Ep. 1229 - The Institution Of Marriage Is Under Attack From All Sides
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, marriage is under attack from our society, and these attacks are not just coming from the Left. An increasing number of influencers on the Right are discouraging young people from getting married, claiming that marriages almost always lead to failure and misery. But is that true? No, not at all. We'll discuss. Also, new presidential polling has the media in a panic. Are they about to dump Biden and trade him in for a younger model? And a new report reveals that American taxpayer money is not just going to the military in Ukraine. It's propping up their entire economy. In our Daily Cancellation, a new sculpture in California looks suspiciously like a certain unspeakable body part. Why does this keep happening?
Ep.1229
- - -
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 1-5 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:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Genucel - Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
- - -
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, marriage is under attack in our society.
And these attacks are not just coming from the left.
An increasing number of influencers on the right are discouraging young people from getting married, claiming that marriages almost always lead to failure and misery.
But is that true?
No, not at all.
We'll discuss.
Also, new presidential polling has the media in a panic.
Are they about to dump Biden and trade him in for a younger model?
And a new report reveals that American taxpayer money is not just going to the military in Ukraine, it is propping up their entire economy.
In our Daily Cancellation, a new sculpture in California looks suspiciously like a certain unspeakable body part.
Why does this keep happening?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
So you know a company's looking out for you when they actually upgrade your service
and don't charge you for it.
This is great news for new and current PureTalk customers.
PureTalk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered PureTalk before but you haven't made the switch, take a look again.
For just $20 a month, you'll get unlimited talk, text, and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
That's why I love PureTalk.
They are veteran-owned.
They only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great USA.
Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network
in America.
Remember, you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies
that don't support you.
When you go to puretalk.com/walsh, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month
because they actually value you.
That's puretalk.com/walsh.
Pure Talk, wireless for Americans by Americans.
I've spent a lot of time in my career defending the institution of marriage.
And I defend it because it's the bedrock of civilization, so it deserves defending.
And I defend it because it's under constant attack, so it needs defending.
And one of the most troubling developments in recent years, which we've discussed on this show in the past, is that These attacks are increasingly waged not just from the left, but from certain noisy segments of the right as well.
Some right-wing influencers with legions of young, mostly male fans have decided that men should abandon marriage and family life and go their own way.
These influencers, many of whom consider themselves a part of the so-called red pill movement,
pretend to despise feminists and yet have essentially arrived at the same conclusion
as feminists, which is that we should give up on the family.
The two sides hate marriage almost as much as they hate each other.
Now one of these influencers is a woman named Pearl Davis, who has garnered a relatively
large following on YouTube and various social media platforms.
She's in her mid-twenties, single and childless, and yet full of opinions about modern marriage and family life, a subject that she has no personal insight into whatsoever.
She's spent the past few days on the internet complaining about quote-unquote trad cons like myself, who she says promote the nuclear family despite not understanding what it's really like.
Yes, we men who actually have wives and children don't know what it's like to be married, but a woman who is not married and has no children does know what it's like.
In one of her tweets she wrote, quote, the trad cons push marriage because they aren't old enough to know better.
They don't know the reality of what they're pushing.
This is accompanied by a picture of myself, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles.
We aren't old enough to know better and don't know the reality of what we're pushing, yet a woman who is younger than us and single Does know better and does understand this reality another
post she goes on to say that marriage is a terrible deal for men
And she later explains quote would you ever sign a contract that fails?
75% of the time where your business partner is paid to break the contract
Why would you encourage men to sign that contract until the terms are fixed now?
You may be surprised to learn that marriages fail at a rate of 70%
The figure that people like this normally use is 50%.
And the claim that 50% of marriages end in divorce is already spurious, and we'll have more on that in a moment, but 75%?
I was wondering where that number came from, so I scrolled down and I saw something that she reposted from an alleged lawyer who said this, quote, it's not 50-50, that only accounts for divorces.
Another 25% on the negative side for miserable men trapped in cheaper-to-keep-her-marriages unwilling to risk financial destruction and loss of their children.
75% chance of a devastatingly bad outcome is just a bad plan.
No sane person would enter into a commercial contract on such terms.
Now I did ask him where he got this 75% figure from and he wouldn't say.
Apparently the magic statistic fairy came and whispered it in his ear.
Now for her part, Pearl later tweeted a picture of Pierce Brosnan with his wife of 20 years and she questioned whether the marriage counts as successful since Brosnan's wife has put on some weight at the age of 60.
So, apparently, even if they're happy and have remained married for two decades, they still might fall into that 75% failure rate because they have not both remained in supermodel condition into their 60s.
This debate on social media brought out the rest of the marriage-skeptical crowd on the right.
A bunch of these Red Pill influencers decided to hop on an emergency Zoom call and spend two hours talking about me and the rest of the Daily Wire crew and our reckless promotion of society's most fundamental institution.
Now, there's one clip here that you should see.
Apparently a divorce lawyer who says that the failure rate for marriage is not 50% and it's not 75%.
It is, in fact, even higher.
Listen.
I think marriage can be successful, of course.
It's just not something that's as scalable as we as a society are trying to pretend it is.
Marriage is, and I've said this a hundred times and I'll say it a hundred more, marriage is like the lottery.
You are probably not going to win.
Okay, you're probably not going to win.
Don't make that your 401k.
You're probably not going to win.
But if you win, what you win is so great that I don't blame you for buying a ticket and trying.
I personally don't buy lottery tickets.
But when somebody says, yeah, I play the lottery, hey man, somebody's got to win.
And you know what?
As long as you're not blowing money that you need for food or to put shoes on your kid's feet, you're not hurting anybody.
Go out, give it a try.
So I always tell people, listen, marriage, when it works, when you have somebody who's married 20 plus years and they're still crazy about each other, that is the exception, not the rule.
But when you do it, it's phenomenal.
It's phenomenal.
So why not buy the ticket, take the ride, but have a prenup?
Wear a seatbelt, guys.
You can be a safe driver, but wear a seatbelt.
So, a happy marriage, he says, is like winning the lottery.
And the thing about the lottery is that almost everybody loses.
This is a perfect summation of how this entire club views marriage and the message that they're sending to young men in particular.
Sure, it can be great, they concede, but only if you're insanely lucky.
Everybody else is screwed.
This is a rather bleak view of marriage, and thankfully, it's also nonsense.
First of all, the claim that marriage isn't scalable is obviously ridiculous because marriage has served as the bedrock of human society since time immemorial.
It has already happened at the scale of civilization for thousands of years.
Now the divorce lawyers come along and say, you know this thing that society's been doing forever?
Turns out it doesn't work.
Unless you're the one in a million.
It's ridiculous, it's a ridiculous claim.
Now, what about the failure rate of marriages in our culture?
We've heard 50%, we've heard 75%, we just heard that they fail at a rate similar to the rate that people lose the lottery, which would mean higher than 99%, a lot higher.
Yet, these kinds of astronomical odds are not based in anything but the doom and gloom speculations of the people inventing them.
There is no evidence that having a happy marriage is as unlikely as winning the lottery, or that 75% of marriages end in misery.
And what about the 50% number?
Well, this is at least a familiar statistic.
It's something that you've probably heard before.
50% of marriages end in divorce.
It's familiar, but it is bogus.
And one way that you know that it's bogus is that people have been claiming that 50% of marriages end in divorce since I was a kid.
I've been hearing that my whole life.
And that would mean that divorce rates are static across time.
But of course, that isn't the case.
In fact, we know that divorce rates have gone down in recent years.
So where does the 50% figure come from?
Apparently it's a holdover from the 1980s, which is when people first started citing that statistic.
It's not true today.
And it's actually not clear that it was true even in the 80s either.
So what is the actual divorce rate?
It's a little bit hard to determine.
Probably our best guess is based on US census data, which according to the most recent figures, says that about 35% of American adults who have been married have been divorced.
So it's not exactly going to give us a precisely scientific figure of what the divorce rate is, but it's as close as we're going to get, 35%.
And 35% is high.
I mean, it's way too high.
It's not 50% though, and it's not 75%, and it's not 99%, and it's definitely not lottery odds.
Still, isn't it terrifying to think that if you get married, your chance of failure is 35% and the chance of success is only 65% at the most?
Even if we go with that number, isn't that still very, very scary?
Isn't it high enough that it should dissuade anyone from attempting it?
The answer to that question is no.
And here's why.
If the divorce rate is 35%, or even if it's 50%, it does not follow that your own particular marriage has a 35 or 50% chance of failure.
Now, I'm not saying that you should be cocky or reckless, or that you should see yourself as invincible.
I am saying that you shouldn't, on the other extreme, see yourself as passive debris floating helplessly on the tide of statistical likelihoods.
Because you are an individual.
Your marriage is an individual thing.
And its chances of failure are not set by society at large.
So here's an example to illustrate what I mean.
And this is really, really important.
To understand, because as marriage rates fall, and those are falling, the thing that convinces so many people to not marry in the first place are numbers like this.
And this misconception that, well, look at the divorce rate, and that is my own specific chance of getting divorced.
And I'm here to tell you that's not how it works.
So here's, I think this illustrates it.
The obesity rate in the United States is over 40%.
Does that mean that your own chances of becoming obese are 40%?
No, it doesn't.
Your chances might be 5%.
They might be practically zero.
Or they might be quite a bit higher than 40%.
That's because obesity is the result of behavior and choices.
If you do not engage in the behavior or make the choices that lead to obesity, you will not become obese.
The fact that 40% of people around you are fat does not mean that you automatically have a 40% obesity risk.
Now let's take another example.
Car accidents.
Americans get into car accidents at a certain rate.
I'm not sure what the rate is.
It doesn't matter for our purposes.
What does matter is that your own individual chance of getting into a car accident is not the same as every other driver on the road.
The people who compile statistics will say things like, motorists have an X percent chance of getting into a collision.
But you are not just a generic motorist.
You are an individual.
Now, you can never bring your own chance of dying in a fiery car wreck down to zero.
But if you're responsible, if you're a responsible driver, then obviously your chances of getting into an accident are much lower than the chances of someone who is not responsible.
All of those stupid drivers who don't understand the basic rules of the road and like to tweet and eat while they drive and everything else, they're inflating the numbers for everyone.
Now, they're also making the roads more dangerous for everyone.
They are actually actively making your own chances of getting into a car accident higher because the roads are filled with stupid people.
But your chances are not as high as their chances.
You do not share their level of risk unless you're as dumb as they are.
Because again, you are an individual, not a mere statistic.
So, what about marriage?
It's true.
That even if you do everything right, things can still fall apart if your spouse doesn't follow that program.
Now, if you both do everything right, or even most things right, then your chance of divorce is basically zero.
But you can do everything on your end, and maybe your spouse doesn't do the same, and then it falls apart anyway, and that happens, and it's terrible, but it happens.
It's also true that there are many, many things you can do in your marriage and before your marriage to make it much more secure than the average.
Obvious things.
Like, you can marry someone who shares your same fundamental values.
Not everyone does that.
In fact, a lot of people don't.
A lot of people go into marriages knowing ahead of time that they're marrying someone who doesn't share their fundamental values.
Their chances of divorce are going to be somewhere much higher than yours if you don't make that basic entry-level mistake that they have made.
You can do other things.
Like you can state from the outset that you both in principle don't believe in divorce and won't consider it as a viable option for solving any marital difficulties you may experience down the line.
You can have a strong and shared faith You can establish from the beginning a habit of honest communication.
You can make time for each other.
You can continue to date, even or especially as your lives get busier and you start having kids and so on.
You can make a strong effort to be patient with and grateful to each other.
You can take care of your body and your appearance.
You can do all these things and more.
Now, I'm not saying that if you do all of this, it will bring your divorce chance down to zero.
I'm not denying that there are plenty of people out there who You did all this, at least on their own end, and yet still ended up divorced.
That's not my point.
My point is that the divorce rate doesn't take any of that into account.
The people who take none of these basic steps are lumped in with the people who do all of it, and we're supposed to believe that both groups have an equal chance of marital failure.
That's just not true.
I don't deny that there are real serious problems with marriage in our society.
The so-called red pill people and others, they raise totally legitimate and important points on that end.
We need drastic reform.
Abolish no-fault divorce.
The entire family court system has to be torn down and rebuilt.
The system is stacked against men in many ways that are extremely unfair and have ruined countless lives.
So let's fight for those reforms, absolutely.
But this systemic problem is not going to be solved today or tomorrow or next week.
Abolishing no-fault divorce is just the beginning of reforming the system.
Lawmakers in a small number of red states have only just started to seriously consider that idea, which is merely step one.
So, we're a long way off from fixing the system.
It took decades to get us here.
It will take decades to get us out at best.
Anyone who tells you anything else is selling you something.
They're selling you a bill of goods.
This is a decade-long, long-term struggle.
The question is, what are young men, young people in general, supposed to do in the meantime?
And this is where the red pill becomes more of a hazy, foggy, ambiguous pill.
They have no answer.
They simply shot about reforms that are needed, yet have nothing to say to the young men in our culture today who will be old, if not dead, by the time the system is fixed, if it's ever fixed at all.
What are these young men supposed to do right now?
What kind of life would you have them lead right now, today?
The answer, it appears, is that an entire generation of young men, if not multiple generations, should skip marriage while we wait for the system to improve.
But this is not a viable solution.
It's not a solution at all.
It's a surrender.
You're asking entire generations to give up their bloodline, their legacy, their chance of finding the transcendent joy and meaning that family life can provide.
You're asking them to give up on themselves and on civilization itself.
For thousands of years, human beings have always understood that their most basic purpose and obligation was to form families and have children.
And yet, you're telling these young men to ignore this calling, and do what instead?
Live for themselves, alone, wasting away in front of screens?
Only to die with no descendants, leaving no lasting mark on the world?
Think about the kind of misery you're consigning these men to.
Think about the catastrophic, probably fatal effect this would have on our country.
You can't give up on propagating the species for a few decades and then pick it back up again like nothing happened.
That doesn't work on any level, individually or societally.
It is a recipe for despair and collapse.
Am I saying that young men and women should accept the risk then and get married anyway?
Yes.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
That doesn't mean you should be reckless.
I've already talked about many practical things you can do to mitigate your own risk so that it's not a roll of the dice.
You should do all those things.
Don't go into marriage blind.
But don't run from it either.
Even if you mitigate the risk to the extent possible, still there will be a risk.
That's true.
But here's the rub.
All good things come with risk.
The more worthwhile it is, the worse and more disastrous it will be if you fail.
If you take on more responsibility, then your life will be more consequential, and the more consequential your life is, the more cataclysmic your failures potentially become.
A married man with children lives a life of greater consequence than a single man with no children.
There are more people depending on him.
He has a greater stake in the future.
This means that if things go sideways, it'll be a tragedy.
If he screws up, or his wife screws up, or they both do, His life will be ruined, his children will be devastated, and the impact will reverberate down through the generations.
This is what it means to live a high-impact, consequential life.
These are the stakes.
And yes, they are quite high.
Now, sure, you can stave off that sort of catastrophe by staying by yourself, never going out on a limb, never taking any risk, never marrying, never having kids, never striving for anything great or meaningful in life.
But then you're not avoiding failure and misery, you are guaranteeing it.
You are ensuring that you never lose your family in a divorce by never having a family to lose in the first place.
Which is like ensuring that you never go bankrupt by being bankrupt to begin with.
I'm not going to lose all my money because I'm going to stay broke.
Ha!
I beat the system.
Not losing by having nothing to lose is a loss in itself.
And I don't want that for anyone.
It's not a path to happiness and prosperity for either you or society.
It is a path to defeat.
A preemptive and self-imposed defeat.
And that is the worst kind of all.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Don't just take my word for it.
Ella from Rockford says, I have both age and acne spots and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
This serum is worth every penny.
Ella is raving about the famous Dark Spot Corrector from GenuCell, a must-have after months of record heat and humidity.
Sunspots, brown spots, discoloration, even red inflamed patches are disappearing.
front of your very eyes when you use GenuCell and here's a GenuCell amazing guarantee
You'll get results on day one or your money back So take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package which
now includes the dark spot corrector plus the classic GenuCell bags and puffiness treatment and immediate
Effects all at about 70% off so you can try the best skincare in the world for yourself completely risk-free. It's
simple Conservatives are having a field day with this.
Some are calling Biden racist, in fact, for this, his latest gaffe.
Say goodbye to dark and liver spots, bags and puffiness under the eyes, and crow's feet
at Genucel.com/Walsh.
That's Genucel.com/Walsh.
Okay, we have some more fun times with our senile president.
Conservatives are having a field day with this.
Some are calling Biden racist, in fact, for this, his latest gaffe.
And let's take a look.
Two of the great artists of our time representing the groundbreaking legacy of hip hop in America,
LLJ Cool J. By the way, that boy's got, that man's got biceps bigger than my thighs.
I think he's — and MC Lyte, both of you.
Thank you.
Because they both have the light off on the mic, you know you're all here to listen to the new edition.
Mike Bivens, 40 years producing music that lifts our souls.
Okay, so he calls LL Cool J boy, and that's the gaffe that people on the right are latching onto, which is pretty lame, if we're being honest.
He wasn't being racist.
And anytime people on the right try to play this leftist game with the racism claims, it's always cringe.
The, you know, Dems are the real racists bit is always cringe.
Unless you're accusing them of anti-white racism, which would be much more accurate.
So if you're going to do Dems are the real racists, it should be they're anti-white racists.
That's one thing.
The real gaffe, of course, is just that he's babbling nonsensically and can't even say the name LL Cool J, which obviously his staff should have known.
I mean, they should have known there's no way that this guy could pull that off.
LL Cool J. Seems easy.
Like, it seems pretty easy.
Even if you've never heard of LL Cool J before, which I'm sure Biden hasn't, it seems like it's pretty easy.
LL Cool J. There's nothing difficult about any of that.
There are just too many combinations there.
There are too many ways to bungle it.
And bungle it he does.
LLJ Cool J. Because he's senile and he's barely sentient at this point, which may also explain the new poll that has the corporate media very, very concerned today.
Watch.
Well, officials here are downplaying these latest numbers, but they certainly are cause for concern for Democrats.
Look, President Biden is making the economic recovery the cornerstone of his re-election campaign, but our latest ABC News Washington Post poll shows Americans overwhelmingly just aren't feeling it, that despite easing inflation and low unemployment, Americans Really aren't buying into his positive Bidenomics message.
Just 30% of Americans approve of his handling of the economy.
In fact, 44% of people say they are not as well off now as they were when Biden took office.
And on another hot-button issue, immigration, the numbers show only 23% of Americans approve of the president's handling of that situation.
All of this is leading to a dismal approval rating for the president, now 19 points underwater.
And when it comes to Biden himself, we know this.
His age is a real political problem for him.
Right now, three-quarters of Americans, 74%, say that he is too old to effectively serve a second term.
And a majority of Democrats say someone else should actually be the nominee, though the party is deeply divided on who that someone else should be.
And take a look at this when it comes to the head-to-head matchup with Donald Trump.
Our poll is an outlier, and it does differ significantly from other recent polling.
But our poll shows Trump with a nine point lead over President Biden, while 538's average polling
still has Biden up by roughly two points.
And get this, when we ask people if they think that Donald Trump should be constitutionally disqualified
from serving another term, even those who said yes, that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run,
18% of them said that they would still vote for him.
So George, the bottom line here, this is just one poll, we are still a ways out from the election,
but these numbers do show some real weaknesses for President Biden, George.
[SOUND
I mean, not all of it anyway.
It's a little too good to be true.
And I always question anything that's too good to be true, especially political polling.
I question political polling in general to begin with, because I kind of think they're all somewhat fake.
But no Republican is going to win a general election by nine points.
We don't live in a country where that's even possible at this point.
But no matter how you slice it, the numbers are bad for Biden.
Because of course they're bad.
The country's in terrible shape.
The economy's failing.
We haven't had good news for his entire presidency.
What's the good news that we've had?
What have we had to celebrate on a national level?
Nothing.
He's been the worst president certainly in my lifetime, possibly in the history of the country.
He's in the running for the worst president of all time.
And he's visibly falling apart in front of our eyes, which is why ultimately it's that last point in particular that might make a lot of this sort of a moot point.
Because it's increasingly clear that Biden probably will not be the nominee.
when push comes to shove.
And I was skeptical for a while that they would replace him just because that's such
a Hail Mary type of play.
And it creates all kinds of awkwardness because, of course, you're gonna bypass Kamala.
There's no way you're gonna make her the nominee.
That creates all kinds of problems there.
But I think they have no choice and they realize they have no choice.
I mean, they are right now, Democrats are, facing the very real possibility that Biden
could lose to a guy who, by the time the general election happens, has been convicted of felony
charges and possibly is already in prison.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Now, the charges are bogus, but that's what they're looking at.
And that's what would make this whole thing backfire on them, this, you know, trying to knock Trump out by putting all these charges on him.
If he wins anyway, then that becomes the greatest Political embarrassment, maybe ever in history.
I mean, in the history of the world.
You know, you charge your political opponent with all these phony crimes, you maybe put him in jail, and then he beats you anyway and becomes president.
The fact that that's even a possibility.
Is terrifying for the Democrats.
And I think they know they can't allow it, so he has to be replaced.
By who is the question?
I think most likely, as many people have speculated, of course I'm not coming up with this on my own, is Gavin Newsom in California.
And I was also skeptical that Gavin Newsom would actually run for president in 2024.
I was skeptical of that until this weekend, when this happened, watch.
Second, a live look at the state capitol right now where we've learned that Governor Gavin Newsom has voted to, vetoed I should say, vetoed two major bills.
One driverless big rigs and the other could impact the parents of trans children.
The bill AB 957 would have required judges to consider a parent's affirmation of their child's gender identity in custody cases when parents split up.
The author of the bill said it was meant to protect trans kids in contentious custody battles.
And in explaining the veto, the governor said, quote, I urge caution when the executive and legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic legal standards for the judicial branch to apply.
Now, another bill the governor vetoed today would have required human operators on board autonomous trucks.
This is video from a rally in support of the bill just Tuesday.
Teamsters, public safety officials, and lawmakers had supported the bill, saying that the technology was not safe enough.
And in his explanation, the governor says that the bill would ban testing of autonomous trucks, adding that the DMV continuously monitors the testing and operations of autonomous vehicles on Cali.
So I don't really need to know about that.
The second part is not, the driverless cars thing is not the point.
It's the first one.
So he vetoes a bill, we talked about this bill on the show a couple weeks ago, that the Dems in California, they want to make it so that affirming your child's trans, quote unquote, trans identity is something that they take into account in family court.
And if there's a parent who doesn't go along with transing their child, then they're going to lose custody of the child.
And as we talked about, part of the reason for passing a bill like that is to actually create more gender-confused children.
Because women in custody battles will know that, well, this is an easy way to win full custody of the child.
I mean, it's easy enough for women to win full custody, especially in California.
But this would make it 100% guaranteed.
All they have to do is just kind of take their son or daughter and whisper in their ear that, hey, you know, you might actually be the opposite sex.
You know, just kind of guide them in that direction towards confusion, which it's not difficult.
to confuse a child, as society has proven, unfortunately.
And then knowing that the father probably won't go along with it, and then boom, you
got him. You win full custody.
So just a really sinister, evil idea. Gavin Newsom vetoes it, and there's no reason that
he vetoes that bill unless he's running for president. To me, it's like he might as well
have just announced, might as well have officially announced his presidential run.
Because he knows that that's poison in a general election.
He knows how incredibly gross the transing the kids agenda looks to normal people, and that's
why he vetoed it.
And he also knows, because he's at least politically aware enough to know this, that parental rights, this is a major rallying cry across the country.
And blue states have been flipped red based on parental rights.
So that's why he vetoed it.
Now granted, he did say in his full statement that he essentially said that the bill isn't actually needed because courts are already taking kids away from parents who refuse to trans them.
That's already happening.
And he's right.
Unfortunately, he's right.
That is already happening.
So the defeat of this bill doesn't mean much, unfortunately, in the long run.
But if he's not running for president, then he signs that bill, no question.
So what does a matchup between Trump and Newsom look like?
That, it's hard to say at this point.
And I'm sure there's been polling done on it, but that's entirely speculative polling.
And I don't think, I'm not sure how much you can take away from it one way or another.
It certainly creates a greater challenge for Trump.
That, you know, just, now the bar's really low.
But Newsom, at least, is not a brainless vegetable.
And so running against a brainless vegetable is always going to be easier than running against someone who's not.
And it does kind of flip things on its head because Newsom is a lot younger than Trump.
And so then all of a sudden, you know, Trump becomes the old guy in the race and the age thing becomes a factor.
Look, I've been saying forever.
And there are a lot of conservatives who disagree.
In fact, we debated this on Backstage, if I recall, in our most recent Backstage episode.
And I was the odd man out, because what we hear from a lot of conservatives is that, you know, the age thing actually doesn't even matter that much.
The voters don't care about it that much.
And when it comes to Trump, when it comes to Biden, rather, you know, what really matters is that he's corrupt and he's evil and all this.
And of course, I agree that that's what matters most about him.
But I think the age thing is for many voters in particular.
And I think all the polling shows this.
This is a top concern.
This is a major problem.
To be that old and running for president is a major problem.
For Trump right now, the fact that he's almost as old as Biden doesn't really hurt him because he's still younger than Biden.
And he's not senile like Biden is.
Put on a younger guy and that flips on its head.
Okay, staying on politics for a moment, I also wanted to mention this.
Trump has been truth-socialing, truthing, I don't know what the, is it truthing?
He's been truthing to defend himself against accusations that he sold out the pro-life movement by coming out against heartbeat abortion bans, calling them terrible things, if you recall.
But he's really only digging the hole deeper with what he's been saying about it.
I want to read this post from Trump.
This is what he said on, when was this?
September 23rd, so this was on Saturday.
He said, quote, pro-lifers had absolutely zero status on the subject of abortion until I came along.
For 52 years, everyone talked but got nothing.
I got it done.
There would be no talk of a six-week ban or anything else without me.
Roe v. Wade allowed the killing of a baby at any time, including the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th month, and even after birth.
They, therefore, are the radicals, not us.
And now, because of our Supreme Court victory, the power has shifted, and for the first time, those fighting for the pro-life movement have been given tremendous power on this issue.
Before our victory, they had nothing, and they will have nothing again if we don't win elections.
Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in three exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.
You have to follow your heart, but without the exceptions, it'll be very hard to win elections.
A six-week ban on abortion, among other things, like his fight against Social Security and Medicare, killed the Sanctus campaign.
All right, listen, let's just be real about this for a moment.
First of all, it's a great thing that Trump got to appoint three Supreme Court justices and Roe was overturned.
It's a great thing.
I think the overturning of Roe v. Wade was one of the great moments in American history, in fact, easily.
But that doesn't mean that Trump gets sole credits for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And we shouldn't even need to say this.
This is not this kind of parsing of who gets credit and who doesn't.
This is not a conversation that we should even need to have.
And I wouldn't be having it if it's not for Trump going out and saying pro-laborers have done nothing.
They've done absolutely nothing.
I've done everything.
Well, when you say that, then it becomes necessary to point out that that is total nonsense.
Who gets credit for overturning Roe?
Well, first of all, we have to give credit to every Republican president who appointed a justice who helped to overturn it.
Trump had three openings to fill.
That's not because of some brilliant strategy on his part.
He just happened to have three, and he filled them.
But without The conservative justices appointed before Trump's tenure, it also would not be overturned.
So we got to give credit there.
We have to give credit to the Senate Republicans who confirmed the nomination.
In fact, Trump would not have had three.
He would have had only two, if not for Senate Republicans refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.
And in general, listen, it's good that Trump had these openings to fill.
But again, you don't get credit for having the openings.
That's not something you engineer.
It just happens.
And then he filled them.
But what else was he going to do?
Not fill them?
You had the openings this quarter, so you nominate someone.
Of course you nominate.
What else are you going to do?
And he filled them with three judges who any Republican would have appointed, especially Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
Any Republican, put Jeb Bush in there, they would have appointed Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
Those were just the establishment picks, 100% of the way, they were top of the list.
The establishment handed Trump a list and said, here are our guys, number one, and then he picked the guy top of the list, and that's what happened.
You could make an argument about Barrett.
But certainly Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are just like any Republican would have done it.
Okay.
That's not to say that Trump gets no credit.
But it is to say that him wanting to take all of the credits and take it all away from the pro-life movement and accuse them of getting nothing done is just total abject nonsense.
And you are unnecessarily picking a fight with some of your Some of the most important people in your base, people that know how to rally support, people who are organized, and you're dumping all over them, saying they did nothing.
Really?
The pro-life movement did nothing for 52 years?
Well, Trump was nowhere near the pro-life movement ever at any point, so he doesn't know anything about it.
You don't know anything about the pro-life movement.
You were never anywhere near it.
People that were in the trenches know that pro-lifers were fighting on this issue for years, and they saved thousands and thousands and thousands of lives.
Because it's not all just about laws.
Okay, yeah, pro-lifers in the pro-life movement couldn't do anything about the Supreme Court, okay?
They couldn't solve that problem.
We can't do that.
If you're in the pro-life movement, and the Supreme Court is structured the way that it is, you can't help that.
That's not their fault.
So given that massive disadvantage, pro-lifers found a way to go out into the streets and save thousands of lives.
And they did.
And if you tell me that's nothing, that's getting nothing done, saving thousands of lives?
There are thousands and thousands of people on this earth today who would not be walking around if not for the pro-life movement, and that is a fact.
Because they were out there at these abortion clinics, staring this evil in the face every day, speaking to women, counseling women, doing everything they can, setting up pregnancy centers, giving people other options, everything, you know, all of it.
And they got a lot done.
And there's, so it's not true to say the pro-lifers did nothing.
It's also really stupid politics.
And it's just, it's immature nonsense.
It's just, I want all the credit, you get none of the credit.
If you think demoralizing your own base is a great strategy, then well, have at it, I guess.
Let's see.
Another quick thing.
Well, not really so quick, but we don't have a lot of time for it right now.
Daily Wire has this report.
A 60-minute segment broadcast on Sunday caused an uproar after the show reported that American taxpayers are subsidizing Ukraine's economy and paying for all of Ukraine's first responders.
The news comes as a recent Fox poll found that 56% of Republicans say the U.S.
should be sending less support to Ukraine.
A recent CNN poll found that 55% of Americans say Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine.
Here's a clip from 60 Minutes.
American taxpayers are financing more than just weapons.
We discovered the US government's buying seeds and fertiliser for Ukrainian farmers.
And covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders.
All 57,000 of them.
That includes the team that trained this rescue dog, named Joy, to comb through the wreckage of Russian strikes looking for survivors.
And the US also funds the divers, who we saw clearing unexploded ammunition from the country's rivers to make them safe again for swimming and fishing.
Russia's invasion shrank Ukraine's economy by about a third.
We were surprised to find that to keep it afloat, the US government is subsidising small businesses.
So, that's what we're told now.
Originally, it was just military support and weapons and all the rest of it.
And that was bad enough, by the way.
We shouldn't have been doing that.
There shouldn't have been a dime going over to that country.
Because number one, it is a foreign country.
It's not our country.
And that's our money.
It's not the government's money.
We always have to remember that.
This is not their money.
This is our money.
Like, they are actively This is how taxes work.
I know it's not news to you, but they are actively taking money out of your paycheck, that's supposed to go to your family, and sending it to a foreign government.
Not just any foreign government, but one of the most absurdly corrupt foreign governments in the world, in the Ukraine government.
And now we find out, no big surprise, that we're not just subsidizing the military over there, we're subsidizing the entire economy.
We're keeping the whole economy afloat.
Now this Fox News poll says that 56% of Americans say we should be sending less support to Ukraine.
That's great, but it should, it's not, well yes, we should be sending less, but to be specific, the less amount should be zero.
None of this should be happening at all.
It's truly an outrage.
We're supposed to, one of the basic principles of our system
is supposed to be no taxation without representation.
Where's the representation here?
Where's the representation?
Like, you're just sending money over to this foreign government to keep their economy afloat, and they're spending it on whatever they want to spend it on.
Where's the representation?
We're not represented there.
We have no, even any, there's no accountability, there's no oversight.
We don't benefit from that.
I know this is sort of an amazing, provocative concept for many politicians in the country today, on the right and the left.
But, in fact, our government should not be spending money on a single thing that does not directly benefit American families.
There should not be one single dime spent on anything that does not directly benefit American families.
That is the only, maybe it's not the only, but that's the first question you should ask yourself before we spend money on anything.
Does it directly benefit American families?
And if it does, then there's a pretty good chance that it's a good expenditure.
If the answer to that is no, Then not one dime should be sent.
And you gotta really, you know, to argue that propping up the Ukrainian economy and their farmers and everything, to argue that that somehow directly benefits American families, you gotta really stretch.
And even then you can't do it.
There's no direct benefits.
Now you're really connecting the dots, and the dots are going all over the place.
Well, you know, we help Ukraine, and we does this, and does this, and does that.
And then, you know, eventually, you sitting around the dinner table with your family, you are helped as well.
But most of the time, the politicians, they don't even try to justify these expenditures on the basis of it helping American families.
That's the thing.
They don't even pretend most of the time that it does benefit us.
Instead, they just take out the violin and they play the sympathy card for Ukraine.
And they say, well, think of the poor Ukrainians.
Think about them.
No, I'm not thinking about them.
It's not my country.
Sorry, it's not my problem.
I have my own country to worry about and my own family.
Let Ukrainians take care of Ukraine.
Or they'll tell us about, well, this is all that's needed for the fight for freedom across the globe.
I don't care about freedom across the globe either.
I mean, first of all, freedom based on, you know, whose definition of freedom?
The idea of human rights and freedom, that certainly is not a concept that has any kind of, there's no universal understanding of what any of that even means anymore.
You know, many of the people that talk about freedom across the globe, I mean, these are the same people who don't think that human beings in the womb should be free from execution.
So that's not included in their conception of freedom.
So when they talk about freedom, I don't even know what you mean.
But however you define it, do I care about freedom across the globe?
No, not really.
That's not our job, is to make the whole globe free.
It's not possible.
It's utopian nonsense.
And that's not our concern.
Let the people of every country, you know, fight for their own freedom.
So this is the kind of thing that should If there's anything that leads to an actual nine point loss for Biden, it should be this kind of thing.
But I think people are not nearly as upset about it as they should be.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Pythagoras says, uh, it's shocking that you don't think men are inundated with messages that it's empowering to be promiscuous.
Have you really not ever heard of Andrew Tate or rap music or ever seen a James Bond movie?
Uh, well, James Bond is actually the perfect example to prove my point because James Bond, uh, in recent years has been sort of neutered and feminized.
And, uh, it's not, it's not really the same character that it used to be back, back in the old days.
Andrew Tate is not a mainstream Figure, okay, he's not he's not celebrated and promoted in the mainstream By mainstream cultural institutions.
In fact, it goes the other way Where they would prefer to shut him down and make sure that we don't hear from him rap music Is a good point though that that is the sort of the one exception that I will grant so so fair enough that that's the one exception to the general rule we talked about last week where where You know generally in society Promiscuity is promoted for women, and they're actively told that this is a liberating thing to be promiscuous, to sleep with a bunch of people, and men don't generally get the same message.
In fact, usually if a man behaves the same way, it's perfectly acceptable in society to say that person is a deadbeat and is a creep and a loser.
We could say all those things about a man who sleeps with a bunch of women.
For women, though, if you give them the same kind of treatment, we're told that it's sexist and it's patriarchal.
And that is, I think, undeniably the general dynamic in society.
And again, when I talk about society, I'm talking about the mainstream cultural institutions that actually run society.
Rap music is kind of a carve-out, though.
Across the board.
Rap music promotes promiscuity and licentiousness and hedonism for men and women.
It promotes violence and criminality.
It promotes the worst imaginable behavior.
It's actively encouraging you to be the worst kind of person.
And that is accepted.
Even now.
A male rap artist can say things about women that in any other context, I mean if anyone else was ever to say those same things and use those same words and that same language to describe women that rap artists do, they would be condemned and cancelled and all the rest of it.
But rappers still basically get away with it.
Because of the rap music carve-out, the general societal rap music exception that's made.
And why is this exception made?
Well, because, as I've talked about many times, there's the victimhood hierarchy in our culture, the victimhood hierarchy that the left has constructed.
And, you know, there's always this jockeying and this competing among the various victim groups to be at the top of the pyramid, to be the uber-victim, because if you're the uber-victim, then sort of inversely, you have the most power.
And right now, without a question, you know, trans people, it's like LGBT are at the top, and then the top of the top is trans, and then if you add in other, you know, intersectional points, then you get even farther up the ladder from there.
So how does this relate to this?
Well, women are a victim group in society, but they're not at the top of the victim hierarchy.
There was a time when they kind of were very close to the top, but they've been supplanted by LGBT and trans and even the racial victims are higher on the hierarchy than women.
And that's why rap music gets this exception.
Like rappers, because most of them are black, are able to say whatever they want about women because they're higher on the hierarchy than women are.
So that's why it works that way.
But taking rap music's side, generally speaking, I think my point still stands.
Let's see.
That's as close as we've gotten to me being wrong about something.
So that's not me being wrong.
That's a caveat that I neglected to mention.
Texas Dodge Dude says, prisons using free labor as a for-profit enterprise is a slippery slope.
I'm not opposed to the work.
I'm not opposed to the conditions.
My only issue is providing powerful people a financial incentive to lock people up.
And Paula says, working in 100 plus degree weather with heart conditions, chronic diseases like arthritis, you can think that your bad thoughts of them, you can think your bad thoughts of them as criminals, but you should not put their health at risk.
Current prison conditions should in fact be improved.
Current prison conditions should be improved?
In what way?
Now, the first comment, you know, that's, yeah, that's always, that's a fair enough concern.
I still think that in the vast majority of cases, if you don't want to end up in prison and you don't want to end up doing hard labor in prison, just don't commit crimes.
Most of the people that are in prison, the vast majority, have really worked pretty hard to get there.
And to get a long sentence, to get anything approaching an actual harsh sentence, I mean, you gotta go way out of your way to be the worst kind of scumbag imaginable.
That's the way it currently works in our system.
And as far as putting their health at risk, I mean, listen, first of all, putting somebody in a cage every day, you know, there's health risks that go with that.
There's certainly physical health risks.
There's psychological, mental health risks, of course.
It's not a healthy thing.
So there's no version of prison that we would consider physically and mentally healthy.
That doesn't exist.
Because it's prison.
Because it's not supposed to be a healthy, wonderful place that you want to be.
It is a punishment.
And on top of being a punishment, there's just the practical reality that you have.
This is a place where dangerous, where the dregs of society generally go, where very dangerous people go.
And so you have to do things like put them in cages.
If you don't, they'll kill each other, they'll kill the guards, like, you know, they'll get out of prison, they'll kill other people.
And so you have no choice.
But the good news is, as we already established, it's pretty easy to avoid.
Like it's pretty easy to not end up in prison with a long sentence.
It's pretty easy to do.
You know, Halloween is 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.
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 the hundreds of thousands.
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 to jeremyschocolate.com and order your chocolate today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now, by that, I don't mean modern art.
Every true, bonafide art aficionado, like myself, knows that the era of modern art ended in the 1950s.
So, when I say I like contemporary art, I mean the new stuff.
Post-modern art.
Can't get enough of it.
It's not just the use of technology and text and angles and shapes that I'm into.
That goes without saying.
Speaking as a connoisseur of the fine arts, what I really love about contemporary art is how it's a conversation.
There's so much interaction.
Through their work, postmodern artists communicate with other artists.
And that matters because, as Salvador Dali, who I'm always quoting, said, a true artist isn't one who is inspired.
A true artist inspires others.
So it was with great interest that...
I observed the installation of a new statue earlier this year on Boston Common.
Talked about it on the show at the time.
This was a statue that supposedly was about honoring Martin Luther King Jr.
But to all outward appearances, it was just a giant penis or perhaps other body parts, depending on where you were standing when you looked at it.
This wasn't my observation.
Everyone who looked at this thing, of course, came to the same conclusion, including members of MLK's family.
And in case you forget what it looked like, we'll show this to you also just because it's always funny to show.
So here it is.
The 22-foot-tall bronze statue is called the Embrace.
The artist says it was inspired by a photo of the couple embracing moments after Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.
Despite the good intentions, though, it has left many confused.
Trying to see the Embrace.
What else might you see?
I mean, everybody's wondering, like, can we see this from a different angle?
I've been trying to see the Embrace, ladies, and it's difficult, right?
Well, all the conversation about this statue, at least among laypeople and the unwashed masses who are not art mavens like myself, was about how needlessly and inexplicably pornographic the statue was.
I mean, what's the point of erecting a large phallus-like object in a public area?
That's what everyone was asking.
And all the local news stations were giggling about it, as you just saw.
But privately, and with my many associates in the postmodern art community, I was asking another question.
And that question was, how are future artists going to respond to this?
What are the other heroes of left-wing postmodern art going to do in response to the large black bronze penis statue?
How will they, in the tradition of Salvador Dali, be inspired by it?
Well, it took eight months, but now I finally have the answer to that question.
In Palm Springs, California, the city's AIDS Memorial Task Force has just produced plans for a new monument, one that doesn't just respond to the 20-foot-tall bronze phallus in Boston, but complements it.
Really, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the same artist designed both monuments.
Indeed, this is what postmodern art is all about.
And here's what the new monument looks like.
Watch.
There are concerns being raised about an AIDS memorial planned for downtown Palm Springs.
Right now, the sculpture is planned to look like this.
These pictures you're seeing here, some people don't like it.
News Channel 3's Jake Negrosi live in studio with more on the controversy and possible changes in response to those concerns.
Jake.
And John, it is a 9 foot sculpture plan for a Palm Springs Park meant to remember lives lost to HIV and AIDS, but the design doesn't resonate with everyone.
In fact, some call it inappropriate and the committee in charge says they are now listening.
It's the proposed AIDS Memorial sculpture raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in the community and stirring up controversy over its shape.
The round limestone statue with concentric carved circles meant to represent the diverse community impacted by AIDS.
Its eye-level opening signifying connection, reflection, and hope.
But it's not seen by everyone that way.
Some saying it's too abstract.
It's really strained.
I m like a piece of art looki instead of the other way about nothing.
could be about anything a it's kind of about nothin
view that it too closely You hear it called the donut all the time.
You hear it called the word you can't say on camera all the time.
For some on social media and beyond, the design resembles an inappropriate body part on the rear end.
The backside of the proposed memorial looks like a graphic depiction of the backside of human beings.
Now, in that clip, you heard from some haters who don't know anything about art.
They don't understand anything about how art interacts with other art.
These are bigots who don't care about the connection that this monument is supposed to signify in more ways than one.
Instead, they're offended by this gigantic white limestone anus.
They're demanding revisions.
But think about that, revisions.
I mean, how absurd can you be?
According to the Palm Springs Post, the designers of this white butt statue spent eight years on this.
Eight years coming up with this idea.
And during the whole course of the eight years, nobody barely looked at it and said, you know, that looks kind of like an orifice.
It's a little bit of an orifice-like thing going on there.
Or maybe someone did say that, and then everyone else is like, that's fine though, it'll be fine.
No one else is going to notice that.
Which, just as a general rule, you would think, like, if you're making a statue and it even a little bit looks like a bodily orifice, then just come up with a different design.
Like, if there's a 2% chance that people will see it as an orifice, then just come up with, it's just not worth it.
But that's what you might think.
But again, this took 8 years.
So let's show some respect.
For context, that's longer than it took for the Romans to build the Colosseum.
And the Romans actually built it in 8 years.
It took 8 years just to come up with that design.
So you know it has to be good.
There's no way the government of Palm Springs could possibly waste 8 years on something stupid and grotesque.
Plus this statute has already cost something like half a million dollars, including tens of thousands of dollars from the city's coffers.
After all that time, they managed to produce a statue that does what all great art should do.
Confuse and horrify people.
That's money well spent, if you ask me.
Yet, according to the Palm Springs Post, right-wing bigots, along with everyone else with two sets of working eyes, or one set of working eyes, I guess, anyway, want to tear all that down.
And I understand the skepticism here.
You know, we in the art community, we haven't done a lot to inspire trust lately.
It's bad enough when some painting that looks like vomit sells at auction for $90 million or whatever.
People look at Hunter Biden selling his finger paintings for tens of thousands of dollars to anonymous buyers in China, and they conclude that the whole art scene is just a giant money laundering operation, and I get it.
But what you cavemen don't understand is that all this postmodern art is doing is reflecting the society we live in.
The brilliant artists who constructed the bronze phallus and the limestone anus are simply holding up a mirror.
And if you don't like what you see, that's not their fault.
Consider the fact that it's not just our art that looks like this.
Our buildings are ugly, too.
So is our music.
Even our people are ugly.
Often intentionally so.
So-called beauty brands are signing up morbidly obese women and calling it progressive.
And all of this is intentional.
So I've been a little, maybe...
Sarcastic and flippant about this, which is a real change of pace for me.
It's not like me to be sarcastic, but all of this maybe makes the AIDS statue a little less amusing once you think more about it.
Because it's not just some one-off perverted monument.
It's not a gaffe by an artist who has no idea what he's doing.
In fact, it's part of a deliberate campaign, one I've talked about extensively, to throw ugliness in our face everywhere we go.
That's why it took eight years to make this thing.
They did it on purpose.
This wasn't some rushed draft.
It's perfectly in keeping with what we're seeing all over the place.
A century ago, cutting-edge architecture in this country was art deco.
And it was instantly recognizable, from Rockefeller Center and the Empire State Building to the Carlisle Hotel in Miami Beach.
Before that, we had neoclassical architecture, which describes many of the buildings on Capitol Hill.
And most Americans prefer that kind of architecture, by the way.
A survey from the National Civic Arts Society from 2020 showed that this traditional architecture is preferred among all demographic groups.
You know, it doesn't matter, education, age, ethnicity, or whatever.
What we have now, what no one wants, is homogenous architecture being made by the same people and copy-pasted all over the country.
As the New York Times recently reported in 2021, quote, five of the 25 largest developers were responsible for starting construction on nearly 47,000 units in the United States, about 40% of the output of the whole group.
The CEO of Graystar Real Estate Partners, which is responsible for more of those units than anyone else, told the Times that many of their buildings look the same because of government regulations.
Quote, I don't want to say it's color by the numbers, but in some cities, it's color by numbers.
Now, if you assume that the Grey Star CEO is telling the truth and we have no reason to think he's lying, then you still have to answer a fundamental underlying question.
If you grant that governments are mandating homogenous, ugly architecture, which seems to be a safe assumption, then you still have to figure out why that's happening.
Why is the government telling developers that they can't produce creative, interesting structures, like the ones we built a century ago?
Given everything else we know about the government, the answer seems obvious.
It comes down to the point that beauty points inevitably to God.
And when Western civilization was Christian, it created the greatest works of art mankind has ever seen, and the most beautiful buildings and everything else.
Now Western governments are secular, and it's no surprise that it produces, therefore, the dreariest art mankind has ever seen.
Our elites want us demoralized and depressed.
They want us high on legalized pot as we listen to lectures on how racist we are, as we're staring at the same uninteresting buildings that everyone else in the country is looking at, and gawking at sculptures that look like body parts below the waist.
Beautiful art has the opposite effect.
It reminds us that there's a greater power than any of us, greater than any government.
It tells us the importance of creativity and soul and risk-taking.
And our government can't have that.
So instead of beauty, we get butt sculptures and hideous buildings and rap songs where semi-literate drug addicts shout about their genitalia.
Now perhaps on second thought, I'm no art expert.
I don't even know what postmodern art is, honestly, if I'm being honest.
What I do know is that the phallus statue and the butt monument are individually hilarious, but taken together, they're profoundly depressing.
Especially when you compare what ancient civilizations were able to create in the amount of time it takes us to sculpt a giant rectum.
This is a sign of cultural rot, of the decline of morality, and passion, and original thinking in the United States.
Maybe the artists in question didn't intend to send that message.
Maybe they didn't intend the butt in the phallus to be any kind of metaphor.
But it is one.
And anyone who's ever driven through downtown Seattle, or Nashville, or Denver, or any number of major American cities knows that.
And that is why ultimately postmodern artists and soulless government bureaucrats and everyone else who wants to suppress what's left of creativity and humanity and beauty in this country are today all cancelled.
