Ep. 1224 - Russell Brand Hit With Sex Assault Allegations. Is This His Punishment For Questioning The Left’s Narratives?
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Russel Brand has been hit with a series of sexual assault allegations by the mainstream media. This follows a very noticeable pattern where men are accused of sex abuse as soon as they become a threat to the Left's narratives. Is that what we're seeing here? We'll discuss. Also, there has been a lot of discussion about Trump's answers in two different interviews about abortion and the trans issue. I have a lot to say about it. Plus, the UK bans pitbulls. And in our Daily Cancellation, women around the country have recently discovered that their husbands think about the Roman Empire. Why do men think about that? And why is it a surprise to women?
Ep.1224
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Watch Episodes 1-4 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation
Text WALSH to 200-300
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Russell Brand has been hit with a series of sexual assault allegations by the mainstream media.
This follows a very noticeable pattern where men are accused of sex abuse as soon as they become a threat to the left's narrative.
Is that what we're seeing here?
We'll discuss.
Also, there's been a lot of discussion about Trump's answers in two different interviews about abortion and the trans issue, respectively.
I have a lot to say about it.
We'll talk about that as well.
Plus, the UK bans pitbulls and in our daily cancellation, Women around the country have recently discovered that their husbands think about the Roman Empire.
Why do men think about that and why is it a surprise to women?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've done before, and for many
it isn't something they want to do, but rather something they have to do.
If you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news for you.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer experience possible through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry.
a superior process and an exclusive product. Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a
free in-home or virtual consultation on durable quality affordable windows or patio doors for
zero dollars down, zero payments and zero interest for a year. Text Walsh to 200-300 for your free
consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door. These savings won't last
long so be sure to check it out by texting Walsh to 200-300, that's Walsh to 200-300.
Texting privacy policy and terms and conditions posted at textplan.us. Texting enrolls for
recurring automated text marketing methods.
messages, message data rates may apply.
Reply stop, top, down, go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
Danny Masterson is an actor who most people haven't thought about for a long time, if at all.
By all accounts, his career peaked all the way back in 2006 with the conclusion of the sitcom, "That '70s Show."
But a few years ago, all of a sudden, Masterson's name was everywhere.
That's because in March of 2017, the year that the hashtag MeToo movement began in earnest, Masterson was accused of sexual assault by three women.
In response, without waiting for a trial, Netflix summarily fired Masterson from his role as a series regular on one of their shows, and three years later, in the summer of 2020, Masterson was formally charged with three rapes in Los Angeles, a jurisdiction that, of course, believes all women.
Prosecutors said that one rape occurred in 2001, another in early 2003, and a third in late 2003.
Now, right off the bat, the timeline raises some obvious questions.
For one thing, how is it possible to prove a rape beyond a reasonable doubt 20 years after the fact, in the absence of any physical evidence of violence or drugging?
Now, you might think that the accusers must have had airtight stories.
Well, that's not true in this case.
In fact, one of the accusers previously told authorities that Masterson had not raped her.
She says that she only realized years later that she was raped.
She originally thought it was consensual, and then, years after the fact, changed her mind.
All this explains why, late last year, the jury deadlocked.
There was a mistrial.
According to the foreman on that jury, they were leaning towards acquittal on every count, and he said that the reason for that is that They found the stories from the accusers to be inconsistent, contradictory, and implausible.
But then, just a couple of weeks later, a couple of weeks ago, I should say, as you might have heard, Masterson was put on trial again.
And this time around, the judge changed the rules.
The judge allowed testimony that Masterson had drugged his victims, even though there was no physical evidence of that.
In the first trial, the prosecution was only allowed to describe the condition of the accusers
after they consumed alcoholic beverages that Masterson gave them, describing them as woozy
and disoriented.
They were not allowed to directly claim that the women were drugged because there was no
evidence of that.
There was no evidence that their wooziness was the result of anything more than the alcohol
they were drinking.
But in the second trial, that kind of caution was thrown to the wind.
And again, without any actual evidence, Masterson was accused of drugging his alleged victims.
And that apparently did the trick.
Masterson was convicted after the retrial, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Now, you don't have to like Danny Masterson or know who he is or believe he's innocent to understand the implications of what happened to him.
Danny Masterson's case is proof that even in 2023, years after the hashtag MeToo hysteria has faded, physical evidence of wrongdoing is not required to convict someone of rape and destroy their life.
Neither is timely reporting or even a consistent story from the alleged victims.
All you need is a story.
Danny Masterson's case demonstrates that.
For one thing, that means that our judicial system isn't exactly functioning the way that it should, but you already knew that.
What Masterson's case also means, if you think about it from the perspective of the government, is that accusations of rape are trivially easy to use as political weapons.
Masterson's own case doesn't appear to be political, but it shows how easy it could be, and has been, to use a rape accusation to achieve a political end.
You'd hate to think that false stories about rape could ever be deployed for these kinds of purposes to ruin the lives of influential voices who challenge the people in power.
But increasingly, that's exactly what's happening.
A couple of days ago, the influential comedian and commentator Russell Brand uploaded this video explaining that he's now being accused of sexual assault by multiple media outlets.
Watch.
Hello there you Awakening Wonders, now this isn't the usual type of video we make on this channel where we critique, attack and undermine the news in all its corruption, because in this story, I am the news.
I've received two extremely disturbing letters, or a letter and an email, one from a mainstream media TV company, one from a newspaper Listing a litany of extremely egregious and aggressive attacks, as well as some pretty stupid stuff like my community festival should be stopped, that I shouldn't be able to attack mainstream media narratives on this channel.
But amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute.
These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies.
And as I've written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous.
Now, during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual.
I was always transparent about that then, almost too transparent.
And I'm being transparent about it now as well.
And to see that transparency metastasized into something criminal that I absolutely deny makes me question Is there another agenda at play?
Now, we don't know exactly who these women are who are accusing Brand of sexual misconduct, but the Daily Wire reports that these incidents supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2013.
So, like the accusations against Masterson, these sexual assaults allegedly occurred at the height of Russell Brand's mainstream fame.
And yet, strangely enough, without any explanation, these accusations are only coming up now, many years later.
The whole lengthy story with all the allegations is laid out in a Channel 4 documentary and in The Times.
And you can read the details for yourself if you pay for a subscription to The Times.
That's because they launched a series of allegations against Brand and then immediately put the accusations behind a paywall.
It's too early to say right now exactly what's really happening or what really happened all those years ago.
We can't prejudge this case, of course, but one thing we can say with certainty is that Russell Brand is a far bigger threat to this nation's power brokers now than he was at the height of his fame back when he was married to Katy Perry and starring in Hollywood films and living, as he said, a very promiscuous lifestyle.
Anybody who watches Russell Brand's videos knows all that, but really, Brand's turn into unorthodox thinking began sort of slowly, roughly a decade ago.
It was in 2013 that Brand was ejected from the GQ Awards show for noting in his acceptance speech that a sponsor of the show had previously made uniforms for the Nazis.
From that point on, Brand became something of a pariah in the entertainment industry, and in recent years, his views have only become more intolerable to those in power.
Now, in particular, Russell Brand has heterodox views on the integrity of U.S.
elections.
He doesn't toe the line on January 6th.
And perhaps most consequentially, he's extraordinarily critical of Big Pharma.
He doesn't believe, as the rest of the corporate media does, that you should reflexively trust the pharmaceutical companies and just ingest every drug they give you.
And he's made his views on this subject known.
Here he was with Bill Maher recently, for example.
Yes.
Out of respect for you and your show, I've brought some facts.
If you'd like, they're actually... You just get the f*** out of here.
This is not the place.
I wouldn't have mentioned it, I'm English and you know that politeness is our fundamental religion.
But they do pertain to this issue, so may I say something?
Please, please.
I'll stop saying them.
The pandemic created at least 40 new big pharma billionaires.
Pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID-19 vaccine.
More than two-thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election.
Pfizer chairman Albert Baller told Time magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money.
And of course Pfizer made $100 billion in profit Alright.
in 2022. And may I just mention finally, and this is also a fact, that you, the American
Alright.
public, funded the development of that, the German public funded the BioNTech vaccine.
When it came to the profits, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you
paid for the funding. All I'm querying is this. Is if you have an economic system in
which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military
industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crises,
you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis, where the interests of ordinary people
separate from the interests of the elite.
Now that's not something you're supposed to say out loud, it's all true of course, but you're questioning, you're calling into question some of the most powerful people and institutions in the country.
It's hard not to notice that people who say things like this out loud tend to get in a lot of trouble.
You might remember what happened to James O'Keefe's Project Veritas.
O'Keefe exposed a high-ranking Pfizer executive admitting, among other things, that his company is conducting secret gain-of-function research on coronaviruses right here in the United States.
The Pfizer executive then freaked out when he realized he was on camera.
What happened next?
The Pfizer executive was not publicly fired.
Instead, O'Keefe was publicly fired.
Funny how that works out.
Is Russell Brand being targeted for the same reasons?
Already his agent and several organizations have cut ties with him, so he appears to be on the same trajectory.
To be clear, we don't know whether Russell Brand is innocent or guilty, just like we don't know if Danny Masterson is innocent or guilty, but there are obvious reasons to doubt stories that surface several years after the fact, especially when witnesses contradict the narratives.
As you just heard, that's what Russell Brand says is happening.
One woman just posted a video claiming that British media reached out to her for a documentary on Russell Brand, presumably the Channel 4 documentary, but they didn't use her story because she said that her interactions with Brand were all consensual and positive.
Watch.
I actually know who this is about and I have the receipts.
I was contacted in June by a journalist regarding a video I made about a certain celebrity and a weekend that we shared together.
The video is kind of viral, it's on my page somewhere if you want to go see it.
And that certain somebody was, as most of you will be aware, Mr Brand.
They weren't going to use my story because it didn't fit the narrative.
For their documentary.
Because he wasn't an a**hole to me.
But here are some of the messages.
Obviously, I will take out the person's name and stuff.
We had a phone call.
She contacted me for more information and I didn't contact her back because I kind of felt like it would be mean.
Anyway, there you go.
Put your bets on.
It's a documentary about the one and only Mr. Russell Brand.
And just a fun fact.
Astrology wise, the lunar nodes of destiny have shifted into Aries right on top of his Mars and Moon.
Written in the stars, baby.
Okay, bye!
Okay, well that's interesting.
Not the astrology stuff, but the stuff before that.
If you were making a film about sexual assault accusations against a famous person from several years ago, you'd think you'd want to gather all of the relevant evidence and present it.
But if you want to create a hit piece, you'd ignore the witnesses that you don't like and present the ones with the most salacious stories possible.
And it appears, based on that video, That's exactly what's happening.
Now, Brand's critics will argue that just because the woman in that video says she wasn't raped, that doesn't mean that other women weren't raped.
A rapist isn't going to abuse every woman he comes across, presumably.
But the point is that if you're dredging up accusations from years and years ago, and you have no evidence that anything happened, then all you can do is theorize and make assumptions.
The best you'll end up with is an educated guess.
But it's not possible to make an educated guess without being presented the full picture, the full story of what sort of person the accused was at the time when he allegedly did the things he was accused of doing.
If you're a journalist only presenting part of the picture and leaving out the parts that don't lead to your preferred conclusion, then you're not a journalist at all.
You are an assassin looking to kill someone's reputation.
We've seen this time and time again.
The moment somebody becomes a threat to the establishment, the accusations of sexual assault materialize from thin air.
It is impossible not to notice this trend.
We see it at the Supreme Court with Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.
We saw it with Trump.
I mean, he was a billionaire celebrity playboy, but was never accused of sexual assault until he became a threat to the left.
Even Tucker Carlson, it's easy to forget, was accused of sexual misconduct at the height of his show's success.
Those accusations were absurd on their face and never went anywhere, but that's not how these things usually play out.
Whatever you think of Dave Portnoy, the accusations against him follow a similar pattern.
Portnoy isn't really political, and I certainly wouldn't call him a conservative, and I don't think he calls himself a conservative, but during COVID, he did something you're not supposed to do.
He noticed that the government's lockdowns were destroying small businesses, And that the Fed's so-called Pandemic Relief Fund wasn't covering these businesses' losses, not even close, so Portnoy threw his company, raised millions of dollars for businesses as long as they kept employing their workers throughout the lockdowns, and that got the attention of the government in not a good way, you know.
A year later, he was accused of, can you guess, sexual misconduct.
The brash founder of website and media company Barstool Sports is firing back today at alarming allegations of sexual misconduct.
A report by Business Insider details alleged sexual encounters between Dave Portnoy and two women.
One of the alleged victims says she was literally screaming in pain.
Portnoy calls the article a hit piece and denies the allegations.
NBC News has not independently verified these allegations.
NBC News didn't verify the accusations, but of course they're happy to repeat them.
It's a familiar story.
And it's the inevitable result of Believe All Women.
This is the legacy of Hashtag Me Too.
You can either do what you're told, or the most powerful forces in the country will try to destroy you.
With respect to Russell Brand, I think we're left with two possibilities.
And neither of them are good.
One is that Brand is an innocent man being smeared by the mainstream media.
I don't know for sure if this is what's happening here or not.
Nobody can know.
I wasn't there.
I just don't know.
But that's how the game is played.
Just by printing the accusation, you have forever tarnished a man's reputation, whether it's true or not.
After all, the most that even his most ardent defenders can say, his most ardent defenders, the most they can say, is that he's probably not a rapist.
And this is what makes the media's willingness to print accusations, no matter how credible or incredible they are, so sinister.
They know that the accusations will devastate a man's life and reputation, even if there's no evidence to support them.
Even if they're debunked and refuted.
Even if positive evidence can be presented proving that the thing didn't happen.
Just the very fact the accusation was ever made is already enough to permanently damage someone.
But there's another possibility here.
The other possibility is that the media's claims are true.
In that scenario, Brand is a known serial rapist who victimized multiple women for years during the height of his fame.
That's what the media is saying.
It's what they want us to believe.
Okay, that's their narrative.
But for the sake of argument, let's go with that for a moment, with that narrative.
Well, here's the thing about it.
If that's true, it makes the media arguably even worse than if they were inventing these claims out of whole cloth.
Because it means that they left Brand alone.
They allowed him to continue abusing women for years and years until he said things they disagreed with.
Remember, part of this whole story is that this was an open secret.
Everyone knew this was happening.
That's what the media is saying.
If everyone knew it, the media must have known it.
And they didn't say anything.
They didn't report on it.
Until the moment that he became inconvenient to them.
Both of those options are horrific in their own way.
And in either case, it's clear who the real enemy is.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Before giving our dog rough grains, he was so sad and lazy.
Now he actually enjoys his squeaky toys and playing fetch with his frisbee.
Our pup's days are filled with laughter, exercise, and endless fun.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, founder of Rough Grains, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Little did I know, before I got Rough Grains, dog food is dead food.
Everyone knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Ruff Greens boost your dog's food back to life.
Ruff Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food, you just sprinkle Ruff Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Ruff Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs too.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black is so confident Ruff Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free jumpstart trial bag so your dog can try it A couple of Trump interviews have gotten some attention, which is probably an understatement.
First, there's a moment from his interview with Megyn Kelly that was last week, and we talked about the Fauci stuff last week, but there was also this moment.
Let's watch.
or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Okay, a couple of Trump interviews have gotten some attention, which is probably an understatement.
First, there's a moment from his interview with Megyn Kelly that was last week.
And we talked about the Fauci stuff last week, but there was also this moment.
Let's watch.
Can a man become a woman?
In my opinion, you have a man, you have a woman.
I think part of it is birth.
Can the man give birth?
No.
No, although they'll come up with something.
Okay, now before we dissect that, I want to play both clips because I think they're related.
So let's play the other one that has people talking as well.
Here he is a couple days later on Meet the Press, and this time the subject is abortion.
And here's what he says.
Mr. President, I want to give voters who are going to be weighing in on this election a very clear sense of where they stand on this.
I think they're all going to like me.
I think both sides are going to like me.
What's going to have to happen is you're going to have to... Tristan, you're asking me a question.
What's going to happen is you're going to come up with a number of weeks or months.
You're going to come up with a number that's going to make people happy.
Because 92% of the Democrats don't want to see abortion after a certain period of time.
If a federal ban landed on your desk, if you were re-elected, would you sign it at 15 weeks?
Are you talking about a complete ban?
A ban at 15 weeks.
Well, people are starting to think of 15 weeks.
That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now.
Would you sign that?
I would sit down with both sides and negotiate something and we'll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years.
I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't.
I mean, DeSantis is willing to sign a five-week and six-week ban.
Would you support that?
You think that goes too far?
I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.
Okay, now, so let's talk about both of these together.
Obviously it goes without saying that there's no reason to hesitate on the can a man become a woman question.
And there shouldn't be any answer other than no.
Okay, if you're saying anything other than no, anything, the first words out of your mouth after you hear can a man become a woman, no.
Then you can elaborate on how crazy that idea is.
First word should be no.
Anything but an immediate no is a wrong answer and also an embarrassment.
And if that doesn't, if you don't see why that is, then just imagine any other basic scientific question getting that kind of answer.
So what if, you know, just to show you how ridiculous this is, imagine if Megyn Kelly had for some reason asked, do you believe in gravity?
Does gravity exist?
And then Trump had said, um, well, listen, in my opinion, you know, there are some who say that human beings can fly, but I think probably not.
What?
What kind of answer is that?
Why?
In my opinion... First of all, people are focusing on the um part of it.
In my opinion?
You don't need to qualify something like this by saying, in my... It's not your opinion, okay?
Just like it's not... When I say gravity exists, that's not my opinion.
In my opinion, gravity exists.
In my opinion, the Sun is bigger than the Earth.
It's not my opinion, that's just a fact.
It's not an opinion at all.
So, that was a weak and convoluted answer where clear and concise is needed, and where there's simply no conceivable reason why you would give anything but a clear and concise answer.
Keep in mind what I'm always saying about this issue, that on the left, they can't answer these questions.
So for them, that's a stumper.
This is the beautiful thing about being a conservative, is that basic common sense questions are not stumpers.
We don't have to be worried about them.
Someone could throw it at us and say, that's easy, yeah, 2 plus 2 equals 4, no problem.
It's only on the left where it becomes, oh my gosh, I've got to figure out how to navigate around this.
That's the advantage we're supposed to have because we're supposed to stand for basic fundamental truths.
We are supposed, when we talk about being conservative, we are conserving basic fundamental truths.
Or maybe not conserving the truths themselves, because the truths will persist whether we, whatever we say about them.
We are pursuing our, rather we are conserving our understanding, society's understanding and acceptance of these fundamental truths.
So that's an advantage we're supposed to have.
But because the left can't answer these kinds of questions, or at least they can't answer in a way that's That is not humiliating for them.
Because if they're asked the question, can a man become a woman, they also, they're probably not going to say yes.
Some of them will.
But if that was a Democrat politician sitting there, probably not going to say yes because they know how crazy that sounds.
So instead, they're going to start equivocating and they're going to be off in the weeds and they're going to talk about opinions and how everyone has different perspectives and so on and so on and so forth.
When you, as the Republican frontrunner, give an answer that makes it sound like a complicated question, you are, that is just you, that's you surrendering to the left on that issue.
Because that's what the left wants.
They want this to be a matter of opinion, they want it to be complicated, they want it to be the kind of question that you're nervous to answer, and it shouldn't be.
Now I said that there's no conceivable reason why you would not give a clear and concise answer, but one potential reason, there is one reason why you might not give a clear and concise answer, and that is if you're a Republican frontrunner making the mistake of trying to moderate for the general election.
Which brings us to the second clip.
Now, and that's the abortion question.
Trump's answer there is wrong on multiple levels.
It's morally wrong, 1,000%.
It's not a terrible thing to protect human children from being slaughtered.
That's not terrible.
And, you know, the spin from some of Trump's defenders is that, well, Trump was saying that it's a terrible mistake.
He was saying that it's a terrible political mistake to sign a five or six week ban on abortion.
Now, if that is what he was saying, that would also be wrong.
Well, we'll talk about that in a second.
That's not a political mistake.
But that's not what he said.
Okay?
We can all listen to what he said.
He said what he said.
And he said, it's a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.
It's a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.
That's what he said.
He said that the ban, the heartbeat ban, is a terrible thing in and of itself.
That is what he said.
And worst of all, he said this to a mainstream media news anchor.
Okay?
I mean, it wouldn't be good to say that anywhere, but Rather than going after her.
Rather than backing her into a corner.
Rather than embarrassing her.
Rather than throwing it back in her face.
What, do you think we should kill human beings with heartbeats?
Is that what you think?
Of course I support the ban at six weeks.
That's a human being.
Do you think it's not a human being?
What is it?
What you call a fetus?
What is it, if not a human being?
Can you tell me that?
So that's a direction he could have gone, and embarrassed her.
She wouldn't have been able to answer that.
If he threw the question back at her, she would have said something like, well, I don't know, it's a human being.
She would have equivocated.
She wouldn't be able to say one way or another.
And then you can go back to, oh, so you're not sure if the child is a human being at six weeks, and yet you're sure that we should be able to kill the child, even though you don't even know if it's a human or not.
Could have gone that way.
Instead, he goes the other way, and he comes out against heartbeat laws.
So again, from a moral perspective, what he's saying is totally wrong.
What about the politics of it?
You know, between the Megyn Kelly stuff, and that's, I mean, the whole interview, not just the stuff about men becoming women.
Between that and Meet the Press, Trump is very clearly and very unsubtly making a move to the middle.
He's moderating.
And in fact, his supporters will admit this.
This has been the defense of his statements in those interviews.
The defense is, very openly, well he's in a general election now for all intents and purposes.
He's looking past the primaries and he's running against Biden and so that's why he's not running against He's running against Biden.
He's moderating.
It's a general election.
He's trying to win.
Now, it's true that he should be running, essentially, a general election campaign.
He's probably going to be the nominee.
That's the most likely thing, obviously.
He needs to be running against Biden, and I've been saying that forever.
Which is why it makes no sense that he spends most of his time attacking DeSantis.
I mean, he's attacked DeSantis far more than he's attacked Biden, and there's no question about that.
And even in that answer, when he's asked about abortion, he could pivot to Biden's extremism on abortion and say, well, Biden believes in abortion up until birth.
This guy's a lunatic.
Instead, he pivots to DeSantis' what Trump considers extremism on abortion.
Right?
Even in that move, that can't be defended on moral or political grounds.
If you're trying to beat Biden, why wouldn't you bring every... Rather than bringing every answer back to attacking DeSantis, bring it back to attacking Biden.
Now, I agree.
I agree that he should be basically, strategically looking past the primaries and running a general election campaign and going after Biden all the time.
He shouldn't even be talking about DeSantis.
I'm not saying he needs to go out and sing DeSantis' praises.
I mean, DeSantis is an opponent.
This is politics.
But from a political perspective, the smartest thing would be just to ignore him, to ignore everybody in the primaries and just focus on Biden.
So that leaves the question, you know, even if I don't like it, like the moderating of tone, moving to the left, moving to the middle, even if it makes my blood boil to hear a politician go squishy on abortion and go squishy on basic biology, is it a clever strategy politically?
Is it more likely to get him elected?
Can we make a kind of Machiavellian ends justify the means sort of argument here?
Would that argument be accurate at least?
Will these tactics win the general election?
My answer is emphatically no.
Absolutely not.
They will not win you the general.
This is not a good strategy.
And to illustrate my point, okay, I need only ask you one question.
Okay, one question.
I want you to consider this.
Have you, in your life, ever met a voter who says that they would vote for Trump if only he was slightly more liberal on abortion?
Have you ever had that conversation from someone who says, I love everything about Trump, or at least I like everything about Trump, except the abortion stuff.
I think he's too conservative.
Well, we put that aside and I'd vote for him.
I've talked to countless people about politics all across the country.
I have never heard that opinion from anyone, ever.
Okay?
I have never met the person who was a leftist on abortion, But who is willing to vote for Donald Trump if only he moderates on that issue.
Where is that person?
This would most likely be a woman, right?
We're told that this is what you need to do for suburban women, especially, because they care so much about abortion and have so-called abortion rights.
And so I'm just trying to imagine the suburban woman who supports everything about Trump except the abortion stuff.
Well, I'll tell you where that person exists.
Nowhere.
They don't exist.
Okay?
If you think that there is, somewhere out there, a significant number of voters who are still gettable for Donald Trump, still willing to vote for him, if only he becomes more openly socially liberal, then I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, you're simply delusional.
And by the way, this is not some kind of new and innovative approach for Trump.
The Republican establishment has been preaching this gospel for decades.
This is nothing new.
For years and years, they've said that Republicans need to moderate on abortion, need to moderate on the so-called social issues, to win national elections.
So Trump is simply following conventional Republican wisdom with this approach.
And Trump is best when he rejects the conventional Republican establishment wisdom.
Here, he's embracing it.
Because how has that wisdom worked out?
Well, there's a trail of humiliations and defeats stretching back decades to show for it.
McCain was moderate on abortion.
Romney was moderate on abortion.
What about Trump in 2016?
Well, whatever he personally believed or believes now, he was not perceived in 2016 at all as a moderate on this issue or really any issue in 2016.
He was perceived as a hardliner.
And he did indeed take hardline stances on a number of controversial issues.
I mean, famously, he even talked publicly, he was asked about it, but he talked publicly about prison sentences for women who get abortions.
Now, after the fact, after that, he kind of moderated that stance later that day after the backlash.
But, you know, he talked about that, and did it kill his campaign?
Obviously not.
So what does that tell us?
It tells us that, and by the way, it doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but build the wall, lock her up, all this kind of stuff.
2016, these were not moderate.
When you've got people chanting, lock her up in the stands at your rallies, nobody's watching that and thinking, well, this is a moderate figure.
This is more of a moderate centrist figure.
No one's thinking that.
And that's not who he was in 2016, and he won.
So, what does that tell us?
It tells us that the only way to beat the Democrats is to present a clear alternative.
Which means not adjusting your own positions to bring them closer to the Democrat position.
It means doing, if anything, the opposite.
Present the contrast.
And when it comes to abortion, that means clearly and concisely and powerfully and persuasively making the case for life, the defense of life.
I'm not saying it's easy.
Like, no matter what you do on abortion, there are going to be people, lots of people, who are upset, no matter what position you take.
Okay, Trump says that I come up with a compromise that makes everyone happy.
That's impossible.
That doesn't exist.
That's not a plan.
You're saying, oh, you know what I'll do?
You know what I'll do?
I'll just come up with an idea that everyone will like.
It doesn't exist.
You cannot do it on this issue.
It's not there.
It doesn't matter if you could be the most brilliant dealmaker in history.
The fact is that among, on the left, What they want is abortion up until birth, period.
For any reason, period.
That's what they want.
They will not be happy with anything but that.
And if you come up with any plan other than that, you are going to be a, this is Handmaid's Tale, you're a patriarchal, oppressive dictator, you're killing women, back alley abortions, anything but that, that's how they're going to paint you.
That's just the reality.
And so, You might as well take the correct, true position.
You're going to upset those people anyway.
They're going to be upset anyway.
So take the true position and defend it.
Like, imagine that.
Imagine actually just explaining.
Like, explaining.
Yes, of course I think that we should ban.
I think we should have banned abortions entirely.
And the media is going to go, why would you say that?
Just explain it.
Just explain.
Well, the reason is that, is that these are human beings.
I don't think we should, it's ever okay to directly and intentionally kill in this human life.
I just, that's what I believe.
That's a really logical, powerful, simple position that you can take, but you got to be willing to explain it.
All right.
We had a bunch of other headlines and we just spent a lot of time on that.
Let me, okay, we got to make some room for this as well.
So, ABC News, American XL bully dogs could be banned in the UK by the end of the year, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Friday.
There have been a string of attacks involving the canine breed.
In a statement, West Midlands Ambulance Service said a male victim had sustained multiple life-threatening injuries and was in critical condition after an attack by a suspected XL bully dog.
Now they're being banned.
We have the Prime Minister talking about this ban.
Let's watch.
The American XL Bully Dog is a danger to our communities, particularly our children.
I share the nation's horror at the recent videos we've all seen.
Yesterday we saw another suspected XL Bully Dog attack, which has tragically led to a fatality.
It's clear this is not about a handful of badly trained dogs.
It's a pattern of behaviour and it cannot go on.
While owners already have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control, I want to reassure people that we are urgently working on ways to stop these attacks and protect the public.
Today I have tasked Ministers to bring together police and experts to firstly define the breed of dog behind these attacks, with a view to then outlawing it.
It is not currently a breed defined in law, so this vital first step must happen fast.
We will then ban the breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and new laws will be in place by the end of the year.
These dogs are dangerous.
I want to reassure the public that we will take all necessary steps to keep people safe.
Okay, so it's not every day that the UK gets something right, but they got something right here, and of course, pit bull terriers are already banned in the UK, and now they're adding this type of pit bull to that ban list.
Obviously the right move.
Pit bulls of all types are wildly, disproportionately dangerous.
And it really is as simple as that.
Now, you can point out, well, pit bulls don't bite.
The poodles!
Look at poodles!
Poodles bite more often than pit bulls do, or whatever obfuscation, whatever, you know, red herring you want to throw out.
But it may be true, and I don't even know if it is true, it may be true that other types of dogs are more likely to bite you, but a poodle is not going to mull you to death.
I don't know how many fatal poodle maulings there have been in history, but there couldn't possibly have been that many.
The point with a pit bull is that not only is it bred to be aggressive, not only are they volatile animals, but also they are genetically predisposed not only towards aggression, but when they become aggressive, They are lethal.
They are, like, designed to be lethal when they decide to attack.
Okay?
A golden retriever... Golden retrievers don't bite very often, but if you take off a golden... Any dog, if you take it off, might bite you.
But it's not going to try to eat you alive.
Okay?
It's not going to try to eat your face the way that a pit bull does.
And that's why, when you look at a list of Fatal dog maulings.
You're going to find that pit bulls are responsible for the vast, vast majority of them every single year.
There's just no way around it.
And, you know, I know every time we talk about this, and it's going to happen again, I'm going to get all these messages from people in comments saying, whoa, so if you support banning pitbulls, that also means that you're anti-Second Amendment.
These are the kinds of arguments that pitbull defenders will make, because they'll say that, well, if you support banning pitbulls, then you must also support banning guns.
The first thing is, Just because you support banning one thing doesn't mean you support banning all things.
Like, there are things that we all agree should be banned, right?
There are things we all agree should be banned.
There are behaviors that we all agree should be banned.
But then there are behaviors and there are things that we think shouldn't be banned.
Imagine that.
And so how do you determine what should be banned and what shouldn't?
Well, you have to look at the individual cases.
In the case of a firearm, first of all, in the United States, you have a constitutional right to a firearm.
It's a big deal, okay?
Second, that's an inanimate object.
A gun is not going to get up on its own and shoot someone.
There's never been a mass shooting where it was a gun on its own going into a building and shooting people.
It's an inanimate object.
It's a tool, right, that people use.
A dog is not like that.
First of all, you don't have a constitutional right to a dog.
And second, a dog has a mind of its own.
And it can act entirely—I mean, you could be the best owner in the world, and the dog is still a dog and has a mind of its own.
It has instincts.
It's an animal.
And it can just get up on its own and do something.
In fact, animals do that all the time.
They get up on their own and they do things, and oftentimes there are things that you don't like, you don't want them to do, and they do them anyway.
And most of the time, the things that they do that you don't want them to do are relatively minor things.
You know, they're chewing on the carpet, they're crapping on the rug, they're doing that kind of thing.
But with a pit bull, there's always that possibility that one of the things they do that you don't want them to do is go and maul the neighbor's two-year-old child.
And these sorts of things happen.
So, the comparison.
The analogy, we're talking about banning pitbulls, the analogy is not to inanimate objects, because a pitbull is not an inanimate object, the analogy is to other animals.
Because there are many other animals that are banned in most communities and in most countries.
There are many other animals that you are, in most areas, not allowed to own.
You just can't own them.
And the list is very long.
I mean, there are many more animals you're not allowed to own domestically than there are that you are allowed to own.
So, just taking one.
You're not allowed to own, in most jurisdictions to my knowledge, you're not allowed to own a panther.
You can't own a panther.
And why can't you own a panther?
Well, because they are disproportionately likely to become dangerous, not just to you, but to your community, to your neighborhood.
And they are animals that, if they do become aggressive, it'll be very easy for them to kill someone.
And so you can't bring those animals into a neighborhood.
So, with thousands of other animals, we have no issue with that.
We all understand.
Like, yeah, of course you can't bring that animal into a neighborhood.
It's too dangerous.
And you know what?
If they were to, I think someone said to me on Twitter today, a couple days ago, well, there were only 30 fatal pit bull maulings last year.
And I don't even know if that number is correct, but let's just say that it is.
Well, what if they lifted the ban on panther ownership?
And then we looked at it and we said, and then after a year, we said, okay, well, panthers have been legal to own for a year and only 30 people have been horrifically mauled to death, which is to say eaten while they're still alive, by the panthers.
It's a success.
Everything's fine.
Or would we say 30 people have been mauled to death by this animal?
No, of course you can't own them.
That's not worth the cost.
Look, there are always, right, you always have to weigh cost and benefit with anything, especially when it comes to laws.
You always have to weigh that.
And so before, you know, many more people die in car accidents than die from pit bulls.
The cost of banning cars is that you've shut down society completely.
And so most reasonable people realize, well, you can't ban cars.
You just can't do it.
What's the cost to society if you ban pitbulls?
The cost is nothing.
It only benefits us.
There's no serious cost to society if you ban pitbulls anymore than there's a serious cost to society when we ban all these other animals.
So the cost is nothing to ban them, to society.
The risk of owning them is dozens of people dying the most horrific death you can possibly imagine.
And so I think that the answer there is pretty clear.
Sometimes it's five headlines, sometimes it's more like two.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong?
You know, as the Daily Wire's resident contrarian, I've been told some may perceive me as a bit rough around the edges.
This couldn't be further from the truth, and because I'm so emotionally aware and in touch with my softer side, we have an exciting update to the Matt Walsh Swag Shack.
At long last, the stuffed Johnny the Walrus is back in stock over at dailywire.com.
That's right, the cuddly little marine mammals that swept the nation are once again ready to bring home.
They make great gifts regardless of age, and to sweeten the deal, we have the Book and Plushie Bundle, where you get the walrus and my best-selling LGBTQ children's book, Johnny the Walrus, right now.
Get your walrus before these sell out.
Again, go to dailywire.com slash shop to get yours and maybe several others to share today.
Something a little bit different today.
Usually we read comments and messages from people attacking me for things that I said.
That's the point of the segment.
But this time we have comments and messages from people attacking me for things I didn't say.
Not that they're accusing me of saying things I didn't say, but rather they are mad at me for not saying certain things.
Now, we talked earlier in the show about the recent Trump interviews, where he said stuff that I didn't like, and I explained why I didn't like it.
I explained that today, just a few minutes ago, because I'm back at work, because it's Monday.
And I did not, however, say anything about these subjects on Twitter over the weekend.
Until Sunday night, you know, when I started doing show prep, I do a little work on Sunday night.
But for most of the weekend, I didn't say anything at all about any subject.
I was silent because I'm a married man with six kids, and I don't spend my weekends on Twitter.
At least I try not to.
Actually, just to give you the full timeline here, I talked about Trump's Megyn Kelly interview, I think that was on Thursday, and we talked about the Fauci stuff, and I was very critical of how he handled the Fauci stuff, the question about why did you give him a commendation and all that.
I didn't mention the trans stuff because I hadn't seen that clip.
I didn't know about it.
I didn't watch the full interview.
I saw the clips.
I only saw the Fauci clip.
I finally saw the trans clip on Friday afternoon, probably, but at that point I was heading to dinner with my wife.
It's, you know, this is the end of the work week for me, going out for a date night.
I decided I'll wait till Monday.
We could talk about it in greater depth.
This is the kind of thing I want to flesh out, I want to talk about.
Then over the weekend, as we did just a few minutes ago, then over the weekend the Trump meet the press interview came out.
It came out on Sunday morning.
And I didn't see that at all because, at first, because it's Sunday morning, I was at church.
Well, I come back online late Sunday afternoon and I find many, many posts and messages from conservatives, from DeSantis supporters, from people claiming to be longtime fans of mine denouncing me for not having posted about either subject over the weekend.
So I was with my family, with my wife and kids over the weekend, but that apparently was not a good enough excuse According to these, I'm telling you, my mentions were just, it was a little bewildering at first because I logged back on, I saw all these people really angry at me, including people that I know are supposed to be on my side.
And I'm thinking, what did I do?
I haven't even said anything.
And then I realized that was the problem.
So I just want to read a couple of these.
First one says, Matt has shown himself to be a gutless fraud.
If his next tweet is not about this, I'm unfollowing him forever.
I'm done with these unserious clowns.
Theodore says, Matt is right there with Glenn Beck, no balls, but I'm sure he's got plenty to say about how everyone else should live and espouse his religious bulls**t. Peter says, Matt Walsh has built a massive following commenting on conservative politics and specifically on transgender issues.
He regularly blasts inconsequential GOP politicians for going to the left on this, but when Trump refuses to say men can't become women, silence.
Spence Rogers, responding to that tweet, agreed, saying, great point.
Why?
Because Ben Shapiro is the authorized DeSantis cheerleader over there.
Walsh isn't allowed to talk about the primary.
Knowles is the Trump slappy.
Candace is the Vivek shill.
M to the G says, Matt won't speak truth to power because it affects his bottom line.
Lots of comments like that.
David said, Matt, I'm so disappointed in you.
Trump endorses abortion today and it's crickets from you.
He cucked himself on the trans issue and you said nothing.
I've been a fan for years, but now I see that you're a turncoat traitor.
Sean says, Matt, why aren't you speaking about these Trump issues?
You've been silent all weekend.
It's clear that you aren't willing to take a risk for the sake of truth.
You're a coward.
Okay.
So a lot where those came from.
Now, I've already given my take on these issues, and I've already told you why I was absent from the conversation for a few days.
I realize that spending time with your family is not an excused absence, according to the hall monitors.
It is what it is.
Moving on from those points, I just want to say a couple other things.
First, just a general point here.
Look, if you don't need 24-hour armed security for your family, if you've never received a letter in the mail making threats against you and providing details about your home and your movements that they could only know if they were watching your house physically, if you've never had people show up outside of your house and take pictures of your house when your kids are playing in the front yard, And they come running in and screaming, saying, Daddy, there's someone outside.
If you've never experienced being doxxed by so many people all at once that you're trending on Twitter because of it, if you've never been hacked and blackmailed and smeared and defamed, if you don't have a file of death threats the size of, like, a novel at this point, then I just don't want to hear your lectures about taking risks.
I don't want to hear it.
Like, but I am hearing it from a lot of people.
Oh, he doesn't have the courage.
He's not speaking.
What are you doing?
What the hell are you doing?
Many of these from anonymous accounts talking about political courage when you've got nothing on the line at all.
Now, I have always said what I feel needs to be said regardless of the consequences.
And to hear lectures on political courage from people who've put absolutely nothing on the line?
It's just, it's a bit much.
It just is.
Second, this attack on me was driven mostly by DeSantis influencers.
Whether they were paid influencers or not, I don't know.
But either way, they apparently decided that it was a good political strategy to take one of the more prominent conservatives in media, Which is me, who's been a DeSantis supporter for years, and cast him as the enemy.
What?
What do you guys think this achieves?
I'm your enemy now, too?
Me?
I mean, I've dedicated hours of this show over the years, hours, cumulative hours, to defending DeSantis against all manner of attacks, including recently.
And now I'm on your list of bad guys?
What are you trying to accomplish here?
What do you think this accomplishes?
Is it working?
You know, there's another DeSantis supporter account with a decent following that's been chastising me for weeks, as far as I can tell, for not being pro-DeSantis enough.
Yes, you've supported him, but you need to support him more!
We need more!
Really?
So spending hours of my show defending him, talking about him, how I like him, why I support him, that's not enough?
That's not good enough.
Listen, if I'm not pro-DeSantis enough, if I am your enemy now too, then who is your friend?
Are you just going to drive them all away?
Look, this is not about... I don't care.
You can say it.
It doesn't bother me.
It's just such a monumentally stupid strategy.
Here's the thing, guys.
My show will never, ever be a political ad for a candidate.
It has never been, and it will never be.
I will never spend the majority of my time promoting a political candidate.
In fact, I will spend no time simply promoting a political candidate.
I'll talk about them when they come up in the news.
I'll defend them when they deserve defending.
I'll criticize them when they deserve criticizing.
But I'm not a campaign surrogate.
I'll never be one.
I've had, there have been plenty of times when campaigns have made, you know, made gestures to me, as you can imagine, that they would like to bring me into the fold to be more a part of the team.
I always turn that down.
And I don't go to the dinners when I get invited, oh, come to a dinner with this candidate and we'd just like to talk to you.
And I don't begrudge candidates reaching out with that kind of thing.
That's part of the job.
But I never go to the dinners.
I don't do any of that.
And the reason is that that's just not, there are people who do that and that's fine.
That's not who I want to be.
I want to be an independent voice.
I'm not even a political pundit.
I don't focus on politics.
I focus on culture.
Which is why we can go through major political stories that I will almost completely ignore in some cases.
Not because I'm afraid to talk about them.
The political stories are the easy ones.
The political stories, no one's ever threatened to kill my whole family because of something I said about a political story.
But I don't, oftentimes I'll ignore them completely just because that's not what I focus on in this show.
I focus on the culture, that's what I care about.
It's what I care about, it's what I think I have insight to provide on, you know, many times also with these political stories.
Not these particular ones we talked about today, but other stories, they pop up, and I'll look at the commentary that's been made on it, and I'll think, yeah, well, most people have covered it.
Like, I don't think I have anything to add on this.
And so those are the ones that I'll skip entirely.
And then other ones will come up, and I'll see a real cultural connection, like with these Trump things, you know, it has to do with trans and abortion, that really pertains to culture.
And so, you know, I'll do 17 minutes on that.
But that's the way that I operate.
That's the way that I do the show.
If you think that my focus should be elsewhere, if you think that I should be a surrogate for a campaign, if you think that I should be a bigger team player or whatever, well, I don't care.
But all I can say is just from a strategic standpoint, like driving wedges even between Driving wedges to wedge out someone who's on your side
could not be a dumber approach.
And there's still time to correct it.
There's not a lot of time, but there's still time.
Hi, it's me, Matt Walsh, and I'm introducing myself towards the end of the show that you're watching with my name on it for some reason.
The point is that Halloween is almost upon us, and there's nothing scarier than handing out candy from woke corporations that hate your values.
Well, maybe second to walking the streets at night in any liberal-run city anyway.
Rim shot.
That was supposed to be a joke.
Back in March, in response to a chocolate ad featuring a man who thinks he's a woman, on Women's Day, we decided to launch Jeremy's Chocolate, and people responded by hundreds of thousands, including me, myself, Matt Walsh.
It was a runaway success.
So here is your friendly reminder that Halloween is approaching, and it's time to stock up on good, un-woke chocolate.
Head over to Jeremy'sChocolate.com and order your chocolate today.
So says me, Matt Walsh.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I don't know where this trend came from, but if you are terminally online, as I am,
much to my shame, then, except on the weekends, then you are already well aware of it.
At some point over the past week or so, it came to my attention, it came to the attention of many women, rather, on social media, that the men in their lives frequently think about the Roman Empire.
This was a shock to women, most of whom have never had a single unprompted thought about the Roman Empire, or frankly, any ancient empire, much to their shame, at any point in their lives.
And so Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok soon became flooded with videos of women asking their husbands and boyfriends whether they think about this subject and how often.
Here's just a quick compilation of a few of these fascinating conversations.
Watch.
Do you think about the Roman Empire ever?
Yeah, I guess.
technically like every day.
Do you think about the Roman Empire ever?
Yeah, I guess. Sometimes.
How often?
I don't know.
Once a week?
How do you not think about the Roman Empire?
How many times, like a week, or just how many times in general, do you think about the Roman Empire?
What about the Roman Empire?
Just anything about it.
Probably not a lot.
When was the last time you thought about it?
Maybe a week or two ago?
The Roman Empire was a very big part of history.
So how often do you think about it?
Not a lot.
How often?
Once every month?
Maybe three or four times a month.
You think about the Roman Empire once a week?
It has a lot of big, like, stories and lessons, like, within the Roman Empire of what to do and what not to do, so yeah.
So you think about the Roman Empire once a week?
Sometimes, yeah.
How often do you think about the Roman Empire?
This depends.
I don't know, every couple days.
So this has, uh, Pique the interest of the media as well.
The Daily Mail, People, Business Insider, Wire, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone, Mashable, among others, have all run lengthy articles about this phenomenon, each attempting to offer some sort of explanation for why men think about the Roman Empire and women not only don't think about it but are shocked to learn that anyone thinks about it at all.
Before I offer my own analysis, I should answer the question for myself.
I don't think about the Roman Empire quite as often as many of these other men.
The Roman Empire probably crosses my mind a few times a month, but no more than that.
And that's because the historical epoch that I devote most of my mental energy to is the American Old West.
So I think about the old west multiple times a day, easily.
There are other historical periods and episodes that I reflect on frequently.
I think about Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe at least once a week, probably more.
The age of discovery in general is a subject of daily meditation.
Loyal listeners of this show also know that I have a strange obsession
with 19th and early 20th century polar exploration.
That's a period of history that I easily think about every day.
I think the point is that men all have certain historical episodes that they tend to mull over.
The Roman Empire makes it into all of our rotations, but its frequency can vary depending on how much psychological real estate we give to other time periods.
Let me solve the mystery for the confused women of the world.
Why do men think about these things?
Well, the shortest and simplest answer is that we think about stuff like this because it's interesting to think about.
I mean, what else is there to think about?
Sure, there are plenty of other things to think about.
On a daily basis, I also think about outer space and the deep sea, the Amazon rainforest.
I think about what I would do I think all guys think about that.
What would I do if a bunch of bad guys with guns came to kill me?
Really like in any scenario, in any like physical environment I walk into, you think about that.
You run through the various scenarios.
One where you have a gun yourself.
One where you're unarmed.
One where you're armed only with nunchucks or a hammer or a chainsaw or something.
Think about that.
I think about my own death.
I think about what's for dinner.
The point is that there's a lot of time in the day to think about a lot of things, and I read somewhere that the human brain processes 70,000 thoughts in a day.
That seems completely made up to me.
I don't know how anyone could come up with an exact number of thoughts that the average person thinks.
I'm not even sure how you precisely differentiate one thought from the next, but I'm sure that we all, well some of us anyway, We do plenty of thinking, and we think about many things.
Why wouldn't we carve out some time to think about ancient Rome?
Like I said, it's interesting.
That's really the only prerequisite for determining whether something is worth thinking about as far as men are concerned.
There's more to it than that, though.
In the Roman Empire, we see much to admire.
This was a civilization that helped to build the world as we know it today.
They invented or helped to innovate everything from aqueducts to complex systems of roads to concrete.
They built enormous, beautiful structures like the Colosseum and the Pantheon, which still stand to this day.
Like any great ancient civilization, their priorities extended beyond the moment that they're living in.
Unlike us, they actually remembered things that happened more than 30 minutes ago, and they thought about the future beyond 30 minutes from now.
They cared about legacy.
They wanted to build a civilization that would last for a thousand years, and they did.
So it's the longevity, the permanence, the legacy that we admire and that we look to with a certain longing, pangs of sadness upon the realization that our own civilization is so feckless and limp and shallow and superficial and distracted by comparison.
The Roman Empire was also a time, like in any ancient civilization, where what we would call traditional masculinity reigned supreme.
Men were men and were rewarded and celebrated for being men.
These are the things we think about when we think about the Roman Empire.
But the Roman Empire is also a warning.
It's a cautionary tale that we are certainly not heeding in our age.
After all, the Roman Empire is no longer with us because it eventually fell.
It collapsed.
And given that we are very much seeming to be living through our own civilizational collapse, we like to go back and read about and think about other civilizations that experienced the same so that we know what to expect and so that by some miracle we might be able to stave off the inevitable.
So it's both the parallels with our time and the differences that we find fascinating.
It's just unfortunate that we share all of the bad features of ancient Rome and few of the good ones.
I think the bigger question and the more interesting one is, though, why women are surprised to learn that men think about these kinds of things.
Now, the answer is, I believe, partly that a woman will very often ask the man in her life, what are you thinking?
And the man will almost never reply by saying the Roman Empire or any other historical subject.
In fact, the man will often say, quote, nothing.
Which has led many women to the understandable but still mistaken conclusion that men often sit around thinking about literally nothing at all.
What they don't understand is that when we say nothing, what we really mean is nothing relevant to you, or nothing we feel like talking about at the moment.
We aren't going to say, oh, I'm thinking about the Roman Empire, because we know that'll lead to a whole list of additional questions that will take us totally away from the train of thought that we're on.
So, real world example of this.
A few days ago I was sitting and staring blankly into space, as one tends to do, and my wife asked me, what are you thinking about?
And the real answer is that I was thinking about where I would rank Christopher Nolan in a list of the top 20 film directors of all time, which is a thought that came to mind when I thought about his film Interstellar, which is overrated in my opinion, and Interstellar came to mind because before that I was thinking about what might actually happen if I fell into a black hole.
And I didn't want to explain all of that, so instead I said, Nothing.
Now, women might consider that kind of answer dishonest, but from a man's perspective, we don't see how we can be expected to simply reveal the contents of our mind upon request.
And we also can't say, you know, the real honest answer would be, I guess, well, I don't want to tell you what I'm thinking.
Because if we say that, then the woman's going to either assume that we're planning some kind of big surprise, or we're concealing some dark secret.
Like, we're planning a surprise birthday party, or we're having an affair.
Those are the two things she's going to assume.
And neither of those assumptions will do us or our relationship any good.
So, that's where this comes from.
But there's another reason why women are surprised by this Roman Empire thing, and this is the most important part.
A woman's mind simply works differently from a man's mind.
A man tends to think more abstractly about things that are beyond his immediate experiences and environment.
A woman and her thoughts are more situated in her daily life, her relationships, her home, her emotions, the emotions of people closest to her.
For example, my wife spends more time in a day thinking about furniture than I have cumulatively in my entire life.
So, like, furniture is the Roman Empire to women, basically.
And neither of these ways of thinking are wrong, obviously.
They're just different.
And they're different in important ways.
Ways that also happen to complement one another.
You know, it's almost as though men and women were designed to pair up and go through life together.
Imagine that.
The man with his sort of larger, abstract meditations.
The woman with her more grounded and immediate and often emotion-based concerns.
Together, the two have all the bases covered.
After all, it's important to have somebody in the family who's worried about the decline of empires and the fate of human civilization.
It's also important to have someone who's worried about the fact that the baby needs a new onesie.
So different ways of thinking for two different sexes, yet more evidence in the end that the sexes do in fact exist and that they are in fact definable and different in ways that even transcend the physical.
Which is why ultimately it's once again the people who deny the reality of the sexes and the differences between them who are today cancelled.
