All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
43:38
Ep. 211 - Environmentalists Don’t Even Take Themselves Seriously

Today on the show, environmentalists like AOC prophesy a doomsday but they don’t live like they actually believe their words. Also, my generation has come up with a new way to celebrate narcissism. And finally I’ll field emails from irate Michael Jackson fans. Date: 03-05-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, does it matter that environmental activists are often complete hypocrites who don't take their own doomsday proclamations seriously?
Yes, I think it does matter, and I'll explain why.
Also, there's a new word for narcissism.
It's auto-sexual is the word.
We'll talk about that.
And finally, we will discuss how the left's theory of gender fluidity undermines so many of their other positions.
And, oh, and also I've got a bunch of really angry emails from Michael Jackson fans, and I'll respond to some of those today as well on The Matt Wall Show.
Well, this is a huge blow to the Republican Party, guys.
A huge blow.
Hillary Clinton has announced that she is not running for president in 2020.
Absolute tragedy.
I'm thinking of starting a petition to urge her to get into the race, maybe a GoFundMe or something like that.
We need her in the race.
There's still time, but we need her to jump in.
It would be hugely unfortunate if she doesn't run for president.
On a better note, though, a group of environmental activists are staging what they call a birth strike.
Um, they've, uh, they've taken a pledge to refrain from having kids until climate change stops.
Not gonna have any kids until there's no more, until the climate stops changing, uh, until it's a steady, you know, 70 degrees and sunny everywhere on the planet forever.
They're not going to have any kids.
Blythe Papino is one of the, one of the invite, just sounds like the name of an environmental activist who would do something like this, doesn't it?
For some reason.
Blythe Pepino says that she told BBC News she says the natural world is collapsing around us and that's actually happening right now and so I'm so disappointed by the response by our authorities to this crisis and so freaked out by it everything I've read that I've basically last year I came to the decision that I couldn't bring a child into that now I want to say that I am fully in favor of their plan in favor of it for them for them that is not for me or for You know, rational people, but for them, I'm fully in favor of it.
Although it does make me suspicious that they're talking about a birth strike and not necessarily a conception strike.
So as long as this is, we're not going to have kids because we're not going to conceive them, then I think for them, that's a great idea.
If it's, we're not going to have kids because we're going to kill them in the womb, then I think that it's of course horrible, but You know, this is precisely my problem with climate alarmists, usually, is that they don't have the follow-through.
Now, this collection of people, they have some follow-through.
They're going to make some actual changes.
Yeah, it's kind of nutty, but they are going to make some changes to their life, and they're going to follow through on that.
But usually, I find that climate alarmists, especially the prominent, famous ones, don't have any kind of follow-through at all.
They make these dramatic declarations about the end of the world, but then they provide very little evidence through their actions that they actually believe anything that they're saying.
So Exhibit A would be AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post, is leaving an enormously large carbon footprint herself, even as she warns that the world is coming to an end because of our collective carbon footprint.
So reading a little bit from the Post Report, it says, since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez's campaign heavily relied on those combustion engine cars, even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her campaign office.
She listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno, and other car services federal filings show.
This is, this is, I mean, think of, how much she's contributed to the end of the world
with those 1,049 transactions.
Think about how many polar bears this woman has drowned by these Uber rides.
I mean, just think about it.
Think of all the penguins that are drowning as well.
The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone and all Ocasio-Cortez spent $29,365.70
on those emissions spewing vehicles along with cars and van rentals,
even though her Queens headquarter was a one minute walk to the seven train.
The campaign shelled out only $8,335.41 on 52 MetroCard transactions.
The article goes on, her campaign embraced the friendly skies, logging 66 airline transactions costing over $25,000 during the campaign season.
article goes on, her campaign embraced the friendly skies, logging 66 airline transactions
costing over $25,000 during the campaign season. I mean, just one of those trips on an airplane
probably murdered 47 polar bears. Just one of them.
Now you multiply that by six, she just wiped out probably half of the polar bear population.
The Democratic firebrand or her staff took Amtrak far less, only 18 times.
Most of the flights came after her primary win. It talks about more
You know times what she's taking SUVs and so on and then it does get a little bit it gets a little you know
A little too strict I think later on the article It says, in a February 24th Instagram video filmed in her kitchen, Ocasio-Cortez railed against plastic grocery bags, then appeared to toss two of the sacks, which can be recycled, into the trash.
It drives me crazy, she said of plastic bags.
I wish they didn't exist.
In the video, Ocasio-Cortez peeled a sweet potato while calling for a universal sense of urgency to save the earth, but she discarded the vegetable scraps into the same receptacle that she just used for the plastic bags rather than setting the food waste aside for the compost.
Um, you know, that, well, no, that's, that's a legitimate criticism too, because look, if you, if you think the world is coming to an end because of this stuff, wouldn't you be making dramatic changes?
In your own life.
Now, AOC has dismissed these criticisms.
She's tried to make a joke out of them.
But there is something really important here.
And it's important because it's part of a larger pattern.
And that larger pattern is big-name climate activists that appear to show no personal urgency about the issue themselves.
Climate warriors who, by their own actions, do not seem to mean what they say.
And this, I think, is relevant and important to notice and discuss.
It would be one thing if all of these planeteers, Cortez and Gore and all the rest of them, were out in the woods doing this.
I want to mourn the loss of all the old-grown trees I've seen!
And tell them that we love them and that we don't want them to die!
That there are some people here who do care!
So I want you to know that, trees!
That we care!
I think we are...
I think we are deeply hurting in America.
I think we are deeply craving answers.
I think that we've lost our identity as we have evolved into technology and into industrialized society.
Bring me to this cathedral.
Bring me to those guys.
Bring me to this rock that has the most incredible life.
That makes me feel alive. I've looked at clear cuts in burnt forest and I felt outraged but I
didn't scream and I didn't cry and I need to. Okay see now those people mean it. That's...
And that's what I expect to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doing.
And if she was out there doing that, I would say, look, I think she's mentally unstable, but she means what she says, at least.
And I can respect that.
But most environmental activists aren't doing that.
And I find that suspicious.
So here's what it comes down to, if you're an environmental activist.
You tell us that we could be looking at an extinction-level event in just a generation or two.
Our planet is going to turn into Venus sooner rather than later, right?
That's what you say.
If we don't drastically change the way that we live.
Major cities are going to be lost in the ocean.
In fact, according to Al Gore, a few decades ago, or, you know, a decade and a half ago, New York City was supposed to already be under the ocean.
And frankly, maybe it is.
I haven't been to New York in a long time.
As far as I know, it's a water world up there already.
So that's what Al Gore said anyway.
So the world is already collapsing all around us.
And that's what you told us.
You said that there's going to be mass starvation.
There's going to be, you know, famine and all of this stuff.
Even now, Whenever there's a hurricane or tornado or a thunderstorm or even just a snowstorm, you tell us that it's a direct result of global warming, which itself is a direct result of our modern lifestyle.
Now, you think, again, if you're an environmental activist, you think that when there's a hurricane and people are dying, that that hurricane was caused by The fact that we drive cars and fly airplanes.
Never mind the fact that hurricanes have been happening on the earth for billions of years.
But, you know, they were happening long before humans ever existed.
But then humans came into existence and all of a sudden it's our fault, right?
But that's what you believe.
And if you believe that something that we're doing is causing a hurricane, shouldn't you stop doing that thing?
If there was something that I did that I really thought might cause a hurricane, I would never do that thing again.
Um, Al, look, I think it's true that some environmentalists do make some sacrifices.
Maybe you do recycle.
Apparently Cortez doesn't even do that much, but maybe you do.
Maybe you ordered a salad at Panera Bread for lunch today.
But for the most part, it seems like you're just another homo sapien murdering the planet and cannibalizing the future of our children.
But how could you do that?
You think the world is ending for God's sake.
What are you doing just sitting around and living like the rest of us?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, her excuses was, the excuse that she offered was, well, I'm just living in the world.
You know, I'm in the world too, and so I've got to do what the world is doing.
Well, no, you don't.
You could.
Sacrifice these things.
You could say, I'm never going to take an Uber again.
I'm never going to get in an airplane.
Yes, it would be a huge sacrifice.
It would make things more difficult for you.
But wouldn't you do that?
Listen, if I actually believed that the extinction of all mankind was imminent, and that my lifestyle was directly contributing to it, at a minimum, I would never drive a car again.
Ever.
At all.
I would never do it.
At a minimum.
And I would ditch electricity, too.
I wouldn't eat meat of any kind.
I wouldn't buy mass-made consumer products.
I wouldn't give my money to companies that sell items that were made in factories with big giant smokestacks, because those smokestacks are literally killing people, according to you.
And if I believe the same thing, I wouldn't do that.
How could I?
I mean, how could I continue on as normal?
What kind of monster would I have to be?
Basically, if I were you, I would live like Mowgli in the jungle.
I would befriend a group of wolves, and I would just live in the jungle.
That's what I would do.
Because lives are at stake.
If I believed what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believed, then I would have to come to the conclusion that it is objectively immoral to ride in a car.
Because if this is contributing to the end of the world within 12 years, there is no way to justify ever doing it.
Ever.
So look at the Amish.
The Amish are riding around in horses and And they're living without electricity.
And they're not doing that because they think that the world is going to come to an end because of climate change.
But the fact is they are doing it.
They are living that way.
It is possible to live that way.
And so if you really believe this, why aren't you living that way?
It just doesn't make any sense.
You can't tell me that the world is coming to an end and then go about your day like nothing is wrong.
That's a dead giveaway, you see, that you don't really believe what you're saying.
And then here's the question.
If I look around and I notice that the prominent mouthpieces of this movement, and in fact, almost everybody in the movement, doesn't really believe the story that they're telling, then why should I believe it?
Now, their hypocrisy doesn't prove that they're wrong.
So that's an important point.
Just because someone's a hypocrite, Doesn't mean that what they're saying is wrong.
And in fact, I should also stipulate that just because someone says something and then does another thing, that doesn't even necessarily prove that they don't believe what they just said.
So if somebody says it's wrong to steal, and then they go and they steal, that certainly doesn't prove that stealing isn't wrong.
And it also doesn't mean that they don't believe that stealing is wrong.
It could be that they really believe stealing is wrong, and they're doing what they believe is wrong, which people do all the time, right?
That's the essence of evil, is doing what you know to be wrong.
So, that doesn't necessarily prove anything.
But, if you look at a particular movement, and you see that almost everybody involved in the movement, and pretty much all of the people at the head of that movement, that they all seem to be demonstrating this hypocrisy, then that starts to make you suspicious.
And for me, if I've already independently come to the conclusion that you're wrong about what you're saying, so I already don't agree with you, even if you lived by what you were saying, I still wouldn't agree.
But if I've come to that conclusion, and then I look and I see that it seems as though you don't even agree with what you're saying, then what are we even talking about?
about? What's the point of the conversation at that point?
So I guess Thank you.
If you're an environmentalist, go and make some drastic changes to the way that you live, which you are morally obligated to.
I'm not morally obligated because I don't believe that.
If you think that this is ushering in the end of the world, you are morally obligated.
Not me, you.
So you have to make those changes.
And if enough of you do that, then maybe the rest of us will consider possibly taking you seriously.
But until then, we won't.
All right.
There's an article.
Let's see here.
There was an article from the Metro that was making the rounds online yesterday.
I want to tell you about it just because there's one point I want to make.
Let me see if I can pull this up.
All right.
The headline of the article.
is, what's it like being auto-sexual when you're attracted to yourself?
It says, sexuality is fluid.
As with lots of things, it can evolve and boomerang over time.
Though so often thought about in binary terms, just as with gender, there are many different sexualities people identify as.
Auto-sexuality is one such identification that is seldom talked about.
It's the idea of being sexually attracted to yourself.
And you can also come with being auto-romantic, experiencing the relationship with yourself as romantic.
Being anyway, I won't get this gets a little bit more graphic than I want to be.
The point is that there's this apparently there's this thing called auto sexuality where people are excited by their own reflections and by themselves and so they fall in love with themselves.
There's a woman.
I think it's a woman Gia Vital or Vitaly is auto sexual and auto romantic.
Okay, so auto sexual and auto romantic apparently two different things.
Okay, and she got engaged.
to marry herself after proposing to herself in March of 2017.
And now, here's when you hear that description, of course, the first thing you think is, Well, that's just narcissism, right?
That's that's you.
So you're just a narcissist.
You're in love with yourself.
That's what narcissism is.
And that's true, right?
That's just that's all that is.
It's narcissism.
So there's nothing new or innovative going on here.
But this is what happens in our culture now, right?
We take these we take these this just the latest example.
We take these age-old human flaws, or sins, or perversions, or whatever, and we dress them up, and we give them a new name, and suddenly it becomes a community, it becomes a movement, it becomes a heroic method of self-expression.
When really it's not any of that, is it?
It's something very simple, very old, very worn out, very small and uninteresting and degrading.
But especially with my generation, we think we've we keep rediscovering all of these flaws and thinking that we've found something new.
And it's some new mode of self expression when it really is not at all.
And what you find is that really, you can get someone to accept and celebrate literally any personality trait at all, even really horrible ones like narcissism.
You can get people to accept them and celebrate them if you just give that trait a new kind of vaguely medical sounding name and then you put the people with that trait in contact with each other and so that they can, you know, all get together and talk to each other.
So, for example, you could easily make people proud to be liars.
If you just started, if you came up with a new word, instead of calling them liars, instead of calling them pathological liars, let's say you called them sicko phantoms.
Now sicko phantom is just the word trickster in Latin.
That's all that is.
But instead of calling them pathological liars, let's call them sicko phantoms.
And then if you started like an online forum for all of these people to get together and commune and tell lies to each other, the sicko phantom forum.
Suddenly, although they're all just a bunch of filthy liars, now they become the sicko phantom community.
And everything changes.
Because you got them together with each other, you gave them a new name, and now they're a community.
And now they can, and now they can discover that, oh, you know, I thought there was something wrong with me because I couldn't stop lying.
But then I discovered this community and I realized that there's nothing wrong with it.
There's nothing wrong with it because other people do it.
And once I discovered that other people do it too, and we could encourage each other, then that means it's okay.
Not only is it okay, but we should be accepted.
We are a new type of person.
So we see this process playing out over and over again.
It's an interesting cultural phenomenon.
Speaking of, before we get to emails, speaking of weird stuff, I wanted to mention this briefly as well.
According to the Mirror online publication, Tai and Anaya are their names.
They were a lesbian couple, but then one of them became a man.
And now they are husband and wife in a heterosexual relationship.
This is according to an article that also was going viral online yesterday.
The actual headline says, Married lesbian couple are now husband and wife after one became a man.
Which, of course, that's like saying, man and his ham sandwich are now a football team after one of them became the 86 Bears.
In other words, it's nonsense.
It's total nonsense.
It doesn't mean anything.
Of course, the woman did not become a man and can never become a man because that's not possible.
So they are still just two women in a lesbian relationship.
That's all that is.
It's just what actually happened is that one of the women put on jeans and a t-shirt and cut her hair.
That's really what happened.
That was her transformation into a man.
But here's the main point.
And I've talked about this many times.
You see how the left's ideology of gender, this gender fluidity stuff, has created so many internal contradictions.
And it has undermined so many of their other positions.
It's really incredible to watch.
So plenty of... we've discussed in the past what this has done to the feminist movement.
Where the feminist movement is all about drawing this distinction between men and women and saying that if you're a man, you're not allowed to have an opinion about this, you're not allowed to be involved in this or that discussion, and so on and so forth.
But then when you make gender fluid and so that a man can actually be a woman, it starts to undermine all of that.
So we know about that.
But there's another huge contradiction here that you see with this story.
We were told by the left for many years that sexual orientation is ingrained, genetic even, And it cannot be changed, right?
Am I crazy or have I not been told this over and over again for years?
Isn't this something that we've been told?
You cannot change sexual orientation.
And that's why these gay conversion therapies and all that's all considered to be horrible, disgusting, awful, homophobic.
Because it's not possible you can't you're trying to change something about someone that cannot be changed something that is something that is so deeply ingrained and integral and immutable, right?
Well, but hold on.
If sexual orientation cannot be changed, and then a lesbian woman becomes a man and is still attracted to her female lover, Well, so now you're telling us that that just changed from a lesbian relationship into a heterosexual relationship.
There was a changer.
So that individual used to be a lesbian and is now a heterosexual.
That's what you're telling us.
So that means that sexual orientation can change.
It can either change or it can't.
And the thing is, if it can't change, then certainly your sex or your gender can't change.
Because if that changes, then your orientation changes.
So which is it?
And not to mention just the blatant absurdity of this idea that your sexual orientation could be ingrained and biological, but your sex is not.
That simply makes no sense.
And as I said, it creates logical contradictions.
This couple, lesbian couple, they were a lesbian couple before, weren't they?
Now they're man and wife, according to you.
That's heterosexual.
That is a different orientation.
So it just changed, which means it can change, which means that you have to give up that particular line.
You can't keep saying that.
Or you can, but you're contradicting yourself.
All right, let's go to emails.
A few good ones I wanted to I wanted to address.
Mattwalshow at gmail.com is the email. I was trying to remember my email. It's pretty easy email address.
I don't know how I can figure it. Mattwalshow at gmail.com is the email address.
This is from, this is also from a Matt. It says, hello divine dictator Walsh.
I really didn't write this.
That is how they address it.
Finally, someone uses my correct title, by the way.
I'm tired of being misgendered.
Says, with Lent coming up upon us Catholics, what will you be giving up for Lent?
Also, for those that are unsure, what are useful things for the soul to give up, keep up the good work?
Well, I believe Pretty strongly that we shouldn't advertise what we're giving up for Lent, as Jesus says in Scripture, when you fast, do it privately.
Don't be a hypocrite going around announcing it.
But I will say that I think a good Lenten sacrifice is anything that you'll feel.
Right?
And it's the same thing with charity.
When giving to charity, you're supposed to give until it hurts.
If what you're giving to charity, you hardly even notice that you're giving it because it doesn't affect your lifestyle at all, then you're probably not giving enough.
And I think it's the same thing with a Lenten sacrifice.
Like what you're thinking of giving up, it should fill you with some real trepidation as you consider going 40 days without it.
You should be thinking to yourself, I don't know if I can do that.
That's, I don't know.
So for example, and it's different for everybody.
So for me, I know that a lame sacrifice for me in Lent, and I've done this before where I say, okay, I'm not going to eat any sweets.
I'm not going to eat any chocolate or cookies or any kind of stuff.
But, and I do like chocolate and cookies and junk food, don't get me wrong, but I can already go five or six days without even really having any real craving for that.
It's not a big deal for me to not eat that stuff.
So that's, I think, not a good Lenten sacrifice.
I think it needs to be something that I rely on a little bit more, but it also shouldn't be something that is itself bad or immoral.
Because if it's bad or immoral, then you should just be giving it up anyway, permanently, not as part of a Lenten sacrifice.
So I think the sweet spot here, no pun intended, is something otherwise good or neutral that you normally would enjoy on a daily basis.
I think that's what it's got to be.
So for me, I think one of the ultimate sacrifice in that vein would be if I gave up something like coffee.
Now, for a lot of people, giving up coffee would be kind of lame because they don't really need it that much.
They don't drink it that often.
But I drink coffee all the time.
I love coffee.
I depend on it, especially in the morning.
And so for me to give it up, that would be very, very difficult.
And I've never actually done that.
I don't have the guts.
I don't have the courage.
To do that.
I just, I can't imagine going 40 days without my cup of coffee.
Um, but that is that's see, that's what I, I should challenge myself to give up coffee.
And I think it should be something in that, um, in that vein.
All right.
So let me read one from Melissa.
I got very, I got many emails like this, as you can imagine.
Uh, I am not going to read them all.
And many of them I can't read because they're far, far too, uh, vulgar, but here's just one random one that I chose.
So from Melissa, it says, you disgust me.
Your attack on Michael Jackson, a dead man, in all caps, who is not, in all caps, here to defend himself, is sickening.
There is no evidence against him, none, all caps.
This is a lie, and you are a liar.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I was always a fan, but I'm done with you now.
I realize now that you're a piece of ass liar.
All right, Melissa, first of all, I want to tell you this sincerely.
I could not be happier to lose your support.
I couldn't be happier.
I am thrilled that you'll no longer be listening or reading.
And I hope that you follow through on that.
So let me just say that.
I am not interested in having pedophile defenders as fans.
I really, I'm just not.
So I think it's great that you're not going to be listening to me or reading my stuff anymore.
This is let's call this a mutual breakup between us.
I think it's best for both of us.
So that's that's fine.
In fact, I assume you're not listening right now.
So there's no reason for me to address my response to you.
So to everyone else.
First of all, the fact that Michael Jackson is dead, and I heard this over and over again, he's dead, he's dead, leave him alone.
So who cares that he's dead?
It doesn't make what he did any less evil.
And the damage he did to the families he destroyed will last forever.
They're not getting over it.
When you molest children, those human beings are going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives.
So the fact that you're dead doesn't change that.
He may be gone, but the impact, the awful impact of his evil predatory behavior still lives on.
So that's why we still talk about it.
As for there being no evidence, which again, I heard over and over again, there's no evidence, there's no evidence.
This is just delusional.
There is overwhelming evidence.
You know, usually or very often when it comes to sex abuse, child molestation, rape, whatever the case may be, very often there isn't any evidence.
Even if it actually happened.
This is one of the problems with prosecuting cases like this, because it's very difficult to find actual evidence, especially if it's something that happened in the past and all of that.
But what makes this case different is that there is so much evidence.
There is so much documented evidence, as opposed to what is usually the case.
So I laid this out in my piece yesterday, but let me go over it again.
I'm going to give you a small sampling of evidence.
There's so much more, but I'm going to focus on seven pieces of evidence that I think conclusively prove that Michael Jackson was a monster.
And so that he can absolutely be convicted posthumously in the court of public opinion, even if he was not convicted in a legal court.
And the fact that he was not convicted legally in court doesn't mean anything.
Because he's a mega-rich, wealthy, beloved celebrity who was able to essentially purchase an acquittal for himself because of his army of top lawyers.
That's the thing, as I talked about yesterday.
If you're very, very, very rich, And it doesn't hurt to also be very famous.
And you can buy the best lawyers in the world.
And you have unlimited resources.
It is going to be very easy for you to literally get away with murder.
Just ask O.J.
Simpson.
Especially if your accusers are just kids and families who do not have anything close to the resources that you have.
So that doesn't mean anything to me.
We can look at the evidence ourselves and come to... So here's the evidence.
Number one.
Michael Jackson sought and befriended prepubescent boys.
He took these boys as companions.
He traveled the world with them.
Every so often, he would discard one of them and bring in a new male companion.
They were always boys.
They were always young.
Never adults.
Never girls.
Number two, Jackson lavished the boys' families with gifts and money.
And then he stopped doing that the moment he moved on to another boy.
This fact is not disputed, and the first fact is not disputed either.
Number three, Jackson invited the boys to his home, which was filled with toys and candy.
This fact is not disputed.
Number four, Jackson invited the boys into his bed.
This fact is not disputed.
Number five, Jackson had a stash of pornography right by that bed.
That fact is also not disputed.
Number six, the bed was in a room behind a locked door at the end of a hallway equipped with alarm systems to alert him whenever somebody was approaching.
That fact also is not disputed, which leads us finally to the last piece of the puzzle.
Number seven, five of the boys who shared a bed with Michael Jackson later accused him of abuse.
That fact also is not disputed.
So it's a cumulative case, okay?
I wrote this yesterday and some Michael Jackson defenders, they went through each point individually and tried to pick it apart and they said, they said, well, it's not a crime to give people gifts.
That doesn't prove anything.
Yeah, no kidding, Sherlock.
I'm not saying that that alone proves anything.
As you well know, if all Michael Jackson ever did was give gifts to random families, I would say he was a great man.
He was a philanthropist.
But that's not what he did.
He showered gifts on families only if those were families with boys who slept in his bed.
You ever notice that?
He didn't pick out random... No, he never lavished gifts on families unless there was a boy that was a member of that family who was sleeping in his bed.
Why do you think that is?
You think it's just a coincidence?
And by the way, if all he ever did was fill his home with children's toys and candy and amusement park rides, I would say that the guy was a weirdo and kind of a freak.
But I would say that alone, that's all he was.
And that's fine.
You could be a weirdo and a freak if you want to be.
If that was all that ever happened.
But see, each piece fits with the next piece.
You have to look at the entire, that's why I say it's cumulative.
You look at the entire picture and you see how each thing goes with the next, goes with the next, goes with the next.
And then when you stand back and you look at it, you say, oh, wow, this guy was a monster.
On balance, the evidence against Michael Jackson is so strong.
That as I said yesterday, even if nobody had ever accused him, we could still say with near certainty that he was a predator.
Facts one through six are so compelling on their own that you don't even need fact seven.
If not one person had ever accused Michael Jackson, I would still be sitting here saying the guy was a predator.
Because there is no other logical explanation for a guy seeking out young boys to come sleep in his bed.
No explanation.
If something walks like a duck and flies like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still technically possible that it's not a duck.
It could be a tiny little elf or something in a very realistic looking duck-like airplane flying around.
It could be.
I can't say that it's not.
I cannot, if I'm looking at a duck walking past me on the road, I cannot prove Um, just by looking at it, that it's that there is not a little magical elf inside the duck.
It's a fake duck.
I can't prove that.
Um, but I think as a rational person, I don't really have to take such a remote and fanciful, fanciful possibility into consideration when it comes to ducks or pedophiles.
And the point is that everybody, this, this is the thing about it.
Everybody agrees with what I'm saying here.
Because if a guy named Bob Smith or Mike Jones was in the habit of befriending seven-year-old boys and inviting them over for sleepover parties and having them in his bed, everybody would agree that the guy was a creep and a predator.
Nobody would disagree.
Only in Michael Jackson's case do we somehow give him the benefit of the doubt because he was a good singer and a good dancer, but the problem is that being a good singer and dancer does not at all indicate that you are not a pedophile.
Doesn't mean that you are, obviously, but it doesn't mean that you're not.
It's just not a factor.
If you love his music, that just simply is not something you can take into consideration.
It's got nothing to do with this.
And I concede, he was very good.
I think his songs are a little overrated, but he was gifted in both areas.
But he was also a godforsaken monster.
This is just a simple logic here.
And this is the way logic works.
Because the other thing people said to me, people that were a little bit less, you know, maybe not Michael Jackson cultists, but still were, I think, sympathetic to Michael Jackson.
Some people in that camp said, yeah, you know, there's a very good circumstantial case, but you can't know that.
You can never know.
Well, yes, but by that standard, you can never know anything.
Right?
If you really want to get down to it and be very careful with your wording, you can never know anything.
I mean, I can't even... I can't necessarily prove that I myself am not a very... a sentient robot.
I can't really... I can't prove that.
I can't prove that I'm not in the Matrix.
I can't prove that I was just created five seconds ago with all the memories implanted into my mind by space aliens.
Maybe the whole world was.
Maybe the whole world was created five seconds ago and we were all given false memories.
Maybe the beginning of this very show never happened.
It's all fake.
Can you prove that that's not the case?
You can't.
But you can arrive at conclusions based on very, very high levels of probability.
So there is a very, very, very high level of probability that you were born and that your life is real and was not implanted into your mind by space alien.
Very high level probability that that's the case.
Very, very, very low level probability that it's not the case.
So, which means that's just something that you know.
That's what we mean.
When we say no, you know that you're real, you know that you exist.
And so that's what we mean.
And so when we look at something like with the Michael Jackson case, you look at all this evidence.
You see, this was a guy who sought out little boys, always had little boys around him, always young boys, never girls, never adults, had them in his bed, then was accused five times.
I mean, it's possible to come up with an explanation that doesn't include him being a monstrous pedophile.
It is possible to imagine an explanation.
But that explanation, the probability of that explanation being true is so astronomically low that you can, for all intents and purposes, discount it.
And that's how our court system works, by the way.
Our court system is, you are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
But beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond any doubt.
There could always still be a doubt.
But beyond a reasonable doubt, we come to a reasonable conclusion.
In Michael Jackson's case, with his actual court case, they did not come to a reasonable conclusion.
But we can.
So the most reasonable, by far the most reasonable explanation for all of the factors that I have listed is that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
That is by far the most reasonable explanation.
Any other explanation is simply so unreasonable that it can be discarded.
Almost, but not quite with the same certainty that I can discard the idea that I was just created by space aliens five minutes ago.
Maybe not with that same, quite that same level of certainty, but still pretty high level of certainty.
All right, we will leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
And I'm sorry that for all the Michael Jackson fans who are boycotting, I wish I could say I'm sad to see you go, but I'm not.
To everyone else, I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Hey, everyone.
It's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, the Democrats claim that conservatives are obsessed with Alexandria Occasional Cortex, and maybe that's true, because you know who AOC is?
AOC is the avatar of bad left-wing ideas.
She has socialism come to life.
I'll explain on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection