All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
49:10
Ep. 210 - What Socialists And Toddlers Have In Common

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I have noticed a startling similarity between my 2-year-old son and socialists. I will explain. Also, a horrifying Michael Jackson documentary, aired last night, only reinforces what any sane person already knew about Jackson. So why are his fans still defending him? Finally, I'll answer your emails. Date: 03-04-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, I have noticed a startling similarity between my two-year-old son and socialists.
And I want to explain.
Also, there was a horrifying Michael Jackson documentary that aired on HBO last night.
A lot of people are talking about it.
And this documentary, it only reinforces what any sane person already knew about Michael Jackson.
So why are his fans still defending him?
We'll try to get to the bottom of that.
Finally, I'll answer your emails today on The Matt Walsh Show.
So I think I figured out why it is that we have socialists in this country.
I think I've solved the mystery.
I want to explain that to you.
But before I do, let me tell you about Stamps.com.
So here's the thing.
We're all busy these days, right?
We're too busy.
We've got too much going on.
So something that feels like a small little errand can really become a big hassle.
Something like going to the post office.
With everything else you've got going on in your life, it's just you don't have time for that.
Ain't nobody got time for that, to quote Aristotle.
And we're all looking for areas where we can kind of streamline things and make things easier for us to free up some precious time.
And that's why you need Stamps.com, one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.
Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office, and it saves you money with discounts that you can't even get at the post office.
I think that's the best part.
So, Stamps.com basically brings the post office to your computer.
And this is a huge benefit no matter if you're a small office sending invoices, if you're an online seller shipping out products, whatever it is.
Even if you're just an average Joe like me, whatever your postal needs happen to be, Stamps.com can handle that.
Here's how it works.
You just use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere, it doesn't matter, whatever it is, you can do it.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier, you drop it in the mailbox, whatever, and it just, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
And simple is the key.
Simple is my favorite thing.
I didn't mention the best part in my view, or I want to expand on it a little bit.
That's the money that you save with Stamps.com.
You get five cents off every first-class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
So Stamps.com is just a no-brainer, saving you time and money.
And it's no wonder, it's not a mystery, why 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
That's 700,000 small businesses use this, so you know that it works.
So pay attention to this part.
This is the important part.
Right now, my listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long-term commitment.
So you just have to go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Walsh.
That's stamps.com, enter Walsh stamps.com, enter Walsh, save time, save money.
The only problem I guess you'll have is, is figuring out what to do with all the extra time that you have.
Once you've saved all of it, I suggest taking a beekeeping, but I mean, you could do whatever you want with the time stamps.com, enter Walsh, check it out now.
Okay.
So my, uh, My two-year-old son has a routine at night that he's grown really attached to and accustomed to.
And the routine is that my wife will bring him into his room.
And read him a story and put him down to bed and then she'll leave and then I come in separately and I give him a hug and I say goodnight.
And he really wants that individual attention from each of us.
That's what his routine is.
And any parent with a young kid, you know that they get a certain routine, especially at night.
And they need that routine every night in order to go to bed.
And what I do is I go in there and I give him a hug and I always ask him, Every night I ask him, what did you do today?
That was the question I asked him every night.
Even if I was with him all day.
And so I know what he did.
I still ask him, what did you do?
Because I think it's good to try and teach kids how to answer a simple question like that.
How to remember things sequentially and recount them to you.
And it's also funny and kind of sweet at this age though, because he can't think that way yet.
I'm trying to sort of teach him, but he's not there yet at this age.
He can't really remember in a logical sequential kind of way what happened or what he did during a particular day.
So when I ask him this question, He'll always tell me some story, and it's always a story that definitely did not actually occur in real life during that day.
So when I ask him, what did you do today?
He might say, go to Jump House.
Or he might say, zoo, zoo, we go to zoo.
Or he'll say that he went to Nana's house.
Or he'll just make up some story.
And sometimes he'll even expand on the story.
He'll say, Nana's house, ice cream, ice cream at Nana's house.
Uh, saying he had ice cream at Nana's house.
And he'll say those things, even if he definitely did not do any of those things.
But then if we actually go to like, if we actually went to the zoo, um, and I asked him, what'd you do today?
He won't say he went to the zoo.
He'll come up with some other other thing.
And why is that?
Well, because kids when they're two years old, right.
They can't distinguish, um, What they wish was the reality from what actually is the reality.
They literally cannot tell the difference.
So for him, when you ask him, what did you do today?
What he hears is what did you wish you did?
Or what would you like to have done?
Or just tell me a story like that he can't tell that's that's how he hears it He can't tell the difference between those things so a child at this age literally psychologically cannot distinguish desire From reality and that's one of the reasons why a two-year-old kid They have these temper tantrums where they ask for something and then you don't give it to them right away And they just have a total meltdown because they they really don't understand why it is you know when he comes in and asks for some juice And you say, well, we don't have juice or wait a minute.
I'll get you juice in a minute.
And he starts melting down.
It's because he really doesn't understand that he wants juice.
Why isn't there juice in his hand right now?
He just asked for it.
So why isn't there?
He really doesn't understand it.
And so there's this, so everything goes haywire to his brain.
And then he, and then he melts down and freaks out.
Um, it is also why with kids, uh, little kids, They'll say something that isn't true, but you can't say that they're lying.
They aren't capable of lying.
So if a kid knocks over a glass and it breaks and the milk spills everywhere, and then you say to them, did you just knock that glass over?
And they say, no.
If the kid is three years old, two or three years old, that's not a lie.
In the child's mind, he wishes that he had not knocked it over.
And so, when he says, I didn't knock it over, it's the same thing.
Because he wishes he hadn't done that, it means that he didn't do that.
So, as I've noticed this feature in little kids, and it's very endearing and pretty hilarious when a child is two or three, but as I've noticed it in my kids, I can't help but notice how so many adults in our culture today Also do the same thing.
And it's kind of scary when you're a parent and you see the way little children behave.
It gives you such an insight into how adults behave, especially these days in our culture.
Except it's not nearly as endearing or funny for adults.
In fact, it's not endearing or funny at all.
But it seems to me that a lot of adults are similar in that they struggle to see the distinction between what they want to be true and what is true.
So take, for example, the alleged grownups who advocate for the government to forgive student loans.
When I hear these people talking and explaining their point of view, I always think of my two-year-old son.
They're acting exactly the same way.
They say, they say, well, the government should just make this go away.
A trillion dollars in student loans.
The government should just take care of that.
I shouldn't have to pay it.
The government should pay it.
Money that people chose to borrow of their own free will and volition.
They shouldn't have to pay that back.
I shouldn't have to pay it back.
The government should just take care of it.
And then you say, You know, you might argue back, well, that can't happen.
It would be a disaster.
The government can't just do that.
It can't take money.
The money has to come from somewhere.
So if you're asking for the government to forgive your student loans, what you're saying is the government should take money from people who did not take out those loans and use it to pay off the loans that you took out.
That can't happen.
It doesn't make any sense.
It wouldn't be fair.
It would be economically disastrous.
It just, it can't happen.
It's crazy.
But the people advocating this, they have no argument in reply.
They have no reasons.
It's just, I want it to be this way, so it should be.
So you'll notice that there are reasons for why the government should forgive student loans.
Their reasons never have anything to do with feasibility or economics or even really justice or anything like that.
It's just their reasons all have to do with how it would benefit them personally.
And so when you're trying to argue with them about, you're trying to talk about the issue on sort of a grander scale, All they want to talk about is, well, yeah, but I mean, I'm, I'm having trouble paying my rent because of my student loans.
So, and you say, yeah, but that's so what, that doesn't mean, well, what do you mean?
So what, but I, but this is a problem in my life.
And so it should just be solved.
Socialism is gaining popularity, especially in the younger generations on this same basis, uh, people who just, Their mentality never developed past the age of two or three.
There are people who want socialism to work, insist that it will work because they want it to, not able to distinguish between what they want and what actually is.
So they say we need to have socialism and you point out that all of these socialist systems throughout the last 100 or so years have resulted in calamity and death on an astronomical scale.
You tell them to read the Gulag Archipelago.
You tell them to read about Venezuela.
Look at North Korea.
You give all this evidence.
But it doesn't matter.
They want socialism to bring about a utopia, so it will.
The fact that it never has before doesn't matter.
The fact that it has resulted in tragedy and travesty and death doesn't matter.
The fact that we can look at all of these other countries and see real-world examples and see how horrifying they are doesn't matter.
None of that matters.
You could show them pictures of the socialist breadlines, and that doesn't matter, because in their minds, all they're thinking is, well, yeah, but I want it to be different.
And so it will be.
I think the Green New Deal is the most prominent and striking example of this mentality.
Have you ever tried speaking to a true believer in the Green New Deal?
Have you tried talking to them about it, getting their reasons for why?
And you try to explain, it's like, well, no, it's just not possible.
We can't abolish air travel and retrofit every single building in the country and provide everyone an income even if they're not working.
We just can't do that.
The money doesn't exist for it.
To even try would be a disaster.
But there's this disconnect because all they're thinking is, Yeah, but how great would it be if it did work?
And because it would be great if it did work, then it will work.
So the only remaining question is how is it that so many adults have made it to adulthood without developing the ability to distinguish desire from reality?
And I really have no groundbreaking answer to that.
I think that this is just what happens when kids are never told no, never disciplined, never given any boundaries, never taught to cope with disappointment.
If you raise a kid like that, they will likely end up in jail or a socialist.
And as a parent, I'm really not sure which I would prefer, but I think maybe I'd prefer the former, to be honest.
But this is just what happens.
If I can look at my two or three-year-old child and see and make these comparisons between him and adults, well, that just shows you.
It's very cute right now at two or three, but If I never teach him how to actually cope with reality, then that's where it's going to end up.
Switching gears here, last night there was an utterly horrifying, though compelling, And I think important documentary that aired, the first part of it aired on HBO, it's called Leaving Neverland, and it's about Michael Jackson's monstrous abuse of two young boys.
Two young boys who are now adult men named Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
Jackson was accused by five boys in total, and this documentary focuses on two of them.
And it tells the story about how Michael Jackson would find these kids, groom them, endear himself to their families, kind of set
the stage for for what comes next, and then he would make his
move.
And the sexual abuse when it began, was, of course, just and
it was described in graphic detail, the documentary, but it was as, as you would expect, revolting, vile, evil, I mean,
just nightmare inducing. Now, but I'll tell you what, as I was
watching this, for me, the most shocking aspect of the documentary, aside from the graphic details of the abuse
itself. But the most surprising thing to me, as someone who was
it, I was I was a young kid myself when Jackson's was really
at the height of his fame.
So I never really paid attention to, I didn't really pay attention to Michael Jackson.
I never listened to his music.
I didn't really care about him.
And the whole thing, when I was a kid, I mean, I just, Wasn't paying attention to it.
So as I'm watching the documentary, it really surprised me to see how Jackson was constantly draped all over young boys in public, on camera, constantly, all the time.
It just was, they've got just reams of footage of this guy just walking around with, holding hands, you know, he's got his arm around, all these random young boys.
He groomed these kids in public for the whole world to see.
And he would have one male companion who went with him everywhere.
It wasn't just like the kid showed up at a charity event with him one time.
It was like they would have one kid who was with them for like a year everywhere.
They would be on private planes together.
They would go to all the shows together.
They would just always be together.
In holding hands, having their arms around each other, and it would be like that for a year, and then the boy would be replaced by another boy who looked strikingly similar, but often was younger.
And this was the process that would unfold in public for everyone to see.
That Michael Jackson would always have a new companion, Was always a young boy.
They always looked similar.
He never had an adult companion, that as far as anyone could tell.
And it was never a girl.
You know, he would never... So this idea, well, he just loved kids.
He was a kid himself.
He liked hanging out.
Yeah, well, then why was... So what is it?
He never had little girls around him, though.
Have you noticed that?
It was always little boys.
Always little boys around the same age.
Everything's the same.
So I look at that now and it wasn't all that long ago, but I think it's hard.
I can't even imagine now a world famous pop star who is known to always have young male friends flanking him.
Friends flanking him.
It's just, but this wasn't all that long ago and this is what was happening in public.
And that's the thing here.
You know, Jackson's deranged, cultish, idiotic defenders, and these people really are just disgusting.
Honestly, they are.
The people that defend Michael Jackson, these people, I have so much disdain for them.
But they'll leap to the pedophile's defense and they'll say, oh, nothing was proven, he was found innocent in court.
Okay, first of all, I've heard that over the weekend.
I've been talking about this on Twitter a little bit.
I've heard that phrase so many times.
He was proven innocent!
No, do you know anything about how the justice system works in this country?
He was not proven innocent.
That's not what happens.
He was not convicted.
He was acquitted.
Okay, you're either convicted or not.
He was not.
But just because a world-famous, beloved, mega-wealthy pop star with an army of top lawyers managed to secure an acquittal rather than be convicted based on accusations from powerless, nameless kids, that does not mean he's actually innocent.
Okay, just because a rich and famous person can buy an acquittal for themselves, that does not mean that they're actually innocent.
So we can use our brains here, which the jury did not do in his, whatever it was, 2005.
In that case, the jury didn't use their brains, but we can.
We can use our brains, and we can see the truth, plain as day.
So, this is the point.
Even if you think it's possible, That five boys would all accuse him falsely, all telling remarkably similar stories, even if you think it's possible that they're all lying.
And really, look, people are falsely accused.
I've said that many times, and there have been recent examples of people being falsely accused.
But if you have five separate children, Over the course of a decade, coming out and accusing you of abuse and telling the same kind of story of abuse with all the same lurid details, well, the chances that you're innocent are just extremely low.
In fact, I'm trying to think of an example of a person who was accused five times of child molestation and was not a child molester.
I can't think of an example.
But even if you ignore that fact, and if you ignore the fact that he paid off at least one of his accusers, even aside from that, we can still convict him in the court of public opinion based on the undeniable and proven facts.
So forget about accusations for a minute.
There are some undeniable proven facts, facts that even Michael Jackson admitted to.
Fact number one, Michael Jackson, a grown man, would seek out young male companions.
Fact number one.
Fact number two.
Michael Jackson, a grown man, would invite these companions over to his house, which was filled with toys and amusement park rides, and he would endear himself to their families, and he would give their parents money and lavish trips and all this kind of stuff.
Fact number three.
Michael Jackson, a grown man, would invite these young boys into his bed.
And this is something that he admitted to.
On TV.
You could watch the footage.
Fact number four, that bed where Michael Jackson, a grown man, slept with young boys, was also right next to his stash of bondage porn.
Fact number five, that bed where Michael Jackson, a grown man, slept with boys, was also in a room behind a locked door at the end of a hallway that was rigged so that alarms would go off if anybody was approaching.
Now, those are all established facts.
Absolute, 100% facts.
And those right there, all by themselves, are enough for any sane person to know that Michael Jackson was a predator.
That's all you need.
You don't need anything else.
Those facts alone tell you everything you need to know, unless you are a total, absolute moron.
And then you add in the fact that, what do you know, five of those young boys that Jackson shared a bed with just so happened to accuse him of abuse, and they all told remarkably similar stories, and they even described his porn collection, and they even described his genitalia.
When you add those things in, well, then it just becomes overwhelmingly clear But my point is that even if no child had ever come forward and accused him of anything, I would still say, based on the facts listed before, I would still conclude that this guy was a predatory creep.
Even with no accusations.
Because there is no other rational explanation.
A man, a grown man, who seeks out young boys, befriends them, then invites them into his bed, There is no non-horrible explanation for that.
None.
At all.
And we all know that.
That's the thing.
Even if you are a moronic Michael Jackson defender, you know that if anyone not named Michael Jackson, if let's just say Bob Smith or William Jones or Frank, you know, whoever, Had a habit of making friends with seven-year-old boys.
Let's just say that there's a guy in your neighborhood.
Let's say all the same facts apply.
The same basic facts.
Except it's not Michael Jackson, it's Bob Jones, and he lives in your neighborhood.
Bob Smith, and he lives in your neighborhood.
Okay?
Let's say there's a guy, Bob Smith, lives in your neighborhood, and he likes to befriend seven-year-old boys.
And he always has a different seven-year-old boy companion who are not related to him.
Not like that's his son or even a nephew or just random boys.
And he likes to have sleepovers.
Well, he'll invite these young boys over and he likes to invite them into his bed.
Now, if that, if those, and those are all facts about Michael Jackson, if those are facts applied to Bob Smith in your neighborhood, you would know with absolute certainty that he was a creep and you would call the police and then he would go to prison because Bob Smith in your neighborhood wouldn't have the army of lawyers.
And he also wouldn't have the advantage of jury members who know him and love his music, which obviously when you've got a guy like Michael Jackson on the jury, uh, you know, I, Ideally, you're supposed to try to find people that have never heard of him, but it's just in 2005, there was no way you would find anyone who had never heard of Michael Jackson.
So, you know, if that was Bob Smith, you would know for certain that he was a predatory creep and he would go to jail and that would be it.
Yet, As I've established, in spite of this overwhelming evidence
that Jackson was a monstrous, horrible, predatory freak, in spite of that, legions of Jackson's
fans still defend him.
And they defend him viciously.
You know, sending hate mail and death threats to anyone who discusses his pedophilia.
Swarming like zombies to defend their favorite pop star?
So much so that there are, you know, there are a lot of people who just don't even want to touch this subject because they don't want to deal with Michael Jackson's idiot fans.
Well, I happen to... I don't really care about that, which is why I'm, you know, but... And... As I think about this, and I just...
Just trying to wrap my head around these people who still defend this guy.
And the really revolting thing, when I think about it, is that these people can't possibly be as stupid as they portray themselves to be.
The defenses they offer are so weak and so desperate that there's no way that they actually find their defenses convincing.
Like, I'm not kidding.
A Michael Jackson defender sent me last night a list of boys that Michael Jackson did not molest.
That was his defense of Michael Jackson.
He's like, oh yeah?
Well, here's a bunch of boys that Michael Jackson didn't molest.
What do you think about that?
Okay, well, first of all, how do you know that he didn't molest those boys?
Second, so what?
There were plenty of women that Ted Bundy didn't kill.
Almost every woman in the world was not killed by Ted Bundy.
Almost every single one, except for the several that he did kill.
So what does that mean?
And just to go back to the first point, just because a person says that they were not abused as a child, doesn't mean that they actually weren't.
And that's part of the abuse.
Now, I know Macaulay Culkin wasn't abused, even if he wasn't.
So that proves that Michael Jackson didn't abuse these other kids?
Who he slept in a bed with?
And I'm not saying that Macaulay Culkin says he wasn't abused, then okay.
But only he knows.
The other guy who would know is dead now.
But, mercifully.
The fact that we have to deal with here is that when a child is groomed from a young age and brainwashed and manipulated by a monster like Michael Jackson, there's a very good chance that they'll never say anything about it.
I mean, how many times do you have to see this before you understand this is the way it works?
People can be abused and they can wait 50 years to say anything, especially if they're abused as young children.
Michael Jackson preyed on kids who were like seven or eight years old.
This is straight up pedophilia.
These are young children.
And to be abused at that young, at that age, and then on top of that by a guy who's the most famous, one of the most beloved people in the world, You have no idea what that does to your brain and what it does to you psychologically.
So, you could have people who never say anything either because they're afraid, or they're confused, or even because they, through this brainwashing, they've developed what they think is sort of a love for their abuser.
Now, it's not really love, but they can't tell the difference because of the trauma that they've endured.
And that's one of the really disturbing things.
When you watch the documentary, you can see how these two men who are, you know, coming on to telling their story, they still appear to have mixed in with all this with all the, you know, anger and the hurt and everything that they're obviously feeling.
There's also appears to be some kind of like, almost Affection that they still have for Michael Jackson.
And when they, when they, you could tell that they almost are at certain points, they're, they're looking back sort of fondly on certain, you know, aspects of, of their, of their memories.
And that just shows you that that's, that's the trauma that abuse does to a person, especially when, when it happens at that age, when they're so young.
So when Jackson's brainless defenders say, well, well, why did some of the accusers recant?
And then later on, they started accusing him again because they were children.
Okay.
They were abused children.
They were terrified, confused, manipulated.
Um, and that's why.
Now, the other defense that you hear is that they'll say, well, well, Michael Jackson was just a child himself.
He was just an innocent child.
And you know what?
I mean, if you're going to offer that again, if that's your excuse for a guy who's, who found young boys and invited them into his bed, if your excuse is, well, he was just a child himself, then you are either incredibly, incredibly stupid.
Or you're not, and you know that what you're saying is crazy, yet you're saying it anyway because you're trying to find an excuse for a guy's predations of little kids because you like the way he danced.
Because that's what this is really about.
All these people love Michael Jackson.
What do they love about him?
They love his dancing, and he made some songs they liked.
That's all.
These people didn't know him personally.
They liked his songs, they liked his music video, he danced really well in Thriller, and so based on that, you've decided that, no, he's not a child molester, and, you know, he slept in bed with little boys, but, uh, but, uh, you know, this is a perfectly good reason for that.
There's no way that a guy that danced that well, I mean, I mean, there's no way he could be a pedophile.
That's essentially the logic.
So, what do we do with this?
I think the question is, should Michael Jackson's habit of molesting boys cause us to enjoy his music less?
Should he be posthumously shunned and shamed?
And I would say to that, yes, absolutely.
We should enjoy his music less.
In fact, I don't know how you could listen to his music at all, given this.
And he should be posthumously shunned and shamed.
I mean, it's a great tragedy that he couldn't be locked in a cage, in a prison cell when he was still alive.
But because we didn't have that chance, then yes.
And his estate, which is worth billions, should be worth nothing.
It should be worth zero dollars.
And I know that I have made the opposite argument with other dead famous people and historical figures.
In fact, just recently, I condemned the efforts to posthumously shame John Wayne for his racist opinions that he gave in a magazine 50 years ago.
But there's a big difference here.
Okay, first of all, Michael Jackson grooming and molesting boys is a much worse offense than John Wayne sharing wrong opinions.
Second, I have argued forcefully and repeatedly that the sins of people from the past has to be understood within the context of their time.
So we have to understand things in historical context, but there is no historical context that mitigates Michael Jackson molesting boys in the 1980s and 1990s.
Third, there are historical figures who are accused of some very serious moral infractions, like Christopher Columbus, for instance, But who, like Columbus, in my view, still made enormously significant, irreplaceable contributions to our civilization.
Men who you might say our civilization would not exist in its current form, if not for them.
Men who also, we should note, while possessing great flaws, had great virtues, like courage, for instance.
And I think in their case, Even if they also did very bad things, we should still honor them and remember them and appreciate their contributions as a matter of history.
But Michael Jackson, he just made some songs people like.
That's all he brought to the world.
That's all.
If he never existed at all, everything would be basically the same.
There would be almost no difference except Um, these families that he destroyed, uh, maybe it would still be intact.
So that would be the big difference.
Um, so without Michael Jackson existing, there would be positive differences in the world.
But, uh, it's not like if you get rid of Christopher Columbus and who knows, I mean, everything could look different without Columbus with Michael Jackson.
It's not that way.
So it seems to me that his evil deeds far, far, far outweigh his good contributions.
Contributions which consist, frankly, of just some catchy tunes and that's it.
And yeah, I mean, music is important and, you know, it makes us feel good and all that kind of thing, and that's fine.
That's great.
But it's just pop music.
That's all, guys.
That's all it is.
And if that's all a person brought to the world, And, you know, in the good category, and then in the bad category, you have the serial molestation of innocent children, then I think that's someone that we just need to toss out.
There's no room for them anymore, and there's no reason to remember them fondly or anything.
They should just be forgotten.
Except in the context of, you know, using their story as a As a cautionary tale.
And that's the other thing.
That's one of the reasons why I said this is kind of an important documentary.
It's a cautionary tale.
It shows you how predators operate, how they kind of ingratiate themselves into the lives and the families of their victims.
And so that's maybe the most important.
That's the one service, I suppose, Michael Jackson provides us now, is that we can go back and learn something about predators.
All right.
Let's see.
One other thing.
Well, there was, I wanted to mention this.
I guess maybe we'll save that for tomorrow.
All right.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been accused of, has been accused of leaving a huge carbon footprint herself.
Um, even while she's on this environmental crusade, she's still going around in SUVs and all that kind of stuff.
And so I believe it was the New York post.
I don't have the article in front of me, but the New York post, uh, did a, did an article about her own carbon footprint and how it's much bigger than the average person.
And so we'll talk more about it tomorrow.
I do think that, um, That is an important point.
It seems almost like a cheap kind of thing now, because we hear this over and over again.
Like, we get it by now.
It's almost redundant that these environmental crusaders, you know, Al Gore flying around the world in his private jets and so forth.
So we know all that.
But I do think it's an important point.
Because when you look at these prominent environmental crusaders, and you see that almost all of them are not only leaving a carbon footprint, not just a carbon footprint that's about equal to everyone else, but a much larger one.
I think when you see this pattern, you begin to suspect that almost all of the people who are at the forefront of this movement, almost all of them, Must not really believe what they're saying.
And so, when all the people at the forefront of a movement don't believe what they're saying, then that might tell you something about the movement itself.
But we'll talk more about that tomorrow, because I wanted to get to some of your emails.
A few good comments that I wanted to read.
mattwalshow at gmail.com mattwalshow at gmail.com.
If you have any emails you want to send.
This is from Paul says Matt absolutely love the show.
I have to say when you described your wife telling a story and mentioned that she was quote around the time of the French Revolution, I absolutely lost it and had tears streaming down my face.
I was laughing so hard.
I'd like to share a finding that I had as a married man.
I was talking last week about how when you know when when my wife tells When my wife wants to relay information to me, oftentimes she'll say it in the context of a story, which is often a very good story.
She's a good storyteller, but there's so much additional information she gives me that I can't focus in on the really important stuff.
And then I get in trouble later on because I don't remember what she said.
And I was saying how this is one of the fundamental differences between men and women, because women have great memories.
And so when women are talking to each other, and they relay information this way to each other in the form of these long stories with a lot of kind of superfluous information added into it, but they remember all of it.
Men are different.
So that's why it's important when you know, it's better when you're talking to a man, just make it in bullet points.
Anyway, Paul says, one of the duties I had as husband when we were first married was taking out the trash.
One evening a few years into our marriage, I forgot to set the trash out.
We were stuck with a few bags for the entire week.
When my wife discovered this, she exclaimed, you never take the trash out.
This struck me as odd since I had never missed taking the trash out 52 times per year for something like five years.
As an engineer, I frequently need to describe problems in terms of mathematical equations.
So I describe this situation in terms of what I call one of the fundamental equations of marriage, which is her never equals my always minus one.
Or never W equals always H minus one.
It was around the same time frame that some guys at work wanted to go out and grab a few beers.
I'm pretty sure that this was the first time that this particular situation happened in our marriage.
When I got home, I heard from my wife, you were always going out with your friends.
I'm sure you see where this is going, but it ended up with one of the other fundamental equations of marriage, which is her always equals my never plus one, or always W equals never H plus one.
I'm not claiming that these are the only equations, but they are what I've stumbled across so far.
Keep up the great work.
Well, Paul, you lost me on the math.
Once you get into math, you lose me.
Because I am myself a very stupid person.
But I think I know where you're going with this.
The only thing I will say, in fairness to wives everywhere, is that I think the always-never thing, I think Both husbands and wives are equally guilty of that.
That's just one of the classic things that you get in a marriage.
And, of course, it never helps the discussion.
The moment you're going, you always do this, or you never do that.
It's very, like, nobody always does anything, right?
Unless you're saying, you always breathe.
Although if you're complaining about your spouse always breathing, then that's probably a bad sign about your marriage.
But, Aside from something like that, no one always does anything.
There is no always, there is no never.
So the moment you start injecting words like that into a discussion or an argument with your spouse, then it's just, it's not going to go anywhere because this is completely off the rails.
And the other thing, what always happens is one of the spouses says, well, you always do this.
And then the other one says, OK, yeah, go for it.
Give me three examples of me doing that thing.
And they can never provide the three examples.
Right.
Even though you said it was always so.
But I think I think men and women do that.
I don't know if I don't think it's just a woman thing.
I think men and women are are equally as likely to throw out the always and never.
All right, this is from Patrick.
It says, Hey, Matt, I want to start off by saying I really love your show.
I appreciate what you do.
I tend to agree with you on most issues.
And even when I don't, I normally respect how you analyze and break down your reasoning behind why you believe what you believe.
In this case, though, I feel the need to call you out about your reaction to the Kim Trump summit that you talked about on Thursday and Friday.
I applied rationality and critical thinking to this issue, and I happen to disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you impugning my character or intelligence for having a different opinion about that situation than you do.
I believe that it is you who may not be objectively analyzing the facts of the situation.
There is no evidence that Kim Jong-un knew about or was directly involved in the situation regarding Otto Warmbier.
I think that when you get to that scale of a country, there's no one person that can know everything that goes on inside of that country.
If you're somehow omnipotent or have spies in North Korea that I'm not aware of, and thus have proof that Kim Jong-un was involved in what happened to Otto Warmbier, then please enlighten us.
I don't even like Trump or agree with everything that he does, but I recognize that leaders have to make hard decisions and they have to do unpopular things sometimes to get the job done.
What would it gain Trump or the United States in our negotiations for trying to denuclearize North Korea for Trump to publicly call out a malignant narcissist for being a liar about a situation for which he has no proof that he is actually lying?
Trump has no authority to punish Kim Jong-un if he was involved.
We already have sanctions on North Korea.
So other than giving some people a feeling of moral superiority, what would it accomplish?
Well, Patrick, I don't know if I impugn your character.
I did perhaps impugn the, maybe character's not the right word, but I did impugn something about the people who are, as I talked about on Friday, the people who are obsessed with Trump, either positive or negative, like I discussed.
There are some people who, We'll never defend Trump, we'll never support anything he does, and we'll always criticize.
I know I just said we shouldn't use always and never, but in this case, I think it applies.
So there are some people like that on the left, and I think that's absurd and just irrational.
But then on the right, there are also people who Trump has never and can never and will never do anything that they will criticize.
They'll defend everything he does.
So I do impugn that, but if that's not you, then I'm not impugning you.
As far as this situation, listen.
Yes, it's true that even a dictator who has an iron grip over his entire country, like Kim Jong-un, it's true that he can't know everything that happens.
But, Patrick, I mean, come on.
North Korea had an American citizen in prison, and they were torturing him to death.
You think the dictator of the country didn't know about that?
It's not like they have hundreds of American citizens.
They had this one guy.
And it was a big deal.
It was a big international news.
It was a big diplomatic crisis.
And you think he didn't know?
The dictator of the country did not know.
It's just that defies common sense.
I'm sorry.
He definitely knew it.
And I think Trump definitely knows that he definitely knew it, yet he said what he said on Friday.
And I agree.
Listen, it's not like we want, it's not like Trump can go over there and start berating the guy publicly.
As cathartic as that may be to witness, as much as I'd like to see that, I agree it probably wouldn't help.
But I'm not talking about that.
I'm just saying a moment of moral courage and clarity, even in an uncomfortable situation, would have been great there.
Rather than backing down and defending the dictator and bowing before him and saying, oh, no, no, he never could have.
Oh, Chairman Kim, my good friend, never would have done that.
No, you see, I think that there is a wide chasm between that reaction, which is what Trump was doing over there, and, you know, berating Kim publicly, which is what, by the way, what Trump did like two years ago when he was trolling him on Twitter.
But I think there's a wide—see, Trump has never figured out an in-between between those two things.
I think there's an area in between, a very rational, mature, morally clear in-between zone that I think Trump could find, and that would be good for everybody.
All right, last email.
This is from Travis says, Hi Matt, just saw your most recent segment where you posited the question, when will the majority stand up?
I think this is the most important question in regards to the issue, because as you noted, it seems as if the vast majority of people believe this gender baiting ideology is insane.
Unfortunately, however, I think I have some understanding as to why most people are unable to stand up against this agenda.
And if I've heard enough of your podcast, I think you'll agree with me.
The problem is that we, as in the prominent culture, value the individual's invaluable right to choose whatever end available.
This tacit belief that all matters is the unrestrained act of will, unless it hurts someone else.
Is the all that is left of our morally vapid language.
It reminds me of what I heard you say about how we use the term consent as the only word left that we use to describe sexual immorality.
It seems to indicate our utterly empty moral grammar that is left for us in this increasingly nihilistic age.
Yeah, I think moral grammar, that's the right way of looking at it.
Yeah, I do think that this is There's always a there's kind of a paradox here, because on one hand, our culture seems to value choice, and it sort of made an idol of choice, to the point where you can choose to kill your child, you can choose your own biological identity.
But then, on the other hand, we see so many areas where choice, particularly in the areas of religious liberty and free speech, where choice is constricted.
So we value choice so much that you should be able to choose to kill your child, choose your own biology, but if you're a Christian business owner, you can't choose to not make a cake for a gay wedding.
So there is always that.
Anytime you try to boil it down and get to the heart of the matter with our culture, it's never quite as simple as that because there are always exceptions.
Like we're always looking for, okay, we know things are going off track, but what are the new rules in our culture?
What are they exactly?
And you think you stumble on one of them.
Okay, well, one of the new rules is you can choose whatever you want.
Whatever you want to choose is okay.
But then you realize that, well, no, you could choose whatever you want, as long as your choice is one of these things over here, not one of these.
And I think that's just what happens in a confused society.
That's sort of the point, really, is that there are no fundamental principles or rules or anything.
Everything is just kind of conflicted.
Confusion reigns supreme.
But thank you for the email.
We'll leave on that somewhat depressing note, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Trump goes full Trump, Bernie goes full Bernie, and the fresh faces go fully fresh and fully face.
▲
Export Selection