Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 18, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:02:35

Why Are Men In Crisis?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, for a long time, the media have treated American men as sort of an afterthought.
	In fact, anybody who spoke to American men, writ large, was considered bad.
	My friend Jordan Peterson, for example, he speaks to men all over the world, young men who feel lost, and the media hate him for it.
	They treat him as though he's a very bad person for speaking to young men.
	But suddenly the media have realized, wait a second, Young men, men generally represent, you know, 50% of the American population, and men are falling behind by every single metric.
	Men are falling behind women when it comes to college degrees.
	Men are falling behind women when it comes to job performance.
	Men are falling behind women when it comes to life satisfaction in some measures.
	Men are falling behind women when it comes to, for example, opioid use, overdose deaths.
	All of these are areas where men are falling behind.
	And this has raised the question, what exactly is happening to American men?
	Now, that question cannot be answered in a vacuum without explaining what also happened to American women.
	Because the Bible has a lot of wisdom embedded in it.
	One of the pieces of wisdom in the Bible is the beginning of Genesis, chapter 2.
	It talks about the formation of women.
	And what God says is that man should not be alone.
	He needs a helpmeet.
	The word in Hebrew, the words in Hebrew for helpmeet are ezer konegda, which literally means a helper against him.
	A helper against him.
	In other words, men and women are two halves of the same whole.
	And that's also expressed in that same chapter where it says that a man shall leave his father and mother, and he shall join his wife, and he shall cleave to her, and they shall become one flesh.
	The basic idea here is that men are incomplete without women, women are incomplete without men.
	So when you're explaining the shortcomings of modern American men, you also have to link that with their roles vis-a-vis women, because they do not exist in a vacuum.
	People do not exist on desert islands, and men were created complementarily by either evolution or God or both, depending on your point of view.
	In order so that men and women can be two halves of one whole.
	So if there's something wrong with men writ large, there's also something wrong with women writ large.
	And you can see that in pieces like this one from the Wall Street Journal today.
	And the reason that I'm bringing this up is because there's a whole issue in Politico about what's wrong with American men.
	Every single piece in that issue is written by a woman.
	Every single piece is written by a woman.
	Which is a weird way to ask what's wrong with American men.
	The fact is that you should presumably have a diversity of viewpoints about what exactly is happening with American men.
	That might include, you know, some males, but Politico is beginning to notice.
	Why?
	Because men are turning away from the Democratic Party in droves.
	And it's not just Politico.
	It's happening at the Washington Post.
	It's happening at the Wall Street Journal.
	Many people in the media are suddenly realizing, apparently for the first time in a while, that when American men fall off the train, that is very bad for America, writ large.
	Now, traditionally speaking, the role of men was pretty simple.
	The role of men was, you protect your family.
	You defend your country, your values, your community, your family.
	You provide.
	These were the roles of men.
	Protect, defend, provide.
	These were the basic roles.
	And there are a bunch of different things that you did within each one of those roles, but those roles were sort of immutable and unchanging.
	They started in a time when physical protection was actually what was necessary of men.
	But it continued into a time when basically the monopoly on use of force had now been delegated to the government.
	Men were still expected to provide.
	They were still expected to defend their families.
	They were still expected to protect their children.
	And that is still true for large swaths of the American population.
	But there are a bunch of men who no longer do this.
	And the reason they no longer do this is because we have a culture that shames them for doing exactly this.
	And instead, has decided not to treat men and women as potentially two halves of a greater whole that is united in marriage.
	But instead, we're supposed to treat men atomistically and women atomistically.
	And then we're supposed to celebrate the atomism.
	We're supposed to celebrate the falling apart.
	Which is presumably why you have a piece in the Wall Street Journal today titled, Divorce Parties Are a New Hot Invite.
	After Brandy Stellars finalized her divorce, she invited close friends to a soiree in May.
	She mixed signature cocktails, hung a Bye Felicia banner, and handed out fake rose petals to toss in the air.
	Party decorations included a photo of a pair of penguins torn down the middle.
	I ripped the penguins in half, because penguins are monogamous birds who are supposed to mate for life, she says, while I'm not your penguin anymore.
	The newly uncoupled are throwing themselves blowout bashes to mark their liberation from unhappy marriages, almost like reverse bachelorette parties.
	I wanted to celebrate not a divorce, but a new chapter with people whom I love, who want the best for me, says Stellars, who works at a cloud computing company in Columbus, Ohio.
	For most of history, divorce hasn't been an event touted to the world.
	Now a culture shift is underway.
	The U.S.
	divorce rate has been dipping, but those who get them feel freer to trumpet their breakups.
	The number of American adults who consider divorce to be morally acceptable has hit historic highs, according to Gallup polls.
	Nicole Sodoma, divorced lawyer, wrote the book, Please Don't Say You're Sorry.
	a quote, divorce used to be something to be ashamed of due to societal pressures and stereotypes.
	But today, people have really decided to nip that societal shame
	and instead embrace being divorced as another stage of life that some of us experience.
	Now, is that a good thing or is that a bad thing?
	I would argue that it's a very bad thing.
	That divorce is a tragedy.
	It means that a marriage has ended, sometimes for bad reasons and sometimes for good reasons.
	But it means that that potential fulfillment of male and female in monogamous marriage has been broken up.
	That the basic predicate, the foundation for the formation of a family, which is the building block of society, has fallen apart.
	That men lose themselves when they are not part of this institution.
	That women lose themselves when they're not part of this institution.
	Because the countervailing part of what men are supposed to do, protect, defend, provide, is provided by females in the context of a marriage.
	Comfort, provide in a different way emotionally, and defend in a different way.
	All of those things have their roles and they are complementary.
	And removing one half of a whole means the other half is going to seem insufficient.
	And that's particularly true of men.
	When they are deprived of their goals, when they are deprived of their duty, when their aggressive instincts are not channeled in the most positive possible direction, what you end up with is true toxic masculinity.
	Because men in the wild are terrible.
	Men in the wild act just like any other aggressive male of any species in the wild.
	Meaning rapacious, violent, aggressive, territorial.
	When all of those instincts are channeled toward protect Defend, provide, then those instincts can be
	Sublimated to a higher goal.
	When the higher goal goes away, men end up being incredibly destructive either to others or to themselves.
	And that's exactly what we are seeing right now.
	But the media refused to acknowledge that because what they like is the moral status that they have built in which we are supposed to pretend that all acts of sexual union are equally morally praiseworthy and equal societally useful.
	We're supposed to pretend that everybody's individual decision-making with regard to relationships is equally good and equally valid.
	We're supposed to pretend that the liberated woman who no longer is expected to get married is somehow better off than the woman who got married at 20 and then had kids with a husband and maybe had a part-time job and then maybe had a full-time job?
	We valorize people for making decisions that are contra the traditional patterns of life, even though the traditional patterns of life provide the actual framework for success for both men and women.
	Doesn't mean that every marriage from 1930 is better than every marriage from 2020.
	Nothing like that.
	But it does mean that a society that expects men and women to become complementary parts of a fuller whole is a better society and a more healthy society than a society that says, we are completely apathetic about this.
	Because here's the truth.
	There is no thing as apathy.
	When you say that you are apathetic about a moral standard, what you really mean is that you are against the moral standard.
	Because the standard actually makes demands of you.
	If you oppose the demands, that's not apathy, that's opposition.
	And that's what we've seen.
	The sort of opposite of the traditional moral standard is not apathy.
	It is absolute chaos.
	And that's what we are seeing right now.
	We'll get to more of this in a moment.
	First, using the internet with ExpressVPN, it's like not paying attention to that safety demonstration on the flight.
	Most of the time, Almost always.
	It's totally fine.
	And then one day you're in the exit row, and you realize, uh oh, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing right now.
	Better to be safe than sorry, which is why I use ExpressVPN.
	Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, or airports, any hacker on that same network can gain access to your personal data, such as your passwords and financial details.
	It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack somebody.
	Just some cheap hardware is necessary.
	A smart 12-year-old could do it.
	Your data is valuable.
	Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal information on the dark web.
	ExpressVPN might be the premiere sponsor of this show, but it truly is the best VPN on the market.
	I use it every single day.
	I use it on all my devices.
	You should too.
	Protect yourself by visiting expressvpn.com slash ben right now.
	Find out how you can get three extra months for free.
	That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com slash ben.
	Again, expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	When you use that address, expressvpn.com slash ben, you can get three extra months free of coverage.
	It's going to protect you.
	It's going to protect your data.
	These are all things worth protecting.
	Expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Okay, so.
	One of the things that has happened, because we refuse to acknowledge the complete restructuring of society, is that men and women have been broken into groups, like two separate groups, that were not expected to come together over marriage.
	They've now become reactionary and oppositional.
	Any two groups, when they become so reactionary and oppositional, that they never look inward as to, what can I do to fix the problem?
	Instead, they look outward at, that person is doing this, that means I'm going to do the precise opposite.
	That is a recipe for complete breakdown.
	It's true in politics.
	If you have one political side that sees the other side as completely evil, so whatever the other side does, it means that I am justified in doing whatever I can to stop them.
	The Democratic Party, for example, believing that they can do whatever is necessary, true or false, to stop Donald Trump because Donald Trump is a man of evil.
	Or people inside the Republican Party, who sometimes will justify bad behavior because the Democrats are so bad and so terrible and so evil, that means we can do whatever we have to do in order to stop them.
	Once that happens, you can't live together.
	Okay, well, that's much, much worse when you're talking about men and women, which is the basis for all thriving society and all growth in society.
	And so the media are now noticing that men are falling behind.
	And they think it has nothing to do with the recapitulation of what women ought to do.
	And when you degrade femininity, you also degrade masculinity.
	And what you end up with is both toxic femininity and toxic masculinity, which is what you are now seeing.
	What you are now seeing, for example, is the valorization of a lifestyle that says abortion is an active good for women.
	And meanwhile, a valorization on the other side, in reaction, that says the men should treat women like pieces of meat.
	And the true mark of a man's success is how toxically aggressive he is.
	Right?
	This is what you get.
	Get rid of the institution and people go back to their basest instincts.
	Especially basest instincts that have now been shielded from biology.
	That's the other factor here.
	Is that it used to be that if people tried to make the argument that men and women, they should just engage in sort of sexual congress without any sort of overlying structure, without any sort of societal support, that would actually be clocked back into place by reality because women would get pregnant, then there would be babies, you'd have to figure out what to do with those babies since the family structure was still necessary.
	After birth control, that's no longer true.
	So you end up with is people's basest instincts now being indulged and people unhappier.
	Okay, they're not happier than they were.
	So the media are completely bamboozled about this.
	They don't understand it at all.
	So Christina Emba, who writes for the Washington Post, Which has a piece called Men Are Lost.
	Here's a map out of the wilderness.
	It's a very, very long piece.
	It says, I started noticing it a few years ago.
	Men, especially young men, were getting weird.
	It may have been the incels who first caught my attention, spewing self-pitying venom online, sometimes venturing out to attack the women they believed had done them wrong.
	It might have been the complaints from the women around me.
	Men are in their flop era, one lamented, sick of trying to date in a pool that seems shallower than it should be.
	It might have been the new ways companies were trying to reach men.
	The average hoodie made these days is weak and flimsy, growls a YouTube ad for a tactical hoodie.
	You're not a child, you're a man, so stop wearing so many layers to go outside.
	Once my curiosity was piqued, I could see a bit of curdling in some of the men around me too.
	They struggled to relate to women.
	They didn't have enough friends.
	They lacked long-term goals.
	Some guys, including ones I once knew, just quietly disappeared, subsumed into video games and porn, or sucked into the alt-right and the web of misogynistic communities known as the manosphere.
	It felt like a widespread identity crisis as if they didn't know how to be.
	Well, I mean, yes, men don't know how to be because all of the structures that were supposed to channel them toward the sublimation of those baser aggressive instincts into building.
	You can use your aggressive instincts to destroy or to build.
	Society used to encourage you to build and you would have male role models who taught you to build.
	You'd have fathers, you'd have preachers, you'd have members of your community, you'd have rabbis in my community, you'd have people who are there to teach you how to sublimate those bad instincts, or those baser instincts, and to turn them into something good.
	That was the alchemy of institutional health, was turning the bad into good, taking aggressive instincts and making them worthwhile, just as aggressive instincts in the military context are excellent, and aggressive instincts inside a gang context are awful.
	It's not the instinct that's the problem, it's how we channel them culturally.
	But we've decided to get rid of all of those institutions, and then we are totally shocked about all of this.
	So Christina Emba is shocked by the fact that Jordan Peterson is famous.
	In 2018, curious about a YouTube personality who had seemingly become famous overnight,
	I got tickets to a sold-out lecture in DC by Jordan Peterson.
	It was one of dozens of stops on the Canadian psychology professor-turned-anti-woke-juggernauts
	book tour for his surprise bestseller, 12 Rules for Life and Antidotes to Chaos.
	Surrounded by men on a Tuesday night, I wondered aloud what the fuss was about.
	In my opinion, Peterson serves up fairly banal advice.
	Stand up straight.
	Delay gratification.
	His evolutionary biology-informed takes range from amusingly weird to mildly insulting.
	Female lobsters are irresistibly attracted to the top lobster, as are human women.
	His three-piece suit seemed gimmicky.
	Suddenly, the twenty-something in front of me swung around.
	Jordan Peterson, he said without a hint of irony in his voice, taught me how to live.
	If there's a vacuum in modeling manhood today, Peterson has been one of the boldest in stepping in to fill it.
	He's gained fame, notoriety, and millions of book sales in the process.
	But then she cites other people, like Bronze Age Pervert.
	And we'll get to Bronze Age Pervert in a sec, because there's a very, very long piece about Bronze Age Pervert and Bronze Age Mindset, which is actually a former Yale philosophy student named Kostin Alomiru, who has a long feature piece about him in Politico.
	And while Christine Emba, I mean, she gets it a little bit more than some of these other columnists does, but she essentially makes the argument that masculinity has been betrayed and that the only way that masculinity is going to come back is by a rethinking of what masculinity actually is.
	She says, progressives want to preserve the major gains made for women over the past several decades, gains that are still fragile.
	It's easy to mistake attention and zero sum, to fear that putting effort toward helping men might mean we won't have space for women anymore.
	There's something appealing to you about the idea of gender neutrality, or at least rejecting gender essentialism as a social ethos.
	After all, attaching specific traits to men wore down to women too.
	If we say real men are strong, does that mean real women must be weak?
	I'm convinced that men are in crisis, and I strongly suspect that ending it will require a positive vision of what masculinity entails that is particular, that is neither neutral nor interchangeable with femininity.
	Still, I find myself reluctant to fully articulate one.
	Well, why?
	The diagnosis actually isn't all that tough.
	The conversation isn't all that difficult, is the truth.
	So, Christina Emba then talked to a bunch of sort of more left-wing
	leaning people, quote, the essentialist view that it's in men's nature to be brave,
	stoic, and in charge, while women remain docile, nurturing, and submissive would
	be dire news for social equality and for the vast numbers of individuals who don't fit those
	stereotypes. Biology isn't destiny.
	There's no one script for how to be a woman or a man. But despite a push by some advocates to make
	everything from bathrooms to birthing gender neutral, most people don't actually want a
	completely androgynous society. What would creating a positive vision of masculinity look like?
	Recognizing distinctiveness, but not pathologizing it.
	Finding new ways to valorize it and tell a story that's appealing to young men and socially beneficial, rather than seating around to those who would warp a perceived difference into something ugly and destructive.
	So, Christine Emba is closer than most other members of the media.
	But, Politico is not.
	Right?
	Because Democrats can't actually acknowledge... Christine Emba, I mean, good for her.
	She's actually starting to acknowledge.
	It's funny.
	Christine Emba's column is very largely a rediscovery of institutions that many of us have known about for, you know, Thousands of years.
	But we have to rediscover them.
	Politico, which is attempting to stump for the Democratic Party, is stuck because they say Democrats have a man problem, but then they refuse to define the word man.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, everybody knows that the Helix Sleep mattress upon which I sleep is basically keeping me alive right now.
	We have four kids and a dog.
	They wake us up all the time.
	Helix mattress is what allows us to sleep at night.
	Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience with their new Helix Elite.
	The Helix Elite collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
	I've had my Helix Elite mattress for years at this point.
	It is excellent.
	It's firm but breathable, which is what I need.
	I took their Helix Sleep Quiz and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	Why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
	Go to helixsleep.com slash men, take that 2-minute sleep quiz, find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
	Your mattress will come right to your doorstep for free.
	Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty and you can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix has over 12,000 five-star reviews.
	Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away.
	For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders, plus two free pillows for our listeners.
	It's their best offer yet.
	Hurry on over to helixsleep.com slash menwithhelix.
	Better sleep starts right now.
	Okay, so as I said, there's a spate of media articles about what's happening with men.
	Politico has a piece.
	That is titled, Democrats have a man problem.
	These experts have ideas for fixing it.
	And so they did a roundtable with a wide variety of, quote unquote, democratic geniuses.
	And these democratic geniuses spend their time basically arguing that the problem is, in fact, with men.
	That men are falling behind because the world has changed around them and there's really not all that much that you can do.
	And so the only way to reach out to men is to convince them that manhood is kind of bad.
	That manhood needs to be left behind.
	Joan Williams says, There's one measure on gender called hostile sexism.
	It's kind of men should be men, women should be women.
	And it is actually more powerful than anything other than political orientation of predicting Trump voting.
	There are really cool experiments where they threaten men's masculinity in subtle or not so subtle ways.
	They find that a man whose masculinity has been threatened has higher support for war, more homophobic attitudes, and is more interested in buying an SUV.
	Precarious masculinity was incredibly predictive of voting Trump in 2016 and voting Republican in 2018.
	What Republicans have done is taken this threatened masculinity and taken masculine anxieties and forged them into a weapon for the far right.
	The move for people who are anti-Trump is to push back.
	They're really to abiding themes in masculinity.
	The macho man, Trump's got that covered, and the good man.
	And what Democrats need to do, Josh Shapiro did this, is enact the good man, the decent, it's-a-wonderful-life man.
	Okay, there's only one problem with that.
	The it's-a-wonderful-life man, the man who provides and defends and protects in the context of marriage, is not loved by Democrats.
	Democrats do not love that model.
	Their entire idea is that family can be formed under any circumstances, that family is just an aggregation of interests rather than a core societal institution.
	You cannot say that you guys are modeling the ought when you don't believe in the ought.
	You can't say that you're modeling the way of life that we should all aspire to be if you refuse to say that that's a way of life that we aspire to be.
	And Democrats can't do that because they believe in the sexual revolution and the complete destruction of all of these societal standards.
	Sure, some people can choose to do it, but it's a matter, as they say, of moral apathy.
	Joan Williams says, When we start telling CEOs they should become school
	librarians, we can start telling blue-collar guys they should be nurses' aides.
	You have a situation where part of what's driving American politics is precarious masculinity
	in the sense you have been deprived of what is rightfully yours, and telling a man to
	take a dead-end, low-paid, traditionally feminine pink-collar job is one of the many gifts the
	left gives to the right.
	To tell men now their path to economic stability is to become a nurses' aide, with friends
	They think that it's an economic solution, that you have to let men weld.
	That's not the problem.
	The problem is not the jobs.
	Okay, so, here's what happens.
	The left provides no solution for this.
	In fact, the left exacerbates the problem by generally arguing that societal institutions are the problem.
	That the patriarchy is responsible for marriage, even though the reality is that marriage, by any economic standard, benefited women far more than men over the course of time.
	Why?
	Because for a man, it was much easier to be footloose and fancy-free.
	And for a woman, who was saddled with the baby, because obviously she bore it and had to nurse it and raise it, she needed someone to provide.
	Marriage was a solution to this problem.
	Again, I keep focusing on marriage because it is the left that has perverted the definition of marriage and said that marriage is basically just two people who love each other.
	That is not what marriage is.
	Marriage is man, woman, child.
	Men and women are complementary.
	They are meant to be together.
	That is not heteronormative, that is evolutionary biology.
	There are real reasons for this.
	And a culture that denigrates that sort of stuff is bound to collapse.
	It's bound to make women unhappier and men unhappier.
	And what you end up with that, after that, is the reaction.
	We're gonna get to the reactionary right in just one second.
	Because the reactionary right is taking the pathway of toxic masculinity in many ways.
	We'll get to that momentarily first.
	Have you ever invested in a nice jacket, shoes, maybe even a nice dinner?
	You're betting it shouldn't be any different.
	Start investing in your best sleep with Bull and Branch.
	They make the only sheets that get softer with every wash.
	Bull and Branch sheets are made from the finest 100% organic cotton threads on earth.
	They feel buttery to the touch.
	They're super breathable.
	They are perfect for both cooler and warmer months.
	Their signature hem sheets were made with luxurious threads.
	They're made without pesticides, formaldehyde, or other harsh chemicals.
	Best of all, Bull and Branch gives you a 30-night risk-free trial with free shipping and returns on all orders.
	You're not going to want to return them.
	Sleep better at night.
	With Bull and Branch sheets, they are so good.
	I'm just telling you.
	Not only the sheets, by the way.
	I've told you about this before.
	They have a fantastic blanket, like an Afghan blanket.
	It is phenomenal.
	It's so good that when I travel, I actually pack it in my suitcase because it helps me sleep.
	For a limited time only, you can get early access to their annual summer event.
	Use code SHAPIRO to get 20% off today at bullandbranch.com.
	That's B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com.
	Promo code SHAPIRO.
	Exclusions apply.
	See site for details.
	Go check them out right now.
	Again, bullandbranch.com.
	That's a fantastic deal.
	You're not going to regret it.
	Your sleep quality will improve.
	I'm just telling you it's going to happen.
	Bulletinbranch.com, promo code Shapiro.
	Okay, so we've seen the left's response, which is to basically throw up their hands and pretend that, yeah, you know, the societal institutions that made everything better.
	And then, you know, We should probably model some of that but you know if we don't it's not really a big deal because moral apathy and the truth is those institutions were patriarchal and they were heteronormative and they were cis-normative and all the rest of this.
	Well that's not a solution.
	But the right has reacted to that, the destruction of these institutions, in precisely the way that you would suppose.
	So George Gilder, who's an economist and a really good thinker, he had a book back in the 1980s called Men and Marriage and his basic premise Is one of the things I've been suggesting here, which is that men have this wild, aggressive instinct.
	And these wild, aggressive instincts must be put to work for building or they will be put to work on behalf of destruction.
	And you are seeing that as women have treated men as superfluous, men have started to treat women, in some circles, as the enemy.
	They've started to treat women as though women are something to be treated as chattel, or women should be treated without the full respect that women deserve.
	They say, well, women aren't treating themselves with respect, why should I respect women?
	Women don't want me to open the door for them, so I'm not going to open the door for them.
	Women say they want to be independent, that women don't want a man.
	Okay, well, I'm not going to treat them like they do.
	I'm going to take my aggressive instincts and I'm going to use them to their best available effects.
	Or worst available effects is the actual case.
	Maybe.
	So I would say example 1A here would be Andrew Tate.
	So I've been discussing Andrew Tate a lot because he's back in the news a lot.
	Did a two and a half hour interview with Tucker Carlson that had a lot of interesting moments to it.
	And the thing I've always said about Andrew Tate is that Andrew Tate's diagnosis is very often correct and his prognosis, his actual His actual recommendations for what we ought to do are almost entirely wrong.
	And many of the things that he says about the feminist movement are totally right.
	He's critiquing the left's wrecking of these institutions.
	But instead of trying to reinforce the institutions and rebuild the institutions, his response is the toxically masculine responses.
	Well, if this is a new world, then what I'm going to model, the behavior I'm going to model is not getting married, having kids, building a home, supporting my community.
	The behavior that I'm going to model is instead being as toxically masculine as using women.
	If women are still driven toward that top achiever, I'm going to be the top G. I'm going to be the guy who's the top achiever, and then I'm going to sleep with as many women as possible for sexual access.
	I'm going to have Lamborghinis.
	I'm going to have really nice cars.
	I'm going to have a nice house.
	I'm going to live in Romania.
	I'm going to do whatever I want to do, because that's what the male aggressive instinct, unchained, looks like.
	And we've been basically barred from the societal institutions by women.
	So what you should aspire to is this.
	Well, this leads many on the right because they look at his diagnosis and they're like, a lot of what he's saying about feminism is right.
	It leads many people on the right to look at the diagnosis and say, well, he's one of us.
	Here's the thing.
	Andrew Tate's solutions are not along those lines.
	Some of the stuff that he says to Tucker Carlson, for example, is not the way he actually lives his life.
	So tape has now emerged of Andrew Tate talking about the way that he treats women.
	So Andrew Tate made a lot of money off Quote-unquote cam girls.
	Cam girls are women who undress and perform provocative acts for the lust of men on webcams.
	Apparently you pay these women and you can tell them what you want them to do online and then, you know, pleasure yourself is apparently, I suppose, the way this industry works.
	Well Andrew Tate was deeply involved in this industry.
	That's how he made a lot of money and he bragged about it like a lot.
	Okay, so, Andrew Tate's solution to the problem of feminism, and particularly third-wave feminism, and the complete dissolution of sexual ethos, is to participate in it, but go back to sort of the way that it was in cavemen days, right?
	Men use women as you will, and this is now justifiable.
	That's the only way you can explain the fact that Andrew Tate is simultaneously critiquing the feminist sexual ethos of the sexual revolution and full atomistic hedonism.
	Well, simultaneously participating in it.
	So here is Andrew Tate.
	Okay, this is a clip that was going around.
	It's actually a fairly long compendium that was going around of Andrew Tate talking about what he actually did with women over the course of years.
	And me talking about it, I don't know his case.
	I don't know whether this is criminal behavior.
	I don't know whether it's not criminal behavior.
	I know I would never talk like this.
	I know no good man that you know would ever talk like this.
	I know that any man who says this kind of stuff has a serious moral problem.
	Here's Andrew Tate talking about women in a way that I don't think any good man should ever talk about women.
	What are you charged with?
	That's a really good question.
	I'm charged with being the head of an organized criminal group, which is in charge of recruiting girls to make TikTok videos.
	They face charges which include human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit.
	OnlyFans is the best hustle in the world.
	Are they accusing you of using violence?
	No.
	They're accusing me of using the loverboy method, coercing them by being nice.
	I don't mention webcam.
	Until after I've had sex with the girl.
	If you're on dates and you're trying to mention it and s**t, it just doesn't work.
	It puts them off.
	I'd never do that.
	That's disgusting.
	I'm not a wh**e. It's just not gonna work.
	You continue as normal.
	No mention of webcam.
	You f**k the girl.
	After you f**k the girl, you do the Ph.D.
	test.
	So yeah, on CoverTake.com I have my Ph.D.
	program and that is Ph.D.
	is Pimpin' Ho's degree.
	Clever.
	Clever.
	That teaches basically how I got girls, how I met girls, how I got girls to like me, how I got girls to fall in love with me to work on webcam for me.
	Okay, so that's disgusting.
	That is actually evil.
	The idea that you seduce a girl, make her fall in love with you, have sex with you, and then get her to pose nude and perform act in front of a camera so you can take a piece of her money.
	A pimping hose degree.
	That's disgusting.
	It's also not wildly unpredictable in a culture that has basically liberated men from the institutions that used to bind them to building a society.
	Again, the response to a society that shuns traditional notions of masculinity is, in fact, toxic masculinity.
	You can't have one without the other.
	If men's aggressive instinct was a caged animal, and then you blow up the cage, because the cage you say was actually not restricting men's aggressive instincts, instead was actually hemming in women, what you end up with is men and women liberated to be the worst of themselves.
	And this is exactly what you have seen.
	That's what the androtate phenomenon largely is.
	It's why, again, I'm not going to pretend that I'm a quote-unquote model man because I think that that would be arrogant.
	However, I will say that if you are trying to lead a model lifestyle in terms of how you channel your aggressive male instinct, I'm married for 15 years.
	I have four children.
	I have a nice house.
	I protect my family.
	I provide for my family.
	These are actually things that pretty much everybody can do.
	You don't have to have an amazingly nice house.
	You don't have to have like a great car.
	You too, every man can find a woman Every man can make a home with a woman.
	Every man can have children with a woman.
	Every man can protect those children, defend those children, protect their innocence.
	Every man can do this, and every man must do this.
	Not just can, must.
	Should.
	I'm not apathetic about this and you shouldn't be either.
	If you want men to actually have a path towards success, by the way, this actually happens to be true in terms of even income.
	Married men make more money than non-married men.
	Why?
	Because they have something they're committed to.
	There's a reason now that they're working.
	Unmarried men tend to be like, I just need enough money so I can pay for...
	You know, my futon and my Chinese takeout and maybe an occasional movie or whatever it is that you want.
	But once men settle down, they become more productive members of society.
	It's just a reality.
	We should not be apathetic about whether men engage in this institution.
	That means women.
	You should help men engage in this institution.
	Why?
	Because it's good for you too.
	It is good for a woman to be a wife.
	It is good for a woman to be a mother.
	These are active goods.
	It is not a matter of societal apathy or moral apathy, whether you become a wife or a mother.
	And that does not mean, as the feminist movement has taught you, that you have to subjugate yourself, you have to be a slave to your husband.
	You're a partner with your husband.
	You're aesir connecto.
	You're a helper against him.
	It is your job to work on him.
	It is his job to work on you.
	And it is both of your job to build a family unit that provides the basis for the society.
	You will be happier.
	He will be happier.
	You will find a partner who's actually worth having because he has now committed his entire life and his entire male aggressive instinct toward protecting and defending you.
	That is of benefit to you because you know what's worse?
	A liberated world in which the only men who are interested in getting involved with you are men who are seeking to prey on you.
	Those are the choices.
	Now there are these famous memes, these kind of Which Way Western Man memes.
	Okay, Which Way Western Man, the real meme, ought to be traditional family lifestyles Moral chaos.
	There is no in-between.
	Moral apathy is moral chaos.
	Pretending that whatever floats your boat, divorce parties, or being married for 15 years, it's all the same.
	No, it 100% is not.
	It 100% is not.
	Now, it is also clear that men sort of, you know, collapsing as half of the species in terms of performance, suicidal ideation, in terms of income, in terms of education.
	All of that is going to be clearer than it happening to women.
	Because just generally speaking, when women fall apart, Women tend to be self-destructive.
	Men tend to be destructive of others.
	They tend to be destructive of the society around them.
	Because again, males, their aggressive instinct is unchained and it tends to be directed outward.
	Women, when they're very hard on themselves or when they're having a really tough time, they tend to direct it inward, right?
	Talk to a teenage girl versus a teenage boy, you can see this.
	Teenage boys who go bad join gangs.
	Teenage girls who go bad start working on themselves and breaking themselves down.
	Well, if you wish to cure all of that, then you need a society that gives people a thing to do, the most important thing that has yet to be done ever.
	But again, get rid of it.
	Once it becomes reaction, once it becomes women versus men, the feminist instinct versus the aggressive male instinct, well, there's no end to it.
	It's just spiraling down.
	This is my critique also of so-called Bronze Age pervert.
	So there is this very famous book that is called Bronze Age Mindset.
	It's basically sort of a warmed-over version of Nietzsche.
	It's written by a Yale PhD named Kasten Alomariu, who's apparently a brilliant guy.
	I've read Bronze Age Mindset, and it's very interestingly written.
	It's written in sort of internet meme-speak.
	It's got some very bizarre points of view.
	I would say that, again, it reads more like Worms over Nietzsche than anything else.
	It's all about the powerful man regaining his power through strength and will, a disdain for Judeo-Christian morality in favor of an older Greek morality that prizes beauty and strength, and we have to regain the beauty and the strength.
	Again, the beauty and strength morality is, again, closer to the unchained toxic masculine ideal than it is chained to institutions that actually build things.
	But Bronze Age Mindset has become a sort of handbook for a bunch of young dudes because it gives them something to do, right?
	Go to the gym, work out, be better looking, become successful.
	It doesn't actually give them a society to build, it gives them a thing to work on with themselves.
	So if you can't actually build that society, instead what you should do is you should go work out a lot, You should eat healthier, and you should be very aggressive in your pursuit of success, and you should be... A lot of people have accused Bronze Age Mindset, just, again, in the same way that they accused Nietzsche of essentially being the predecessor to a fascist mentality.
	It basically says that the triumph of the will is going to reign supreme.
	The word, this started to be sort of inculcated in meme culture online.
	This is why you see a lot of right-wingers who suddenly are into bodybuilding.
	Now I think, listen, if the left wants to cede being in good shape to the right, that's an idiotic move.
	I think all men should attempt to be in good shape.
	I think all women should attempt to be in good shape.
	It's a good thing for your body.
	It's a good thing for you.
	It's a good thing for your mental health.
	There are a lot of reasons why you should stay healthy and go to the gym.
	Bronze Age Mindset turned it into a sort of political statement to go to the gym because now you are saying that the thing that knows to be prized above all other things is beauty.
	That's the thing that really matters.
	But beauty isn't an actual moral standard, per se.
	Beauty is just an observation about the world.
	And the idea that will itself drives you toward a goal is untrue.
	It's a point that G.K.
	Chesterton made about Nietzsche.
	He says the problem with Nietzsche is that Nietzsche refuses to express a goal.
	He distains Judeo-Christian goals, but then he refuses to set up another goal.
	He just says will.
	Well, will is a means.
	Will is not an end.
	And the same thing applies to Bronze Age mindset.
	But BAP or BAM, right?
	It's alternatively called.
	The Bronze Age Pervert.
	That sort of mentality, again, because it's bringing back some sort of... it infuses Nietzscheism with, again, a sense of classicism.
	It's a reversion.
	There is no such thing as... it's not progress.
	What we're watching right now is not progress.
	What we're watching is reversion.
	We're watching a reversion to paganism.
	That reversion to paganism destroys all the old institutions and what you end up with is a man that is chaotic.
	And women, who are chaotic.
	So political, I think, does not do justice to the actual genius.
	I mean, I think it's actually quite brilliant, much of Bronze Age mindset and bronze, as much as I disagree with a lot of it, and I think a lot of it is offensive and terrible and gross.
	You can't you can't deny that it's incredibly well structured and well written like that.
	The guy who wrote it is a very, very smart person.
	But here's how political characterizes this.
	For BAP, the elevation of this vision of masculinity in society comports with his ideal social order,
	where the strongest rule, there are no curbs on their dominance,
	no efforts to protect those who have less power, certainly no attempt to equalize groups.
	BAP believes in natural differences between humans along racial, ethnic, and gender lines,
	and compares non-Western societies to yeast, mindlessly perpetuating themselves.
	BAP argues that equality itself, even democracy, is a dead end.
	He believes in eugenic breeding to preserve what he views as superior stock.
	Now, again, I think that readers of Bronze Age Pervert or Bronze Age Mindset would say
	that some of this is meant, you know, parodically in the same way
	that Straussian readers of Plato say that some of this is meant, you know, parodically.
	Plato wasn't actually in favor of fascist society, he was critiquing it,
	but one of the things that you can say is that this is a political response
	to a feminine instinct that says that we have to equalize all of society
	along redistributionist lines.
	So the reactivity on the male end is, well, what if we just do it about power?
	What if we, again, what made societies work?
	Is the conjugal relationship between those two things,
	the feminine desire for equality and mercy and the masculine desire for justice and skill, right?
	You put those two things together and what you end up with is a meritocracy.
	What you end up with is the belief that every human has inherent value and that merit should win.
	Right, that and combined with mercy for those who haven't made it.
	Right, that's what that's a working society.
	You get rid of either half of that equation and what you end up with on the one hand
	is sort of the equity nonsense that you see on the left today or the or the bronze age mindset,
	tyrannical, you can say, exoteric perspective that Politico is talking about right there.
	None of that is good for American society.
	None of it is good.
	And again, you can see it manifesting in reactionary ways on both sides.
	We'll get to that on the left in just one second, because the way that they now talk about abortion, you wonder why men are falling behind?
	The way the left talks about abortion is in fact one reason for this.
	We'll get to that momentarily first.
	If you run a small business, you need to plan ahead.
	One of the best ways to do that is by using stamps.com to help mail and ship.
	Stamps.com lets you print your own postage and shipping labels directly from your home or office.
	It's ready to go in minutes, so you can get back to running your business sooner.
	Stamps.com offers rates you can't find anywhere else, like up to 84% off USPS and UPS.
	Plus, they automatically tell you your cheapest and fastest shipping options.
	For 25 years, stamps.com has been indispensable for over a million businesses.
	Get access to the shipping services you need to run your business directly from your computer.
	No lines, no traffic, no waiting.
	You can print postage wherever you do business.
	They even send you a free scale so you'll have everything you need to get started.
	Here at DailyWire, we don't waste our time, which is why we've been using stamps.com for years and years and years.
	Set your business up for success by starting with stamps.com today.
	Sign up with promo code SHAPIRO.
	You can get a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and free digital skill, no long-term commitments, no contracts.
	Just go to stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page, enter code Shapiro again.
	Stamps.com, the microphone at the top of the page.
	You click on that, you enter code Shapiro, and you're going to get an amazing deal.
	Four-week trial, free postage, free digital scale, no long-term commitment or contract.
	Also, I want to talk to you about something I usually don't talk about.
	My hair.
	Actually, not my hair.
	My hair is great because I use Jeremy's razors, shampoo and conditioner.
	I'm talking about your hideously dirty hair.
	If you're not also using Jeremy's restorative tea tree and argan oil blend to wash your mane, you're doing it wrong.
	You're asking to be canceled.
	Let me get some of this product up here because this is what we do around here.
	So, right here is the shampoo.
	It's good shampoo.
	You wash your hair with it.
	And then, over here, you have the body wash.
	This is, as the name might suggest, the thing with which you wash your body.
	It's excellent.
	It smells good, makes your body clean.
	And then finally, over here, you have the conditioner.
	You put this in your hair.
	I've been told by my staff, no more 2-in-1.
	2-in-1 is for losers.
	You need actual shampoo and actual conditioner.
	And Jeremy's Razors provides you with all of these things.
	And if you're not using Jeremy's Razors, you're just doing it wrong.
	Jeremy's Razors is more than a razor company.
	It's a men's grooming brand that doesn't actually hate men.
	They're shampoo and conditioner, along with that exfoliating charcoal body wash.
	They're made from high-quality natural ingredients right here in the United States.
	Sulfate-free.
	I don't know what paraben is, but I guess they don't have any paraben in them.
	I don't know if that's good or bad.
	What is paraben?
	I don't know.
	Most important of all, Jeremy's Razors hair and body bundles.
	They are woke-free, so stop giving your money to the woke companies that hate your guts.
	Head on over to Jeremy'sRazors.com.
	Check out their shampoo, conditioner, and body wash bundles today.
	Okay, meanwhile...
	So when we talk about that thing to which Andrew Tate or Bronze Age Pervert or the Incel Movement, that which they are responding to in I think toxic and not true ways, you have to look at what the left has been doing.
	So what the left has been doing with regard to femininity and masculinity is suggesting the apotheosis of femininity is literally destroying the thing that makes women the most women.
	Having babies.
	I'm sorry to break it to the ladies in the audience.
	I shouldn't be sorry because it's an amazing skill.
	It's like an amazing gift from God, from nature.
	I don't understand why women disdain this gift.
	It's literally the most amazing thing that human beings are capable of doing, is producing a child and then nurturing that child.
	It's like the most incredible thing.
	I'm watching my wife do it right now.
	I have a two-month-old boy, beautiful baby boy, and my wife is with the baby like all the time.
	Watching her actually grow a baby inside her and then have the baby and then nurse the baby is like...
	It's a superpower.
	It's an actual, honest-to-God superpower.
	And yet, what the left has said is that the best thing a woman can do is cut that part out of them.
	The best thing for a woman is to make sure that the baby, an independent human created from you that is half you, can be killed.
	In fact, it is a sacred duty.
	There's actual holiness to it.
	So, John Kirby, who's the national security spokesperson for the Biden administration yesterday, he was talking about this big debate that has now erupted over the National Defense Authorization Act.
	In the National Defense Authorization Act, the current Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, put in a couple of provisions that are just wild left-wing social policy.
	One of those provisions is That the military is going to pay for a member of the military, a female member of the military, to be able to go to another state on leave to get an abortion.
	So you will be paying for the abortion, effectively speaking.
	And Republicans said, hold up a second.
	This is not what taxpayers are in it for.
	You want to do it?
	Do it on your own time.
	You want to do it?
	Do it with your own buck.
	I mean, put aside the pro-life value that says you shouldn't be killing your baby.
	If you're going to do it, we certainly shouldn't be paying for it.
	But John Kirby says it is a sacred duty for you and for me to pay for a woman to have an abortion because the highest aspiration of a woman should be to not be subjected to the rigors of, you know, the thing that makes a woman most womanly.
	Is the new DOD policy on abortion critical to military readiness?
	I'm really glad you asked that question.
	No, I mean, I really am.
	policies, whether they're diversity, inclusion, and equity, or whether they're about transgender
	individuals who qualify physically and mentally to serve to be able to do it with dignity,
	or whether it's about female service members, one in five, or female family members being
	able to count on the kinds of health care and reproductive care specifically that they
	need to serve.
	That is a foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders across the river.
	That's what sacred means.
	Foundational thing to military leadership that women be treated as though abortion is an active good and the highest aspiration of a woman is apparently abortion.
	It's a sacred duty for us to pay for a woman's abortion.
	Of course you're gonna get toxic masculinity.
	What do you think the natural response to that is?
	Of course you are.
	They're deeply related.
	Toxic femininity, the ripping away of what is most feminine about women is going to result in toxic masculinity.
	The removal of all boundaries on the male aggressive instinct
	that damages women.
	These two things aren't working against each other.
	They are working in complete coordination with each other.
	They're bouncing off of each other.
	Like that pendulum toy that people have on their desks with the steel spheres,
	they're bouncing off of each other, right?
	That's the entire idea.
	And then you wonder why it seems that the spheres are bouncing further and further apart.
	Because of you.
	Okay, stop reacting to the other side so much and start building.
	That would be the key.
	By the way, I think that's true politically also.
	Stop reacting so much, start building.
	I think we spend a lot of time reacting to each other, but not enough time talking about the actual solutions that are going to make life better for anybody.
	But the left is not interested in that when it comes to abortion.
	So yesterday they had a bunch of abortion experts who were testifying on the Hill.
	That included a person named Love Holt.
	Ironically named Love Holt, the Democrats Community Engagement Director.
	And she talked about why we ought to be subsidizing abortions in the United States.
	And here we go.
	Here we are, 400 years after slavery in America and what some would deem a successful book-breaking of our male counterparts.
	I look at this as an attempt to dethrone the original matriarch and furthermore cause bodily restrictions on black bodies, therefore making it harder for us to make Normal decisions, therefore perverting our quality of life in a place that we should be free for choice in whatever direction we'd like to go in.
	Who the hell is the original matriarch?
	Apparently the original matriarch is a woman who's able to dispense with her children, which kind of defeats the purpose of the word matriarch, right?
	Mother.
	That's what matriarch means.
	The mother of many, the mother of the nation.
	That's what a matriarch is.
	But apparently, true matriarchy is where women kill their babies, and are funded by the government to do so.
	Right?
	The same abortion expert, by the way, says that the real qualm here, and again, this is what it comes down to, for the sexual revolutionaries on the left, atomistic individual expression of sexual desire is the only goal, that is the only thing that is worthwhile.
	Building is not part of this.
	So whatever consequences happen next are of no concern.
	Here's again, the ironically named Love Holt.
	I say ironically because this has nothing to do with love and everything to do with selfishness.
	Here's Love Holt.
	As black women, like the beautiful woman at the end said, a lot of our communities are miseducated.
	The real issue is that we need abortions that teens can screw each other.
	That's the really important thing.
	As black women, like the beautiful woman at the end said, a lot of our communities are
	miseducated.
	Missouri is an abstinence only state.
	It's illegal to educate your youth about their body, contraceptives, signs of pubescence,
	what to do when they're hot and heavy.
	And then we thrust them out into a world that has a ban on their choice.
	That's ripping away their bodily autonomy.
	And the only way we'll be able to successfully see people survive unwanted pregnancies Fetal anomalies, maternal and birthing person mortality rates is through communication, aggregating this information, and reaching out to local organizations who support choice.
	Why are men so toxic, says the feminist who calls women birthing persons.
	Why are men so toxic to women?
	Amazing.
	Okay, well, again, the reaction to all this, the reaction to the stripping away of what it means to be a woman is the stripping away of what it means to be a responsible man.
	That's what we're watching.
	I don't know why men are failing, that's why.
	And there's only one way to restore that, and that is to restore the fundamental building blocks of any civilization that have been torn asunder by the feminist left and by the reactionary right in response.
	It's none of... Build.
	Stop destroying, build.
	Okay, speaking of this, well, it's no surprise that as femininity and masculinity decline, as the institutions of marriage decline, as demographics fall away in the West, you're starting to see receding rates of growth in the West.
	Because as it turns out, despite all of the talk about how capitalism is inherently based on the uprooting of family, it's not true.
	Family provides the basis for capitalistic success.
	Because otherwise there's nothing to provide for.
	This idea that capitalism inherently treats people individually as opposed to as family units, that part is true.
	But capitalism is not in the family building business.
	Capitalism is in the ability to alienate your labor business.
	It is your job to bring your values to capitalism.
	This is why I always get sort of irritated when people say things like, two cheers for capitalism.
	You hear this a lot from the Integralist Right.
	Two cheers for capitalism.
	Well, or one cheer for capitalism.
	Here's the thing.
	Treating capitalism as though it is supposed to be a moral system, as opposed to a tool for prosperity that is an outgrowth of human control over our own labor, that's really stupid.
	It's like saying, two cheers for this hammer because this hammer is not a screwdriver.
	Well, I mean, right, it's a hammer.
	So like, as a hammer, three cheers for the hammer.
	I wouldn't expect this hammer to solve all of my nutritional deficits.
	It'd be weird.
	Well, same thing for capitalism.
	Capitalism makes products cheaper and better and safer and more useful.
	And that's what capitalism does.
	It provides a place for you to alienate your labor and make money while doing it
	that you can then use to provide for your family.
	But the reason that capitalism is dependent on family is because again, if there's no reason
	for you to provide for a wife or children, for example, if you are a man, then why go out and earn all that much?
	What is the point?
	And one of the reasons that people try to earn a lot of money
	is to pass it down to their kids and to their grandkids.
	There's always a future orientation to the economy that if you strip away, you end up with basically subsistence economics.
	And subsistence economics doesn't amount to any sort of advancement.
	It's consume the future on behalf of the present.
	I mean, there are really only two types of economic systems.
	There are economic systems that try to build things now for the future, and then there are economic systems that consume the future for the present.
	Those would be debt-led systems, or communistic systems that assume that if we just reshape man in the here and now by sucking resources out of the economy, and by damning people to hell, then we will somehow build a better world right now.
	As opposed to the idea that a better world emerges when you look to tomorrow.
	Meaning, you're thinking about, how do I build a business?
	You're thinking about planting a tree that you're not going to get to see come to fruition.
	Capitalism is, it must be based in what Adam Smith's first book, A Theory of Moral Sentiment, talked about.
	A theory of moral sentiment.
	There's a future orientation to economics, and when you get rid of it, you end up with Keynesianism, which is the redistributionism of income that ends in economic stagnation, effectively speaking.
	And that's what you are seeing over in Europe.
	So there's an article in the Wall Street Journal today, So again, one of the reasons that Americans historically have worked really hard, like lots of long hours, is because we want our kids to be richer than we are.
	We want our kids to be better off than we are.
	That's the whole goal.
	Right?
	Well, what happens if you don't have kids?
	Then you basically make enough money so you can go on vacation, go to Cancun a little bit.
	Europeans, according to the Wall Street Journal, are facing a new economic reality, one they haven't experienced in decades.
	They are becoming actively poorer.
	Life on a continent long envied by outsiders for its art de vive is rapidly losing its shine as Europeans see their purchasing power melt away.
	The French are eating less foie gras and drinking less red wine.
	Spaniards are stinting on olive oil.
	Finns are being urged to use saunas on windy days when energy is less expensive.
	Across Germany, meat and milk consumption has fallen to the lowest level in three decades, and the once booming market for organic food has tanked.
	Italy's economic development minister, Adolfo Urso, convened a crisis meeting in May over prices for pasta, the country's favorite staple, after they jumped by more than double the national inflation rate.
	With consumption spending in free fall, Europe tipped into recession at the start of the year, reinforcing a sense of relative economic, political, and military decline that kicked in at the start of the century.
	Europe's current predicament, says the Wall Street Journal, has been long in the making.
	An aging population with a preference for free time and job security over earnings, ushered in years of lackluster economic and productivity growth.
	Again, lack of future orientation, living in the hedonistic now.
	That is what is damning the European economy to sluggishness.
	And by the way, it's also going to mean the collapse of all of these systems that they say that they really care about.
	You're seeing that at the national health system in the UK.
	Remember, it wasn't all that long ago when the left was touting the NHS as a model for the United States, and now the NHS, I mean, it has been for a while, but it's a complete hellscape.
	It's the New York Times reporting that the NHS is in serious trouble.
	Quote.
	15 hours after she was taken out of an ambulance at Queen's Hospital with chest pains and pneumonia,
	Marianne Patton was still in the emergency room waiting for a bed in a ward. Mrs. Patton, 78,
	was luckier than others who arrived at the steaming hospital east of London.
	She had not yet been wheeled into a hallway. That's 15 hours after she had chest pains and
	pneumonia. For months, doctors at Queen's have been forced to treat people in a corridor because
	of a lack of space.
	As the ambulances kept pulling up outside, the doctor supervising the ER, Daryl Woods, said it was only a matter of time before nurses would begin diverting patients into the overflow space again.
	Despite her ordeal, Mrs. Patton was sympathetic.
	Decades ago, she said the NHS saved her husband's life when he had a heart attack.
	It's got to cope with a lot more people, she said.
	You can't be grumpy about it.
	As it turns 75 this month, the NHS, a proud symbol of Britain's welfare state, is in the deepest crisis of its history, flooded by aging, enfeebled patients, starved of investment in equipment and facilities, understaffed by doctors and nurses, many of whom are so burned out they are either joining strikes or leaving for jobs abroad.
	Yeah, no bleep, Sherlock.
	Of course, because this is a system that is rooted in the today as opposed to in the tomorrow.
	This is why whenever I hear people on both sides of the aisle now talking about, we don't need entitlement reform, who cares about entitlement reform?
	It's that mentality.
	Cannibalize tomorrow for today, and then when tomorrow comes, maybe we'll beat that already and we won't care.
	That's the famous line that John Maynard Keynes suggested.
	He was talking with another economist, apparently, and this economist was pointing out that your plans in the long run are bad.
	And he said, in the long run, we're all dead.
	That's a really, really bad way to build an economic system, and that's precisely what we've been seeing.
	We've seen it in China, by the way.
	China's about to collapse because, in the long run, we're all dead.
	Do what you have to do today in order to get to tomorrow with your power still intact.
	And by the way, it may not be in the long run.
	It turns out one of the solutions to having aged and feeble people in your country is just to kill them, which presumably is one of the things that is now happening in Canada, in large measure.
	According to Reuters, since 2016, over 30,000 people have been killed using euthanasia.
	In Canada.
	Those numbers are only going to go up.
	The old are going to be dispensable.
	See, here's the thing about a society that is future-oriented.
	It cares about its elderly.
	Why?
	Because the elderly are the repositories of wisdom.
	They have the knowledge that is going to get you to the next generation.
	Not only that, caring for your elderly makes you a better person.
	One of the unbelievably stupid aspects of our government overreach is the idea that it doesn't involve a crowding out.
	Of course it involves a crowding out.
	It involves a crowding out of ethics.
	It's actually an outsourcing of empathy.
	It's amazing when you hear people constantly talking about, you're more empathetic if you want to fund X government program.
	Well, not really because it seems to me that many of the government programs that you actually want to fund are just a way for you to outsource your problems to a third party so you don't have to feel bad about it.
	So to take an example, when people say, well, social security, you know, so we can't restructure social security.
	Social security is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Medicare and Medicaid.
	And this is how we are going to make sure that all these problems are taken care of.
	Well, they haven't taken care of the problems.
	What they really have done is just to outsource them.
	So it used to be, 50, 60 years ago, if you had a parent who's getting elderly, what happened with your elderly parent?
	You brought them into your house.
	This is the thing that you did.
	You brought them into your house, and your kids had to learn to deal with people who are elderly.
	And you had to learn to deal with people who are elderly.
	And you had to negotiate that, and it was a tremendous sacrifice, and it was really hard, and it was really difficult.
	Instead, we decided, what if we just outsource that crap to the government, and then we just put all of our elderly people in nursing homes and maybe euthanize them?
	Maybe that's the solution.
	Has that made people happier or more fulfilled?
	Or is it just meant to complete lack of respect for people as they get older other than our geriatric dotards who apparently still run the country?
	The same thing has happened with regard to poverty.
	Poverty programs don't make you responsible for the people with poverty.
	They just allow you to say, I paid at the office already.
	I've talked about this before in my religious community.
	When somebody is going through a hard time, everybody in the community is expected to chip in.
	We are all expected to take up a hand, figure out how we can help, try to do something.
	You know what's a lot easier than that?
	If there was some sort of, say, faraway body that just allowed me to sign a quick check
	and then I would never have to worry about the problem again.
	We could call that place the government.
	And even if it didn't solve the problem, I'd feel good about myself.
	And then I could yell at other people for not being in favor of this far away Anthony taking care of all the problems that I should actually be taking upon myself.
	It turns out that empathy very often just means outsourcing.
	And that outsourcing very often just means stealing from the future in order to outsource.
	Make yourself more comfortable at the expense of the future.
	And then you wonder why society is in serious trouble.
	This would be one of the reasons why society is in serious trouble.
	Future-oriented societies survive, present-oriented societies fail.
	We are increasingly becoming a present-oriented society, which means removing all of the institutional frameworks that provide for a future entirely.
	Okay, time for, um, you know, I'm not even gonna do things I like to do, I'm just gonna do a couple of quick things that I hate.
	Alrighty.
	Things that I hate today.
	So, first of all, Barack Obama is one of the most irritating people in American public life.
	I blame Barack Obama personally for many of the problems that American politics have entered into.
	As I've said before, I think that his presidency basically polarized the country beyond all recognition.
	Because he came in with this broad wave of public approval, and then he proposed a bunch of left-wing policies that were very alienating, and instead of just playing politics, he decided that he was going to actually racially polarize America.
	In his own political interest, I'm not sure the country has recovered from it or will recover any time in the near future.
	Well, now Barack Obama is sounding off on librarians.
	And he is talking about the quote-unquote book bans in places like Florida.
	Now, to be clear, the book bans in places like Florida, those are not book bans.
	You can still get any of these books in Florida.
	What they really are is saying that school libraries for 6th graders shouldn't have books like genderqueer in them.
	You know, books with graphic depictions of gay sex, for example.
	So Barack Obama, because he is a liar, put out on his Twitter feed the following statement, quote,
	Today, some of the books that shaped my life and the lives of so many others are being
	challenged by people who disagree with certain ideas or perspectives, and librarians are on
	the front lines fighting every day to make the widest possible range of viewpoints,
	opinions, and ideas available to everyone.
	I really don't think that genderqueer shaped his life, and if it did, then we should know some more things about the former president of the United States.
	Fairly certain that these are not the books that shaped Barack Obama's young life.
	But, again, this is a stupid game that we play as we pretend that There's an attempt to shut down free speech when we say that a six-square shouldn't be reading genderqueer.
	So again, points to Barack Obama for absolute falsehood.
	Okay, other absolute falsehoods.
	I have to say, it is amazing to watch as the left twists itself in knots over their intersectional coalition.
	So again, Barack Obama was one of the founders of the left-wing intersectional coalition.
	This idea that minority people plus college-educated white ladies were going to provide a durable coalition for the left, not just in the United States, but elsewhere.
	And what this has meant is some really weird internal conflicts because it turns out a lot of minorities don't agree with each other.
	It turns out, for example, that Muslims not super fond of the LGBTQ.
	And now the left is noticing that, but their answer to this, because it's obviously that's a gap that's unbridgeable.
	I mean, the Koran is not super hot, as I say, on LGBTQIA plus minus divided by sign politics.
	And to the left, because they want them to be part of the same coalition, now they're saying that basically evil right-wingers are perverting Muslims to be socially conservative.
	Uh, what?
	So we saw, actually, Jen Psaki tried this routine the other day on MSNBC.
	Now Justin Trudeau, handsome Bernie Sanders, and certainly not Fidel Castro's son.
	100% not Fidel Castro.
	He's Fidel Castro's son.
	In any case, Justin Trudeau, he tried the same routine.
	The reason Muslims are apparently opposed to LGBTQ plus minus divided by a sign, happy face, sad face emoji, crying emoji, laughing, crying emoji, clappy hands emoji.
	The reason that the Muslims aren't super fond of that?
	It's because of perverse Christian right-wingers who have somehow brainwashed the Muslims.
	Which, um, no.
	First of all, there is an awful lot of misinformation and disinformation out there.
	People on social media... Ah, they're reporting misinformation at this hour.
	...the American right-wing are spreading a lot of untruths about what's actually in the Provincial Conferences.
	If you look at the various curriculums, you'll see that there is not what is being said out there about aggressive teaching or conversion of kids to being LGBT.
	That is something that is being weaponized by people who are not doing it because of their interest in supporting the Muslim community.
	These are people in the far right who are consistent and stood against Muslim rights in the Muslim community.
	Oh, you see, it's the far-right with their misinformation and disinformation who are trying to pervert the Muslims.
	Uh-huh.
	Uh-huh.
	First of all, the Orwellian use of the words misinformation and disinformation to just mean stuff I don't like is really gross.
	And when governmental leaders use it as the predicate to censorship, it's particularly gross.
	But you know, this is the way that they work.
	Okay, one final thing that I hate today.
	So, I don't know what women have decided on this whole, we are going to just release text messages that are totally not for public consumption to make our boyfriends look bad when they're not really doing something bad.
	Like, I understand that the desire for victimhood is now just the driving desire in a lot of celebrity hearts.
	But I, for the life of me, do not understand why any of these things they're releasing are scandalous.
	This is true of the Jonah Hill text where he's like, maybe you shouldn't pose, you know, in a bathing suit in this particular pose.
	And like years later, his ex-girlfriend's like, this is terrible, and he was trying to control me.
	Well then you break up with him.
	I don't understand.
	Why is that anybody else's business but yours?
	It's your decision whether to be in a relationship.
	Well now, we have Bebe Rexha.
	Now, I'm not going to pretend I know who this person is because I have no idea who it is.
	Every artist past about 1890 is a stranger to me.
	But apparently Bebe Rexha is some sort of singer, an alleged singer.
	And on her Instagram, she shared a text message she received criticizing her for gaining 35 pounds.
	It appears to be from her boyfriend, which is a great way to build a relationship, is to take private text messages between you and your potential spouse, your boyfriend, and put those online.
	It's a great way to build trust.
	And here is the actual text message that we're supposed to feel super bad for her about quote,
	Hey, I never said you weren't beautiful. I never said I didn't love you. In fact,
	I said how beautiful you are and how much I loved you. I always said I would be honest with you and
	your face was changing. So I told you it was that was the conversation we were having. And you asked
	because I care. Would you rather I lied to you? You gained 35 pounds, obviously you gain weight
	Should I just pretend it didn't happen, and that it's okay?
	Come on, I gain 3 pounds, and you call me chubs and fat.
	Doesn't mean you don't love me.
	If you're trying to find reasons to break up, this makes sense.
	But it's not the real reason.
	If you're unhappy with me, or yourself, or with life, and don't see a future with us, that's okay, that's the reason.
	Don't use something like that to weaponize your anger or anxiety, or any insecurity you may have.
	You know, I always found you to be beautiful, and loved you no matter what.
	I think it's important for you to think about things and write things down, speak to a therapist, and do this retreat thing to get to the root of the problem.
	Let me know if you'd like to speak, if you need more clarity.
	Love you.
	Okay, so I have a question.
	Is that supposed to be her boyfriend being a bad person?
	Her boyfriend seems delightful.
	I mean, truthfully, that's a nicer message than like 98% of dudes send to their spouses and or girlfriends.
	That is a wildly nice message.
	It sounds like she asked him, do I look fat in this dress?
	And that was his answer, which was, you're beautiful and I love you.
	But yeah, you look fat in the dress.
	And you told me to tell you, to be honest.
	So I'm being honest now.
	So first of all, he violated the cardinal rule.
	The cardinal rule is, if your wife asks if she looks fat in the dress, the answer is always no.
	It doesn't matter if she looks like a hippopotamus stuffed into a tootsie roll.
	Does not matter.
	She's beautiful.
	But he actually gave her the honest answer.
	And that is a mistake apparently.
	So egregious that she put that online.
	How dare he answer a simple question?
	This apparently was during a May appearance on the Jennifer Hudson show.
	She talked about her weight gain and she's apparently been doing this kind of routine publicly about why people are being mean to her because of her weight gain.
	Not everything makes you a victim.
	Not everything in life makes you a victim.
	In fact, thinking about yourself as a victim makes you a victim.
	Of yourself.
	Not of anybody else.
	This sort of narcissistic garbage is so ridiculous.
	And honestly, people with lives don't have time for this.
	I gotta tell you, I'm covering it specifically because I'm saying don't do this in your life.
	If you have a life and you have things to do, you don't have time for this.
	And by the way, you should have a partner who is able to tell you honestly when something is wrong.
	If you ask them if you have broccoli in your teeth, they should be able to tell you without fear that you're going to blow up on them and post it on Instagram.
	Oh, so, so silly.
	Ari, coming up, will be joined by Chris Rufo.
	He's joining the show to discuss his new book, America's Cultural Revolution, How the Radical Left Conquered Everything.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲