
And yet, even though we get these reports from the media from time to time, usually most of the scolding and the lecturing on so called climate change goes to us. But the reality on top of everything else, on top of the fact that, you know, man made climate change is a myth, on top of the fact that that, you know, we, in fact, don't control the weather, that the sun is what calls the shots on our planet no matter what we do. But even aside from all that, like, the reality is that in the United States, we could we could stop driving cars completely. We could give up on cars. We could just decide that we're gonna walk and ride bikes everywhere.
We can get rid of all of our plastic straws, which we essentially have. Get rid of all the plastics. Get rid of all the plastics. Get rid of everything. All all pollution out the window, at least any any any pollution that comes from technology, you know, we can't do anything about the the cows.
Like, we could kill kill all the cows too. We could do all of that. And what difference will it actually make when you've got the vast majority of the pollution coming from the other side of the world and coming from countries that, again, treat their rivers, their waterways like garbage dumps. So it just it it makes no difference. And But there's no effort to grapple with that, we still get all the lectures, which, of course, is ridiculous.
Here's another report. This is from Axios. It says, the the US hit an all time low ranking in the annual World Happiness Report, tumbling 8 spots to number 23. Some countries, like Finland and Denmark, consistently rank among the world's happiest. The US isn't one of them.
A steady supply of studies has found that Americans feel glum about issues ranging from loneliness to the economy and the country's political leadership. It's the first time since the report launched 12 years ago that the US did not rank among the world's 20 happiest countries. And we had another study like that, that we talked about recently, coming to a similar conclusion that we are an unhappy country and becoming unhappier by the day. I think there's a in fact, it was just yesterday, we talked about wokeness, how people who are who are woke tend to be the most depressed and the most anxious. And so there's a there's a connection here.
Like, why why is this the case? Why is America an unhappy country? Now I'm I'm skeptical of any study that claims to measure happiness in this way. Happiness is not the kind of thing that can be measured in a quantitative way. And the only way that you can really measure it is just with self reported data, just by asking people whether or not they're happy.
So what you're really reporting is, what are the countries where people are more likely to report that they are happy? But there's a disconnect between the number of people reporting that they're happy and the number of people who actually are happy. I mean, somebody could say that they're happy and they're not really or they could have an idea of what happiness is that isn't exactly correct. So, you know, I'm skeptical about that. I'm skeptical of the of of of any ability to actually quantify these things.
But even so, it does ring true that we are, you know, are a more unhappy country than we've been in the past. So why is that? I don't know how you rank it either. Like, where do we actually fall in the ranking if you can't actually rank happiness? That way, I think that's sort of incoherent.
But whatever the case may be, if we are if we are becoming a more unhappy country, why is that? Well, one of them, one of the reasons is that, we already talked about yesterday, the connection between Wokism or Leftism and unhappiness and why that makes people unhappy. So, as Leftism
Speaker 3: has this stranglehold on the
Speaker 0: culture, people are going to be more, you know, There's a loss of a sense of control, that people have over their lives which makes them unhappy. Loss of meaning, you know, to me, that's that would be a more interesting study, actually. Rather than asking people, are you happy? Ask them, what does life mean to you? What does your life mean to you?
What does it what does it mean? And I suspect if you ask that question, the results are gonna be even more depressing because you get a lot of people that, essentially, their answer is, doesn't mean anything. You know, you're gonna get a lot of, I don't know, no opinion. I don't I'm not sure. Life has no meaning.
We had a lot of those kinds of answers. And the more that that people lose a sense of meaning in their lives, the more unhappy they become. But then, also, I think, on top of all that, we are a country that is obsessively focused on happiness. So that's the, that's the irony here, that we're, it would seem, less happy than we've ever been, but we're also more focused on being happy than we've ever been. In fact, that might be the answer people give you if you ask them, what's the what does what does your life mean?
If they have any answer at all, it will probably be something like, well, you know, just try to be happy. That's what life is, just trying to be happy. But what we discover is that the more you make that the central focus of your life, the more that happiness in and of itself, for itself, is the goal, the less happy you become. Because happiness, in reality, if you actually attain it, it is as a byproduct of doing what is right. It's a byproduct of finding meaning in your life.
It's a byproduct of living with actual purpose and direction. It's a byproduct of living for something other than yourself, living in service to others. And so all of that, you do all of that and then and you're living your life and you're living that way and then you turn around one day and you say, well, look at that, I'm happy. And it's not going to be a permanent feeling. You can't hold on to that feeling every second of the day all the time.
But you'll experience it a lot more as a byproduct of living the right way. Okay. I wanted to mention, this case briefly, and I've sort of been putting this off because it's so horrifying. But there's a video circulating, and we we're not gonna play the video. But it's a video of a of a woman who doesn't speak English, being, you know, in court, being given her sentence.
And the sentence is, life in prison without parole. And we also hear her, through a translator, making excuses for her behavior, and talking about how she's depressed and she's suffering and nobody cared. Anyway, that's what the video is. The crime that this woman committed, her name is Crystal Candelario, is that she went on a 10 day vacation to Puerto Rico and, I think, a couple other places. And she left her 16 month old daughter in a playpen while she went on vacation.
And, and the daughter died. This is CNN report. Jaylen's cries echoed through the quiet streets of Cleveland in the dead of the night. The toddler whimpered and howled, but no one came to her rescue. Her mother, Crystal Candelario, was away on a 10 day summer vacation and had left Jaylen alone in a playpen with a few bottles of milk, prosecutors said.
A neighbor's doorbell camera captured the 16 month old's frequent screens, including 1 around 1 AM, 2 days after the mother left. But Candelaria was 100 of miles away in Puerto Rico with a male friend. After a few days at the beach and another stop in Detroit, she returned home on June 16th last year to find her daughter dead. She'd been gone for about 10 days. Candelario pleaded guilty last month to one count of aggravated murder and 1 count of child endangering.
At her sentencing on Monday, which is from the video I mentioned, forensic pathologist Elizabeth Mooney told a Cleveland courtroom that, children experience the most extreme separation anxiety between 9 18 months. You were counted Jaylen's excruciating final days. I can't can't keep reading this. But the child died of, she starved it, and she died of dehydration while this mother was on vacation, was sitting on the beach, enjoying her time, fully aware that her that her daughter was not just dying, but dying, like, the most excruciating death that it it's possible for a human to experience. Like, starving to death is when it comes to physical suffering, starving to death is pretty much as bad as it gets.
And, that is the death that she condemned her 16 month old daughter to because she wanted to go on vacation. And I guess my only point in bringing this up my first point is just that it's so horrifying that I don't I I feel as though it should be mentioned for that reason alone. But also, you know, not to jump up on this soap soapbox again, but this is why this is why you just need the death penalty. This is this is why right here, this is all the other arguments that are made for it and we've talked about it many times in the past, what the arguments are. And there are plenty of arguments, plenty of academic arguments about why you need it and about the deterrence factor and about all these other things.
But I think I think all those arguments sort of fade away. You don't you don't you don't even need them. It's just this case alone. It's this is why you need it, for people like this. Now she didn't get the death penalty right and that's exactly the point she didn't get the death penalty she got life in prison without parole.
But everybody I think everyone who hears a story like this and and and finds out what the penalty was that she's going to prison, I think everyone kind of just I don't care where you stand or where you think you stand on the death penalty. In theory, you hear a story like this and you know. You know in your bones that going to prison is not enough. It's just not enough of a punishment. And so, anything about deterrence, any of these other sort of academic, theoretical things, That's not the point.
The first point is not, like, well, how do we deter other women from condemning their children, you know, to death by starvation. Yeah, we do want to deter that, obviously. But, of course, the truth also is that when you have someone capable of evil at this level, there's not a lot you can do to deter them when they're that evil, when you have someone who's a soulless monster. How do you stop a soulless monster from behaving like a soulless monster? Well, the only way you do it is by putting them in jail.
But if they're not in jail yet, it's, it's, you know, it's almost impossible. So that's not even the question. The question is just punishment, you know? And that's why we've we've gotten away. We talk about capital punishment.
It's right there in the name, punishment. But even people who argue for it, they argue for for every aspect of it except the thing that's in the name, which is that it's for punishment. That's why you need it. Because there are crimes that simply need to be punished that way. You need to have the worst, you know, you need to have a punishment that goes beyond putting them in a cell, and crimes like this that cry out for it.
And I think everyone knows that. I think everyone knows that someone like this you just you you cannot allow someone like this to keep living. You're not good enough for that. And, I think this case makes that very clear. Alright.
Let's get to was Walsh wrong. Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially with all the rain we have been getting here in Nashville. That's why I am so grateful to have Windshield Wow. Windshield Wow is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses 2 magnetic cleaning paddles, 1 on the outside and 1 on the inside of your car to clean both sides of your windshield all from the outside. Being able to clean both the front and the inside window at the same time is a game changer.
I wish I had one of these years ago. Windshield Well applies firm cleaning pressure and is super thin to get into those tight dashboard areas. Seriously, all you gotta do is push around the outside paddle and the inside falls automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean. Washing your car windshield enhances visibility and driving safety, and it helps preserve integrity of your vehicle's glass and paint work. It's a simple yet essential aspect of car maintenance that should not be overlooked.
What are you waiting for? Go to windshieldwow.com and use code Walsh to check out for a special discount. That's windshieldwow.com, code Walsh. The first comment says, Matt, Hollywood has indeed already given the romcom treatment to cannibalism. In 2000, in 2022, Bones and All, starring Timothy Chalamet, was released.
Another one says, you asked sarcastically if anyone has seen a romantic comedy about cannibalism. I actually have. There's a very funny show on Netflix called Santa Clarita Diet, and it's hilarious mostly because how ridiculous it is, but But I think you would like it. You think I would like it, really? You say it's a romantic comedy about cannibalism, and you watch that, you think this is something Matt Walsh would like?
I I don't think so. You know, I made I made what I thought was a joke yesterday that, because we read that article from whatever it was, the New Scientist arguing that we need to stop, we need to stop stigmatizing cannibalism. We need to destigmatize cannibalism. And the article complains about all the negative portrayals, in the media of cannibalism. And then I thought I made what I thought was a joke that, yeah, sure, you know, let's have positive portrayals of of cannibals.
Let's have a romantic comedy about 2 cannibals who fall in love. And, yeah, then I I had multiple comments informing me that, no, Hollywood's actually already done that. They're they're they're one step ahead of actually, destigmatizing cannibalism. So every time I I wanna think, like, okay, well, this this thing is so absurd, it obviously hasn't happened yet, that that's my optimism coming through and I always live to regret. My my few brief moments where I lapse into optimism, I always I always regret it.
I'm always embarrassed at the end. Another comment says, okay, Ariana Grande. Is it Ariana Grande or Grande? It's Grande. Grande.
Okay. I thought so. Ariana Grande putting her toe in her mouth, not an example of pedophilia. Ariana Grande trying
Speaker 3: to squeeze juice out of a potato, not an example
Speaker 0: of pedophilia. Ariana Grande trying to pedophilia. Ariana Grande trying to drink water upside down, not an example of pedophilia. Okay. If you wanna pretend and I'm we're not gonna play the video again, but we were talking about the the groomer scandal that Nickelodeon now finds itself in, thanks in large part to this, quiet on the set documentary that's exposing all of the child grooming that was going on behind the scenes at Nickelodeon, particularly during the kind of Nickelodeon's heyday, their era, back when people that are my age were watching it in the 90s and then in the early 2000s.
And there's, you know, plenty of disturbing videos, of the ways that these kids, child performers, were sexualized. And and then actually claim that you don't see what they're doing there, then either you're naive in the extreme or you have some other reason to be making excuses for the sexualization of children. So so so much more sinister reasons. And I don't know, this is just an Internet comment, I don't know what the case is for you. But I do suspect it's not naive to say.
Then, finally, I can't believe Matt has this worked up over juvenile double entendres in a, in a show aimed at teens. That's exactly the kind of humor I would have loved as a teen. Saying they're all pedos seems like a bit of a stretch. Maybe the schoolmars need to unclench their drawers. No.
I never use the, are you sure you wanna die on this hill phrase? And I'm not gonna use it here just on principle. But if I was gonna use it, this is the time when I would use it. Like, really? You wanna speak up in defense of the Nickelodeon groomers?
Now I didn't say that everybody working at Nickelodeon were were pedophiles. I didn't say they all were. I said that they were groomers and also pedophiles. There were also pet there there were actual pedophiles working there, as we talked about, who were arrested for child sexual abuse. And and and then most of the rest of them who did not fall into one of those camps were cowards.
And as I said, you always need you know, anytime you have a scandal that comes out about years of this kind of behavior going on behind the scenes at some company or some institution, You always have the perverts and the degenerates that are doing the disgusting things, but then you also always need an army of cowards who sit by and let it happen. And why do they let it happen? Usually, they'll for very simple reasons. They just let it happen out of self preservation because they don't wanna sacrifice their career, because they don't wanna, you know, stir the pot. They don't wanna be they don't wanna be confrontational because they're you know, that's why.
So, just to clarify, I think the people that work in the adults who are working in Nickelodeon Nickelodeon Wallace is happening were either pedophiles, groomers, or cowards. They could be all of that or some combination. And as to the jokes, I mean, again, some of these, as you say, these juvenile jokes, we we saw how actual child sexual abusers were putting these jokes these, quote, unquote, jokes into the show. And you're claiming that this was for innocent reasons? No.
This is actually a case where, once again, the so called schoolmars, have been, have been vindicated. Because I can remember, in fact, I can remember even in the nineties. Now, you know, as a kid, I would watch these Nickelodeon shows, shows like all that and all the rest of it. I didn't this stuff went over my head. I didn't really understand what was going on.
But, yeah, I can remember even the time. There were there were adults who thought that Nickelodeon was inappropriate. In fact, my own my own parents, there were there were there were plenty of Nickelodeon shows that, you know, they would we was, oh, we liked the show, and they would sit down, they would watch an episode of it, whatever it was, and, and then in some cases, they'd say, yeah, you're not watching that anymore. And I always thought they were being way too strict. What's what's the problem?
But now, as an adult, and especially seeing some of these revelations, I can now see that my parents, as adults, were noticing, like, this is not this some of the stuff is weird. This is not This is not normal for this stuff to be in children's entertainment. And I guess at the time, you know, if if you were an adult that had a problem with Nickelodeon, you were a quote unquote schoolmar schoolmarm, but, schoolmarms vindicated yet again. Jeremy's razors is doing the unthinkable. This is a sale.
You cannot miss out on Jeremy's razors. It's lowering all prices for every razor. You want a trial set, lower price. You want the starter set that comes with more cartridges, lower price, Smooth 6, Precision 5, you guessed it, lower price. Take advantage of Jeremy's March of Madness now.
Go to jeremysrazors.com to get your razor at a discount right now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. The actress, Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page, is back in the conversation again. She's, been doing the interview circuit to promote her new film, something called Close to You, which tells the story of a quote unquote trans man, that is a woman who identifies as a man, on her way to see her her family for the first time since transitioning. And the movie has a 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is very bad, a score that's even worse when you consider that mainstream critics would want, of course, to give a film like this every benefit of the doubt.
So if if the left wing media is panning a heroic tale about a trans person, that must mean that the movie is really, really bad, so bad that movie critics can't even fabricate a reason to praise it. You know, it's like if you're starring in the school play and your mom comes to watch it and, afterwards, the only positive thing she can say is, well, it looks like you were really trying hard up there. But Paige has bigger problems than one bad movie. Those problems were put on display again in clips that are circulating from our interview with Channel 4. Here she is talking about the trauma of being misgendered.
Quote, here it is.
Speaker 14: And is this something you can relate to in your own life? Kind of that slight unease in certain family situations or with certain accouter friends or?
Speaker 15: Yes, absolutely. And I think you know, still being early on in in my transition, of course, but, like, more used to it now. I think at first when you first come out as a trip, you're like, oh my God. You know, all these situations you find yourself in and maybe you just, I guess, progressively kind of get used to it.
Speaker 14: A very powerful scene in the film where Sam's mum misgenders him. And actually, interestingly, he is kind of trying to make her feel more
Speaker 15: you know, misgenders me and out of just, like, you can tell when something's like intentional and awful. There's another thing, like it's, it's not a big deal, you know? It's, Oh, sorry, fix it, you move on. It's really not. If someone keeps doing it consistently over and over again, you know, that's a different conversation.
Speaker 14: In size, we have quite a straight jacket for what we're supposed to be. I know you've spoken about this in Hollywood as well, you know? Yes.
Speaker 15: And for cishet people, of course, as well. And that's why I'm like, Oh, my God! Why can't we all just connect on this? Right? We're all just inundated from the moment we're born.
Some people even have parties before that about
Speaker 4: Oh, the gender reveals. Exactly.
Speaker 15: Like, how you should be, how you should look, what success means. Like, all of those things. We're all facing, all facing those pressures. And I think you see that in the film.
Speaker 0: So here we see the, we see the usual attempt by a trans identified person to try and make herself seem like the reasonable one. She says that so called misgendering is not a big deal so long as you apologize and fix it. That is she wants you to apologize for telling the truth and fix it by telling a lie. But, of course, any misgendering, I e correct gendering, done intentionally is, she says, automatically awful. So on Page's world, like with any other trans activist, it's not just, it's just not plausible.
It's not even theoretically possible that a person could intentionally use biologically correct pronouns for reasons that are not sinister. Like, millions of people in this country feel morally obligated to use correct pronouns regardless of what a trans person might prefer because using incorrect ones would be a lie, and we don't want to participate in a lie. We can't participate in it morally. We've tried to explain this to the pages of the world, but she simply, ignores what we said, disregards our explanation of our own state of mind, and declares that we're all awful, we're evil. And she does this while still trying to paint herself as the reasonable and compassionate one in the conversation.
That's the game. It's what they all do. They declare that only their feelings and desires matter, ours don't matter at all, and then they demand our sympathy. But I cannot sympathize with self obsessed egomaniacs who believe that their perception of reality, however demented and confused it might be, is the only valid one. So I have no sympathy for her at all.
But I do have pity. You know, I feel sorry for Ellen Page. Her story is a cautionary tale, and it is just as dire and devastating as what you hear from any detransitioner. Detransitioners who, by the way, I do sympathize with. But Paige herself has not detransitioned, not yet, but she still inadvertently reveals the true unbridled evil of the gender transition industry.
And of all of the sort of high profile, quote unquote, transitions, I think this one, most of all, reveals that. Because consider to begin with, again, the movie that she's promoting. As mentioned, against all ideological odds, the film has been crushed by critics, which is probably inevitable because it's just not possible to make trans propaganda into a good film. It's like trying to construct a stable house out of popsicle sticks. You just can't do it.
The raw material isn't solid enough to build a story around. But tragically for Paige, these kinds of movies are the only movies she can make anymore. Now, back before she tried to become a man, she was a bona fide Hollywood star. She had lead roles in successful films like Juno and X Men and Inception. But now her options are severely limited.
She can't, and I assume wouldn't want to, play a female character in a film. She also can't, as much as she might want to, play a male character. All she can do is play a trans person and her transness is so obvious, it's so glaring that the movie has to be about the fact that she is trans. It would be distracting to stick her into some other film about something else and, and, you know, just have her there being trans even though that's not what the subject is about. Like, describe what I mean by by comparison.
You know, if you're gonna make a if you're gonna put a guy in a giant chicken costume into one of your movies, then every scene that he's in has to be about the fact that he's in the chicken costume. You can't just have the guy in the chicken costume show up in a scene without anyone mentioning or noticing the elephant in the room or the chicken in the room in this case. You can't, for instance, have a police procedural where one of the the detectives just so happens to dress as a chicken. The chicken get up is too outlandish. It's too distracting.
So if the guy had the chicken costume permanently attached to his body, it would severely limit his casting opportunities. You'd have to wait until some screenwriter somewhere happens to write a film about a guy who looks like a chicken. And Page is in a similar situation. It's a situation that most trans identified people find themselves in post transition. Now, most of them aren't actors.
They aren't paid actors anyway. But the dilemma they face is essentially the same. It's that limbo zone we've talked about before. Paige no longer looks or sounds like a woman, not exactly. She certainly doesn't have the feminine charm and beauty that she had before she did this to herself.
She was a pretty young lady before all of this, and now she isn't. But she also doesn't look or sound anything like a man. She's too small. She's too petite. She still has the mannerisms of a woman.
There's nothing masculine about the way she looks, sounds, or carries herself. And there's a reason that no Hollywood director is knocking on her door to play to to have her play the male lead in the next big action movie franchise. Right? She isn't gonna be the next Jason Bourne or John Wick. She she doesn't have her feminine charm anymore, but neither does she have any masculine grit or presence.
So she doesn't pass as a man, not even close, but she also doesn't look much like a woman. She she's stuck out in the gray zone, in the fog. Still as much a woman biologically as she was before, but having destroyed most of her femininity without success successfully replacing it with masculinity. And this is the, the trans trap, you might say. They lure you out into the cold and they lead you there.
So if you'll excuse a little parable, imagine a young lady sitting in her home one night. It's very dark, very cold outside. There's a blizzard raging, but it's warm inside her house. It's cozy. It's comfortable.
It's home. And then comes a knock at the door. And a man stands on her front porch and tells her that just across the field, only a few 100 miles a few 100 yards away is a is a is a much better house. It's bigger, it's nicer, it's better in a number of mostly unspecified ways. And he tells her that that she can go live there instead in that in that house, in the better house.
And she's resistant at first, but then thinking more about the fact that there's a better house out there, she starts to feel worse and worse about her own house. Before the guy knocked on the door, she liked her house. It was fine. It was good. It was hers.
But now that she knows there's a better one, she doesn't like her house anymore. So she agrees to come with the man out into the blizzard to go live in the better house, and they walk for a while in the cold, in the dark, across this field. And they walk and they walk and they walk. And after a while, she realizes that the other house must be more than a few 100 yards away. That's when the man tells her that, yeah, actually, he meant to say that the house is a 1000 miles away.
She'll never make it there. She'll And with that, the man disappears, leaving her out alone in the blizzard. But now she's gone too far. She's lost. She can't make it back to her own house, but she'll never ever make it to the other house.
She's stuck now outside in the dark, having given up her home, which was not perfect, but at least it was warm and it was hers. And in exchange, she gets nothing, just the cold wind and an empty field, which is where she'll be forever until she dies. And that's what the gender transition industry does. It lures people out into the cold darkness with the promise of something better. And that just leaves them there.
It is unspeakably evil. And Ellen Page is yet another victim of it, even if she hasn't figured that out yet. But she will, eventually. And for that reason, the people who did this to Ellen Page are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
Speaker 5: John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor in chief. Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less. Join me and my cohost Georgia Howe for daily coverage of all the biggest stories on Morning Wire.
reSee.it AI Summary
Post 1: A detailed exploration of the history behind an organization that played a role in promoting gender-related ideas. Also covers other news topics like a press conference incident, drug possession laws in Oregon, and the controversy surrounding RuPaul and book banning.
Post 2: Today's sponsors include ExpressVPN, offering 3 months free, Pivotal Debt Solutions for debt relief, and Grand Canyon University for finding one's purpose.
@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show
The Secret History Of The Evil Organization That Pushed Gender Madness Into The Mainstream TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - 00:30 Opening 1:56 - 21:54 The Secret History Of The Evil Organization That Pushed Gender Madness Into The Mainstream 22:53 - 27:00 Karine Jean-Pierre Snaps At Reporter Asking About Biden's Notecards 27:01 - 46:06 Oregon Re-Criminalizes Possession Of Hard Drugs 47:43 - 59:44 RuPaul, And The Left’s Fake Anti-Book Banning Crusade, Is Canceled
@MattWalshShow - The Matt Walsh Show
Today’s Sponsors: ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM Pivotal Debt Solutions - Get out of debt today! Visit http://www.ZapMyDebt.com Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
bit.ly
Grand Canyon University: Private Christian University Phoenix AZ
Grand Canyon University (Phoenix, AZ) offers affordable, accredited campus or online degrees. Learn more about tuition, scholarships, academic calendar + more!
gcu.edu
@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 making artificial intelligence (AI) chips. NVIDIA, a leader in AI, had a successful day on Wall Street. Google's AI, Gemini, which is integrated into its web products, has faced criticism for not recognizing white people. Users have tried to get Gemini to produce images of white individuals, but it consistently generates images of non-white people. Jen Ganay, a Google executive, has a history of treating white people differently based on their skin color. This raises concerns about the ethics and biases behind AI technology. Google's AI algorithms have been accused of downranking certain viewpoints and promoting a specific ideology.
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.