Ep. 1296 - The Next Stage In The Slippery Slope Begins As The Media Pushes 'Polyamory'
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media starts off the year with a full court press to push open marriages and polyamory. There have been three glowing profiles of open relationships in major publications in just the past week. Why are they pushing this so hard? And why now? Also, the new head coach of the New England Patriots started off his tenure with a speech about anti-racism. And more and more studies are linking marijuana use with schizophrenia and other psychiatric conditions. Finally, the WEF featured, among other things, a pagan shaman casting a spell. Paganism is back in a big way.
Ep.1296
- - -
DailyWire+:
Shop the NEW Jeremy’s Women’s Collection here: https://bit.ly/3RCphRM
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
American Financing - Call (866) 569-4711 for a FREE mortgage review, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net/.
- - -
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 Walsh Show, the media starts off the year with a full court press to push open marriages and polyamory.
There have been three glowing profiles of open relationships in major publications in just the past week.
So why are they pushing this so hard and why now?
We'll try to answer that.
Also, the new head coach of the New England Patriots starts off his tenure with a speech about anti-racism.
And more and more studies are linking marijuana use with schizophrenia and other psychiatric conditions.
Finally, the WEF featured, among other things, a pagan shaman casting a spell.
Paganism is back in a big way.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Last year, because of you, Preborn's network of clinics saved over 58,000 babies.
And thanks to all who made it possible.
Let's celebrate by hearing Dominique's story.
Here it is.
I was just kind of like, Lord, if this is, you know, if this is the way, you know, let me know.
If this is not the way, give me a sign, you know, before I walk through these doors.
And I was, as I was getting ready to walk up the steps and touch the doorknob, you know, a guardian angel.
And he just told me, he was like, baby, you don't have to go in there.
And he was like I know someone that can help him.
Just to see the development of a baby that small and I say baby because I mean he had little arms and legs and I mean you know it was actually a human you know and to see that and to have that physical and that contact once you look at that I think it just pulls on your heart a little.
Each of these babies are truly a miraculous, and every day, Preborn celebrates 200 miracles.
For just $28 a month, you can sponsor an ultrasound and help save a life.
When a mother sees her baby on the ultrasound, hears his heartbeat, that child's chance of life is doubled.
So let's join together and help mothers choose life.
Just dial pound 250 and say the keyword, baby.
That's pound 250, baby, or visit preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
About five years ago, a British TV show called Love Don't Judge featured a glowing profile of five people, one woman and four men, who were in a polyamorous relationship with each other.
And clips from the episode went viral, and the five lovebirds quickly became the faces of polyamory.
And they are interesting faces indeed.
Watch.
This is Tori.
She fell in love with Travis.
And Ethan.
And Mark.
And Chris.
Their four-way relationship is working wonders for them.
The relationship could best be described by having Tori as the hub and all of us are spokes on a giant wheel.
But not everyone understands the dynamic.
I was like, oh, you're kidding, that you're joking.
How will this poly relationship cope with a further addition to the family?
Yes, how will they all cope with the new addition to the family?
Well, unfortunately, we got an answer to that question rather quickly, and the answer is horrific.
Only five weeks after the baby was born, the baby you just heard about there, Ethan Baucom, one of the five musketeers, was arrested for abusing the infant so viciously that she had severe injuries to her ribs, lungs, limbs, internal organs, and had several brain bleeds as well.
Now Baucom reportedly told police that he injured the baby because he was frustrated that she was preventing him from sleeping.
So it turns out that the man who volunteered to be a part of this grotesque, unstable, and dysfunctional polygamist relationship is also himself a grotesque, unstable, and dysfunctional person, which should come as no surprise.
But it would be a surprise to you if you listened to the media, which has been in the midst of a full-court press over the past few days to promote this kind of dysfunction to the masses.
So first up, and this again is all in the past week as we start off 2024, First up to the plate was the New York Times with an article about, according to the headline, a polyamorous mom who had a big sexual adventure and found herself.
Now, this polyamorous mom has apparently just published a memoir titled, More!
A Memoir of Open Marriage.
Because, needless to say, what the world needs most right now is yet another memoir written by a middle-aged woman about how she embarked on a quest of self-discovery, and the quest involved nothing but, you know, having sex with a bunch of random dudes.
That's exactly what we need right now.
You know, there's a memoir like this published every 45 minutes or so, and they're all the same.
You know, all of these women are interchangeable, their experiences are as uninteresting as they are unoriginal, and their insights What little insights they have are equal parts cliched and bogus.
Now next there was a big piece in USA Today declaring in its opening paragraph Open relationships are having a moment.
Polyamory, ethical non-monogamy, and similar terms are becoming a bigger part of our cultural lexicon.
But perhaps the most known type of open relationship is swinging, and swingers are having a moment, too.
Just ask Kylie George, a swinger who chronicles her journey on Swing Talk, a hashtag with more than 2.6 billion views on TikTok.
The community also connects via symbols, and upside-down pineapple is the most viral and well-known.
George recently married her partner, and the pair were able to celebrate with all of their Swing Talk creator friends and communicate within a Discord group of more than 30,000 members.
They plan events, educate, provide resources, and enjoy a safe communal space.
Now, you could have probably gone your whole life and been happy not knowing that something called Swing Talk exists, but now you know, for better or worse.
And that leads finally to New York Magazine with its cover story for its latest issue, promising a practical guide to polyamory for, quote, the curious couple.
Now, before we read any of the article in this issue of the magazine, we should note the cover of the magazine, which you can see right here.
And you can see the words polyamory in big, bold block letters, along with a picture of four cats embracing.
And it kind of makes you think, why did they choose cats for the cover photo?
I mean, there must have been some thought put into this.
They must have Discuss this at some length, like what's the cover photo going to be for our big issue about polyamory?
And they reviewed all the possible options and decided to go with cats.
Which is an interesting choice, considering the more obvious choice would be a photo of an actual polyamorous couple.
I'm sure they could find plenty of polyamorous people who are willing to pose for the picture.
After all, these people are not nearly as camera-shy as we all wish they were.
But you could see why they didn't go that route.
And for one thing, polyamory represents mating habits more often found in animals than in humans.
By pushing this on us, they are pushing us to behave like beasts.
And that could be the message here.
But I think more likely they realize that most polycules in real life are a horror to behold.
You know, we saw what happened the last time they gave us a face of polyamory, and they don't want to make that mistake again.
So they'd rather not show you the kinds of people who are actually doing this, so they show you cats instead.
Anyway, once we move past the cats, we're told the story of a married couple named Nick and Sarah, who have chosen the polygamous lifestyle.
And here's what it says, just right off the bat.
Quote, "Non-monogamy is really just designing the bounds of what we want in our relationship
and what we're comfortable with," Nick says.
For Nick and Sarah, the relationship design looks like this.
Nick and Sarah are married.
Sarah has had multiple other committed relationships while married to Nick.
Currently, Nick has a girlfriend, Anna, who has a husband, Alex.
And Alex has other people with whom he explores his desires.
The easiest way to explain all this might be in the love language of most ethically non-monogamous people.
Google Calendar.
Sarah and Nick share a calendar.
Nick and Anna share a calendar.
Alex and Anna share a calendar.
Sarah and Anna do not share a calendar, but are aware of who has Nick's time on any given day.
Same for Nick and Alex.
They are Sarah and Nick and Anna and Alex, a modern polycule, living, laughing, loving, and doing a lot of therapy.
Oh, I bet.
Yes, what a joy this must be.
You know, if you want a date night with your wife, you have to put it in her Google calendar and hope she doesn't already have plans with her boyfriend that day.
Like, that's the idea here.
This article in New York Magazine goes on and on for thousands of words.
The author and the people she's interviewing are under the impression that their story is an epic, fascinating adventure.
In reality, it is, again, the same story all of these people, all these other polyamorous groupings are telling.
It's the exact same story.
Sarah, the wife, says stuff like, I was on a journey to reconnect with my body and learn about myself as a sexual being.
As we've seen, women like this, you know, they love to talk about their sexual dalliances as journeys, right?
As if she's Frodo trekking across Middle-earth, you know, to destroy the ring in Mordor, and not just a middle-aged woman having sex with different dudes.
And then we're told that Nick, the husband at first, struggled with the whole his wife has sex with other guys thing.
If you can imagine, it was a little bit hard at first.
But Sarah helped him very generously to work through these feelings.
And at one point, we're told, when Nick was feeling especially jealous, Sarah asked him, how do you need to feel loved by me?
Which is a pretty good question for a wife to ask her husband or vice versa.
The problem is that, apparently, stop having sex with other guys was not an acceptable answer to that question.
And, you know, because, why is that?
Well, it's important that the couples in open marriages or open relationships support each other.
And supporting each other always means, in their world, bottling up your feelings while your spouse has one affair after another.
Which is to say, supporting your spouse in this case means not being a human.
It means not responding in a human, natural way to the fact that your spouse is serially unfaithful.
Now, if you're wondering, though, what this kind of support looks like in practice, here's a video from a popular polyamory TikTok account called Remodeled Love And in the video, we see what is apparently a husband gushing over his wife's latest boyfriend.
Unfortunate choice of words there, perhaps.
But anyway, watch.
What I was just saying is that this man gets it, okay?
Because you are a f***ing catch.
And he makes an effort.
He puts intentionality into his communication.
He comments on your posts and your stuff.
He makes plans.
He wants to be around.
He's proactive.
He's got a great f***ing attitude, just in general.
And he's just a delight to be around.
And you deserve someone And he's a pretty great lover, apparently, as well.
These are all of the things that you've been wanting, and I'm just telling Stargazer here over text that while you've had a lot of great partners, there's always been crucial pieces of intentionality missing, but this man gets it.
Now, if you didn't know any better, and you saw that video, you would think that this was the woman's gay best friend, and not her husband.
And then, when you're told the context, you realize that your original assumption was still basically correct, for all intents and purposes.
Now, you may be asking yourself, are any of these people actually happy living this way?
Because, again, if you're a normal person, and you see all this, and you hear all this, You think, well, that just sounds totally miserable.
It's like a walking nightmare, a waking nightmare every single day.
Who would want to live this way?
That polyamorous quintuple that we talked about at the start of the monologue, they did their best to appear happy.
And then a few months later, one of them landed in jail for nearly beating the woman's five-month-old child to death.
The guy in that video we just played a moment ago is trying his best to appear happy and quote-unquote supportive.
But if you listen to these people speak for longer than 20 seconds, which is not an easy task, I admit, you'll find that they're deep, profound unhappiness.
Eventually comes seeping through, and soon it's the only thing you can see when you look at them.
So the facade of happiness lasts for about 20 seconds, and then if you listen for longer than that, all the rest of it is, oh dear God, we are desperately unhappy.
Indeed, even in these propaganda pieces meant to promote polyamory, still the majority of the word count is devoted to explaining how the participants deal with their resentment and jealousy.
So jealousy, by their own account, is an ever-present feature of their lives.
Now, that's not the case in a healthy monogamous relationship.
In a healthy monogamous marriage, which is to say a real marriage, Jealousy really shouldn't even come up.
If you trust your spouse, your spouse is faithful, nothing to be jealous about.
But in these people's lives, it's just every single second of the day.
But they have their ways of explaining that away.
So back to the New York Magazine article again, briefly.
Quote, celebrating your lover while they marry their partner, while supporting your lover's lover's lover while they go through it, is an example of what Anna calls living life on hard mode.
There's a real sense of connection that I think comes from doing hard things.
And I'm someone who loves to do hard things, Sarah explains further.
Some people like to run marathons.
We like to do, some people like to run marathons.
We like to do polyamory, complex relationship stuff.
Sarah's favorite activity for the two of us to do is couples therapy, Nick says, smiling.
Navigating the relationship dynamics is kind of generally a fun thing for us.
It's like for relationship nerds.
You know, there's a lot of different puns you could make, and Sarah talking about how she likes to do hard things, but you know, we're not going to get into that.
And this is another tangent I'm not going to get into right now, again, but Here's more proof that most therapists are completely useless.
I mean, these two are apparently seeing a couples therapist, like, recreationally.
And this couples therapist has, we can assume, given them advice that does not include stop engaging in serial adultery.
So they are a couple that is constantly in a state of adultery, and they're going to a couples therapist And given the fact that they keep going back to their therapist, we can assume the therapist has never once said to them, you know, one thing that could make things better for you guys, stop having sex with people that are not each other.
But aside from the fact that therapy is so often a scam, what we see here is the familiar attempt to paint sin and failure and selfishness as complexity.
Their open marriage is making them both miserable, but that's only because it's hard, you know, and it's hard in the same way that running a marathon is hard, they say.
And the analogy is interesting because, of course, running a marathon is exactly what they are not doing.
A monogamous marriage can much more accurately be compared to a marathon.
Now, I don't really like that comparison because a marathon, to me, just seems totally miserable from start to finish, which marriage is not, but at least marathons Take commitment and perseverance.
And those are the two things that polyamorous people absolutely avoid at all costs.
Being polyamorous isn't hard in the sense that marathons are hard.
These kind of relationships are hard in the sense that it's hard to be a heroin addict.
You know, in the sense that it's hard to be a pathological liar because you have to keep up with all the lies.
It's hard not because you're taking on a challenge or you're doing something difficult but worthwhile, but because you are a weak person following your most base desires, entirely unwilling to control your urges or strive for virtue.
That's the kind of hard we're talking about.
You know, your life is hard not because you're doing hard things, but because you refuse to do hard things.
It is hard in the way that it's hard to be weak, not in the way that it's hard to be strong.
Those are very different kinds of difficulty.
And the difference is that there is no true happiness, there's no true joy available at the other end of the difficulties that you are experiencing as weak and unfaithful people.
Unlike if you are strong and virtuous and trying to be committed and faithful and a good spouse, there's hardships and difficulties that come In that sense, in family life, but at the other end of it is immense joy.
Whereas with this kind of hardship and difficulty, at the other end of it is just more hardship and difficulty.
So a monogamous marriage, which is to say again a real marriage, We'll have hardships, sure.
You're not going to be on cloud nine every moment of the day until death do you part.
That's just not reality.
But there is immense joy available to you if you both work for it.
In the case of the non-monogamous marriage, the open relationship, which is to say the fake marriage, there's no joy ever available.
The most you can hope for is momentary pleasure, which is something you could have gotten in monogamy as well.
So there's nothing you can get out of it that's good that you couldn't have gotten With a real marriage, there's lots of bad stuff that you will get out of it that you would not have gotten out of it had you had a real marriage.
You know, in a real marriage, a monogamous marriage, you could have had the pleasure and the joy if you had had the discipline and integrity to go get it.
So there's no doubt that these non-monogamous groupings are full of absolutely miserable, self-hating, jealousy-riddled people trying to find a way to be happy in an arrangement that churns out nothing but despair and anxiety every single day.
That's the reality for the poor fools on the ground who are trying to actually live like this.
Trying to live like beasts instead of human beings.
Like cats instead of people.
And, by the way, by focusing on the unhappiness of the adults involved, I don't mean to suggest that their suffering is the most dire side effect or consequence of polyamory.
No, I mean, as we saw at the top, by far the worst thing is the untold misery and trauma and suffering and abuse, and worse, suffered by the children who are brought into and brought up in these chaotic, degenerate, and dysfunctional environments.
So, as always, children are the real victims here.
But what about the elites who are pushing this?
I mean, what do they get out of it?
Why has the media, you know, jumped on board the polyamory train all at once with such coordination?
Well, because this is the next step in the destruction of the nuclear family.
Some of us conservatives, not enough of us, but some of us, predicted 10 years ago that this is where it would all lead.
You know, after Obergefell, there are some of us who said,
this is what's happening next.
And it's happening.
We said that the assault on marriage would not simply end there.
It would continue to the next destination.
Of course, we were laughed at, and we were accused of engaging in a slippery slope fallacy, but as always, it turned out that the slope was as slippery as we said, and the only thing fallacious about it are the arguments presented by the people who are trying to expand the definition of marriage into oblivion.
So that's where the fallacy is, but the slippery slope is real.
Now, don't give us too much credit for being right, though.
It didn't take a prophet or a genius to see this coming.
The marital union has two essential dimensions.
It is fundamentally in principle procreative, and it is monogamous and committed.
Once they wage an assault on one dimension, it was only a matter of time before they moved on to the next, and it really didn't even matter which one they started with, because the end result is the same.
So wherever it began, We know where they want it to end, with the death of the family.
Which has always been the number one enemy and the greatest of all threats to the leftist elites who run our country.
They cannot enact their agenda and exercise total control over a culture that is comprised of strong, loving, individual family units where children are raised by caring mothers and protective fathers.
They cannot control... If that's the way society is set up, there's nothing they could do.
The elites, for all their money and power, would be rendered nearly impotent If that's the kind of society we had.
Which is why they have to tear down the family, and have been trying to do so for many decades.
And tragically, they have largely succeeded.
They haven't succeeded, anyway, on a general level.
But I can tell you, they have not torn down my family, and they never will.
And hopefully they haven't torn down yours, either.
Whatever you do, don't let them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, it's 2024 and a lot of us are trying to get our finances in order.
There's some great news for homeowners, though.
Interest rates have dropped down to the fives, a lot lower than they were last year.
If you've been buried in high-interest credit card debt, now is the time to break free with American Financing.
American Financing can help you access the cash in your home to pay off your high-interest debt.
Last year, the salary-based mortgage consultants helped customers save an average of $854 a month.
That's like giving yourself a $10,000 raise, and that's a way to start the new year In style.
If you start it today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments.
So call American Financing today at 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net, NMLS 182334, NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
APR for rates in the 5 start at 6.275% for well-qualified buyers.
APR for rates in the five start at 6.275% for well-qualified buyers.
Call 800-685-5696 for details about credit card costs and terms.
Well, for those who don't follow football, the NFL playoffs are currently underway.
My Baltimore Ravens are playing on Saturday against the Houston Texans, and that's neither here nor there.
I just wanted to mention it.
You know, because I'm excited about it.
Much to my chagrin, nobody in the audience cares about football.
You guys, you don't care about football and you don't care about aliens.
And those are like half of the things I care about.
And yet somehow we make this relationship work.
You know, I don't know how we do it, but we do.
So anyway, for the teams who didn't make the playoffs, it's been a bit of a bloodbath for coaches.
Lots of coaches getting fired, you know, as always happens at the end of the regular season.
The difference is that this time we've got some legendary coaches that are getting the boot, including Bill Belichick from the New England Patriots.
After 475 years as their head coach and after winning like 83 Super Bowls or whatever it was, he's now gone.
And a few days ago, his replacement Was announced.
And the guy taking over is named Gerard Mayo.
He's 37 years old.
He's a former player.
He has no head coaching experience.
He has very little coaching experience in general.
And he's the guy they're bringing in to take over for the most successful NFL coach of all time.
So we'll see how that works out.
I'm guessing it'll work out very poorly.
That's my prediction.
In fact, I'm even more sure that it will work out poorly after watching the introductory press conference for the new coach yesterday.
Gerard Mayo, I guess we should mention now, is black.
And that's a fact that shouldn't matter and shouldn't even be notable, especially in the NFL, when like 70% of everybody in the NFL at every level is black.
But it does matter because it became, of course, a focal point during the press conference.
Which in turn made the press conference a subject of discussion on social media, with lots of people sharing their opinions about it.
So first of all, just as context, It may be worth noting that Mayo explained in his opening remarks that after retiring from the Patriots as a player, he was first a player and now he's a coach, but as retiring as a player, he initially left football and went to go work in the financial field.
And it was while working in finance that he learned a valuable lesson that will help him as an NFL coach.
And here he is explaining that lesson.
I took a break.
I went to Optum.
I needed a break from Bill.
I went to Optum for about four years.
And I came back.
And one thing I came back with, I learned a lot at Optum.
Larry Renfro, Mike Mateo, those guys.
I learned a lot at Optum.
About diversity.
Right?
About diversity and inclusion.
And you better believe it, being the first black coach here in New England means a lot to me.
But those guys taught me, you have to take ideas from other people.
Black, white, green, yellow, it really doesn't matter.
Old, young.
Yes, this is an NFL head coach taking over for the greatest coaching legend in the history of the sport, explaining how he learned about the importance of diversity and inclusion while working in finance.
If you are a Patriots fan, it's hard to imagine a more discouraging thing to hear from the new head coach of your team.
I mean, there are worse things, I guess.
He could have said that he learned about diversity and inclusion from watching Dylan Mulvaney TikToks.
I mean, they could have actually hired Dylan Mulvaney to coach the team.
That would be worst of all.
We're not quite there yet.
We'll be there in a few years.
That's where we are now.
But in any event, this comment about diversity and inclusion, I think, lends some context to what happened next.
During the media questions, during that portion of the event, when they took questions, Mayo and the owner of the team, Robert Kraft, were asked, of course, about the significance of Mayo being a black head coach.
And Robert Kraft gave basically a good answer.
He said that he hired the best man for the job, and that man just so happened to be black.
He said that Mayo's color is not relevant to him.
He wasn't looking to hire a black man.
He was just looking to hire the best guy.
And this is the best guy, in his opinion, happens to be black.
It doesn't matter.
So that's the right answer.
That's the correct answer.
That's a good answer.
I don't know if it's true.
I don't know if that's actually accurate.
I'm not sure if they hired the best man for the job or if they were looking to make a diversity hire.
We do know that the NFL does a whole hell of a lot to incentivize slash force teams to at least consider quote unquote minority candidates.
And I have to say quote unquote minority candidates because, again, in the context of the NFL, black men are not the minority.
So those are not minority candidates by any stretch of the imagination in the NFL.
But anyway, that's the answer that he gave.
And we have no reason to believe that it's not true.
But Gerard Mayo himself had a different take.
In fact, in his answer, he kind of rebuked, indirectly, the owner who was sitting right next to him, and he said this.
Listen.
I do see color, because I believe if you don't see color, you can't see racism.
And whatever happens, black, white, disabled person, even someone with disabilities, I always, for the most part, people are like, You know, when they're young, they kind of make the spot hot.
Young people know what that means.
But what I would say is, like, no, I want you to be able to go up to those people and really understand those people.
So it goes back to whatever it is, black, white, yellow, it really doesn't matter.
But it does matter so we can try to fix a problem that we all know we have.
OK, now, as I said, that clip went viral, and lots of people did not like Mayo's statement that he does see color.
Like, that's the thing people are kind of focusing in on, is that he said that he does see color.
But that's not the problem here, OK?
That is not the issue with what he said.
Of course he sees color.
We all do.
Like, we all notice the races of the people that we are interacting with.
Saying that you don't see color, it's nonsensical.
It's like saying you don't see height.
Well, I don't see height.
I don't even notice height.
Like, of course you notice it.
If somebody's short, you notice it.
If somebody's tall, you notice it.
Of course you do.
In fact, every time you look at someone, you notice these facts about them.
There's nothing wrong with that.
We don't have to pretend, and should not pretend, that we don't notice other people's races.
It's completely silly.
So, that part is fine.
The rest is the problem.
Because first, the reason why he says he sees color Well, if the reason had been, well, I do see color because I have eyes, and it's a fact about someone that I can see, and so I do see color.
If he had said that, then that would be fine, but instead he says that he sees color so that he can stop racism.
So this guy is, according to him, constantly on the lookout for racism.
Even though as a black NFL player turned coach who is 37 years old and has been a star athlete all his life, He is unlikely to have ever encountered very much racism.
And in fact, it's almost all but guaranteed that I have encountered more racism than he has.
In fact, that's definite.
And in the context of being an NFL player, as an NFL player and now coach, you're not encountering any racism at all, ever.
It just doesn't exist there.
Yet he's constantly on the lookout for it, he says.
And this is what it means to value diversity and inclusion, after all.
I mean, that's what it means.
He said he values diversity and inclusion, and now he's explaining what that means.
And this is what they taught him in finance.
Instead of teaching him, you know, finance.
Also, just the idea that there's anything significant at all about hiring a black coach is, of course, absurd.
Again, 70% of the NFL is black or more.
There are many black coaches.
There are plenty of black head coaches in the history of the league and today.
Now, there are fewer black head coaches by proportion, which who cares?
Just like there's fewer white people by proportion in pretty much every other position in the NFL or on the sidelines.
But how do you end up with more white head coaches than black?
A black person who is involved in football and interested in football at that level is just more likely to get into the business as a player.
Going back through childhood, if you have a black child who's very interested in football, the proportions tell us it's more likely that they're going to get involved as a player.
Whereas if you have a white kid, and there are plenty of white kids that play football, but as you go up and up and up, it becomes a less and less white sport, shall we say.
And so for white people, if they want to remain involved in the sport at that level, they're more likely to do it on the sidelines.
That's the way it works out.
And both groups are making millions of dollars.
Both are doing fine, whether they're players or coaches.
So we don't have to worry about either one of them.
And there's no racism involved here.
But the greater issue, I think, is just the idea that we need this guy to pontificate about racial issues in the first place.
I mean, listen to what he said.
Listen to what he actually said.
So I took the liberty of transcribing it.
And here's what he actually said.
Quote.
Whatever happens, black, white, disabled person, I've always, even somebody with disabilities, I always, for the most part, people are like, you know, when you're young, they kind of make the spot hot.
Younger people know what that means.
But I would say, what I would say is like, no, I want you to be able to go up to these people and really understand these people.
So it goes back to whatever it is, black, white, yellow, it really doesn't matter, but it does matter.
So we can try to fix the problem that we all know we have.
I'm not trying to be funny here.
I have no idea what any of that means.
There's not one coherent thought in that whole jumble.
It's just babbling nonsense.
It doesn't mean anything.
We understand the basic gist that he's trying to articulate some anti-racism thing because he starts off by saying, I do see color, we got to spot racism, like that part.
And so that we can guess that the rest of it is trying to elaborate on that point.
But it doesn't actually make any sense.
You know, if I were to read you that transcript without any context, you would honestly, again, not trying to be funny, you would honestly assume that I'm reading a transcript from somebody who was having a stroke.
Or you would think it was a Joe Biden speech, which is basically the same thing.
Now, here's the point.
I don't blame Gerard Mayo for that.
He's a football coach.
He was a player before that.
And for all I know, he'll be a great football coach.
Again, I'm skeptical of hiring somebody with such little experience to replace especially the most legendary NFL coach of all time.
But he could end up being plenty of coaches that have been hired at that age and end up being great coaches.
He could be a great coach.
He knows plenty about football.
He knows a lot more than I do about it.
But he's not a social commentator.
He's not a philosopher.
That's what we don't need.
Any time you get any of these people in sports, like with very rare exception, very rare exception, most of the time you get these people in sports, they're asked some question at a press conference, tell us about the significance of the racial this and that.
What they have to say is, if you can even understand what they're trying to say, it's like the dumbest thing you've ever heard.
Because this is not, this is not what these people, this is not their job, right?
And this is not, they live their lives obsessed with football.
This is all they think about is football, which makes a lot of sense if you're in the football business.
But we don't need these guys to give us sermons.
And in fact, it would just be better if they didn't.
It really would be.
All right.
I want to move to this interesting report from NewsNation about the rising problem of marijuana-induced psychosis.
And this is the part where all the libertarians in the audience, if you were tracking along with most of the show up until now, well, if you're a libertarian, you probably were not on board with the stuff about open marriages anyway.
But so once again, you're going to be upset with what we have to say about this.
But anyway, here's the report from NewsNation.
New data is suggesting that teenagers who use marijuana are experiencing psychotic episodes along with it.
Yeah, Kelsey's back with details.
Well, Mark and Adrienne, when you take a look at the numbers, this really is alarming.
So the DEA says that the average amount of THC concentration in a product has more than tripled in the last 30 years.
Now, many Americans believe that cannabis is harmless, but we spoke to parents who say this drug took their son's life.
His daily drug of choice was marijuana, and marijuana has the highest conversion rate to psychosis, more so than any other drug.
Chad, our son, never smoked marijuana.
I believe he would firmly be here today.
The Buckets has said that their son, Randy, started smoking pot as a freshman in high school.
His habit then got out of control.
Doctors told him his marijuana use was triggering psychotic episodes.
Randy then took his own life at 21 years old, and his family believes that marijuana is to blame.
But Randy's parents are not alone here.
According to analytic firm Truvetta, marijuana-induced psychosis has gone up more than 50% since 2019.
And a study published by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that experiencing just one psychotic episode after cannabis use can be harmful.
In fact, it increased the risk of developing schizophrenia or bipolar disorder by 47%.
And this risk was found to be higher for those between the ages of 16 and 25.
But critics of this psychosis research argue that they should differentiate between the types of marijuana, explaining that all substances can be negative and have negative effects.
Mark and Adrian.
So the numbers here are pretty remarkable.
50% increase in marijuana-induced psychosis.
One psychotic episode from marijuana increases your chances of developing schizophrenia by 47%.
Now, I know there are plenty of people who are big pot smokers and they will reject this data completely, but if you hear this and you out of hand just say, that's not true, that's dumb, you're only doing that because it's your drug of choice.
You have to realize at some level that your refusal to even consider the serious health hazards of marijuana is due to your own very clear personal bias and also your fear of the possibility that you may have damaged your own health.
Now, I would have less of a problem with the legalization of weed all over the country if there was at least some honesty about it.
If there was some honesty, then I still would not be in favor of it at this point.
And I've said before, we've talked about this, that there was a time when I bought into the kind of libertarian arguments about marijuana legalization, and it's not any worse than alcohol, that kind of thing.
But you have to be willing to observe the things that are happening around you.
And then potentially, if you can believe it, change your mind.
And so when we look at what's happened with the legalization of marijuana, it is really hard to argue that it's had any positive effect on our society whatsoever.
I mean, I would challenge anyone to point.
So look at any of these cities that have legalized it or decriminalized it.
And how's that working out?
Show me the positive.
OK, what's the what's the benefit that these communities are now reaping because of this?
But there's always this fundamental dishonesty about it, and what you get from these pro-weed activist types is just a total refusal to admit any of the dangers or side effects of weed at all.
So this stuff was legalized all over the country basically on a fantasy.
It was legalized on the urging of people who claim that there's literally no downside to using this drug.
It's like magic, you know?
It's the one drug in existence that has no downside.
Because it's just a plant, man.
It's a plant.
As if there are plenty of plants that are poisonous, there are plenty of plants that can kill you, there are plenty of things that occur in the natural world that you should not consume, or much less light on fire and inhale.
So the fact that it doesn't mean anything, but that's the kind of argument we got with this absolute refusal to engage with any of the side effects.
And you don't find that Okay, with people who are opposed, for example, to the prohibition of alcohol, which I am certainly opposed to that.
Still, you don't, none of us deny, like, if you tell us that alcohol can cause liver damage and that DUIs are a big problem and, you know, public drunkenness is bad, like, we're not going to deny that.
We're not going to sit here and say, oh, no, that's a bunch of fear mongering.
Of course.
Yeah.
So it was always absurd.
It was always a lie.
And so we're left with the reality, I think, that no matter what, whatever the drug is, right, there are going to be drawbacks.
There are going to be side effects.
There's going to be the potential for harm, no matter what the drug is.
And so that gives us three options when it comes to laws and policies related to these substances.
Three broad options.
I think one option is to ban literally everything, all alcohol, all tobacco products, all drugs, marijuana, everything, and try to have the world's first teetotaler society, at least on this scale, you know, having a teetotaler site.
But I think most people understand that that's not practical.
That's not possible.
It's not even necessarily desirable, even if you could do it.
So no one is, like, seriously suggesting that, or very few people are.
So if that's out, then two is to legalize everything entirely.
There are plenty of people who have this view, where we say we just legalize it, everything's legal.
But we've seen how that's worked out in the cities that have effectively or actually done this.
And it has been a total catastrophe.
You cannot make any argument, any coherent argument, that any of these communities have benefited in any measurable way by any metric from the total legalization of these drugs.
So, three, that brings us back to three, which is where we were to start with, which is that most of this stuff is illegal, but then one or two, a few of them remain legal.
So you are, you're kind of choosing.
Which of these are gonna be legal?
And for a long time in this country, alcohol and cigarettes, and cigars and other tobacco products, just putting it under the cigarette umbrella for now, so for a long time in this country, alcohol and cigarettes were legal, and basically everything else was illegal.
And although there are plenty of risks and downsides to those substances, I think it's pretty clear that that was the best, most productive, highest upside, lowest downside option.
I think that's clear.
Now, alcohol obviously can be incredibly dangerous if abused.
If consumed in moderation, then it's fine.
It just makes people a little looser, a little more social, a little less stressed out.
And cigarettes obviously have their downside.
I don't smoke cigarettes.
And that's largely because of the downsides that I do recognize, but at least nicotine tends to make people more energized, more focused.
If you're standing right next to someone who is actually in the act of smoking a cigarette and you don't like the smell, I don't actually mind the smell, then that might be a downside.
Being around people who smoke cigarettes is not a problem.
There's nothing they're going to do.
There's nothing about them that's going to be a problem.
Being in a society where almost everyone smokes cigarettes is not really a problem.
We were a country For a long time, where everybody was smoking cigarettes and everybody was drinking whiskey.
Aside from the 13 years during Prohibition, we were a country for a long time where pretty much everyone was using tobacco products and everybody was drinking whiskey.
And during that period, we were the greatest country in the world.
Like, we were going to the moon and winning world wars, and we had strong families and strong communities.
Now, I'm not saying that those things happened because of alcohol and cigarettes, right?
I'm saying that alcohol and cigarettes did not prevent those things from happening.
That is pretty clear, but we don't have to speculate.
Can you be a productive, well-ordered society where alcohol and cigarettes are both legal and widely consumed?
The answer is yes.
100% yes.
We know that because we've seen it.
What kind of society do we become when you add drugs like marijuana into the mix?
We've never been a society where marijuana is both legalized to the extent that it is and as widely consumed as it is right now.
And everybody's just walking around stoned all the time.
How does that work out?
A society where everybody is stoned, is that productive, energetic, successful?
Is that a winning society?
If we could rewind the tape back to 1900 and do it over again, except that in this case everyone is smoking weed to the same extent that they are now, do we have all those same successes?
I think there's a really good chance we don't.
Because we can look around at a go to any city where this stuff is legal and you just smell the stench of marijuana everywhere you go and Everyone is stoned like these are not this is just this is not a substance that propels people To be productive and energetic and to get things done and all that sort of stuff And I know when I say that there's gonna be plenty of people I have I have a PhD and I smoke marijuana all the time No one is claiming That smoking marijuana is going to prevent you individually from achieving whatever you want to achieve.
I'm talking about on a societal level, on a grand scale.
We know on a grand scale what society looks like when everyone's drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, because that's what it was.
And we know that it was pretty good.
It worked out pretty well.
What does it look like when everyone's stoned all the time?
We're going to find out.
We're finding out right now.
I would say the early returns are not good.
And I think that that's really the best argument.
Now that we're not speaking theoretically about these things, we can just look at the new information, look at the data when it comes in.
And I think when we do that, we should adjust our views on these things.
All right.
That was only two headlines.
Supposed to be five.
It's never actually five, but that was only two.
So I will briefly mention this one from The Hill.
A new analysis has found that minority Americans will make up the majority of the nation's population by 2050.
Using data from the American Community Survey, Collage Group found that since 2021, America's multicultural population has increased by nearly four million.
About 192.2 million white Americans make up about 58% of the population.
Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other races account for about 141.1 million Americans, according to this group.
By 2050, Hispanic Americans are expected to have the most population growth, an increase of about 6%, while the white population is expected to decrease by about 11%.
And then that leads to a majority multicultural Americans now.
I don't even know.
I do know what they're trying to say because we all do, but in literal terms, multicultural American doesn't mean anything.
It makes no sense.
It makes about as much sense as person of color does in a literal sense.
Because as I pointed out many times, everyone is a person.
Everyone has color.
The other option is to be translucent.
And nobody is that, so we all have color.
What do you mean you're a person?
I'm a person that has color.
Okay, congratulations.
We all do.
It's like saying you're a person of, to go back to this analogy from earlier, it's like saying you're a person of height.
I have a height.
What do you think the rest of us are?
What do you think is the case for the rest of us?
So, and multicultural Americans are the same thing.
It doesn't make any sense.
And it's also, okay, so you've got multicultural Americans, quote-unquote, and then you've got white people.
And what are you saying about, so we are one, so we're not multicultural, we're single culture people?
Is that what you're saying?
But hold on, I thought you said that white does not even, is not even a culture.
That we don't have a culture, I thought.
So which is it?
That we have one culture, as opposed to multicultural, And when you say multicultural, what do you mean, like, the individual people are multicultural?
It doesn't make any sense.
But we know what they're trying to say, which is that, here's what they don't want to say.
They say person of color, multicultural America, diverse person.
That makes the least sense of all, when they talk about a diverse, not even a diverse group.
Now they say diverse person.
The person himself, individually, is diverse.
Again, makes no sense.
Because what they don't want to do is just paint this in these stark terms that they really mean it, which is white and non-white.
That's all they're talking about.
That's all they care about.
And so when they talk about, we need more diverse people, we need more non-white people.
And when they're celebrating the rise of multicultural Americans, they are celebrating the rise of non-white Americans.
They are celebrating that there will be fewer white people.
That's what they're celebrating.
And that's what's happening here.
And this is very interesting because I was told, I have been assured, as we've all been, that this is not happening.
That in fact, to talk about this is a white supremacist theory.
It's a white supremacist conspiracy theory.
A great replacement.
It's not happening.
Of course it is happening.
But when they say that it's not, if I talk about it, and then they shout and say it's not happening, what they're really saying, again, you have to read through the coding, what they're really saying is, you're not allowed to talk about it.
We can talk about it and frame it the way that we want it to be framed, but you're not allowed to talk about it.
They don't want to say that, so instead they, when I talk about it, they just say it's not happening.
And then five seconds later, they're saying, there's fewer white people!
Hooray!
And that is, in fact, what they are celebrating.
But you know, it's interesting that they, when you get to the end of this article, towards the end of it, they say, we're hearing from various people, various analysts and everything.
We're talking about how great all this is.
And it says, despite the increasing multiculturalism in America, the report found that black Americans are particularly affected by systemic inequalities.
Both Hispanics and black Americans are least likely to have earned a bachelor's degree and earn less than the total median population.
Okay, so, you know, least likely to earn a college degree means that you are systemically oppressed.
Wait a second.
Women are now more likely to earn college degrees than men.
So does that mean that men also are systemically oppressed?
Well, no, not in that case.
Not in that case.
What this tells us is that they're still hanging on to the victimhood.
So they could do a whole article saying that non-white people are taken over, there's fewer white people, this is fantastic, we're so happy about it.
But then in the end, they always have to throw in, but, but, but wait!
But the people that are going to be in the majority, they're still the victims, just so you know.
They're always going to be the victims, and no matter what, they are always the recipients of systemic inequality, no matter what happens.
Because no matter what, they cannot let go of the victimhood narrative, because that's all they have, as we know.
It's no question that we're living in a clown world.
The characters and power are straight out of a carnival.
Basic notions of right and wrong, justice, truth, and even reality itself have been thrown out the window.
The world's coming to an end.
How are we to make sense of it?
Well, you can join Jonathan Paggio in the new four-part series, End of the World, as he explains Why the world as we know it is coming to an end, how to survive it, and how we can plant the seeds for the next world today.
In The End of the World, you'll receive a thoughtful framework to make sense of these confusing times and a roadmap to lead us out of the clown world and restore order.
All episodes are available now exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
If you haven't become a member, it's a perfect time to do so.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe, unmask the carnies, and see beyond the end.
Watch End of the World today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
When businesses and schools were starting shutting down in the United States in 2020,
millions of Americans learned about the World Economic Forum for the first time.
They heard all about the Great Reset, which was the WEF's plan to build back better, as the Biden administration said, by making sure that Americans couldn't own property anymore.
They also discovered that just months before the COVID outbreak, the WEF meticulously planned something called Event 201.
Which was an exercise that was supposedly designed to prepare the world for a pandemic that, in the end, turned out to be strikingly similar to COVID.
Imagine that.
And of course, millions of Americans learn that the WEF believe very strongly in social distancing and lockdowns.
At one point, WEF went so far as to declare that, quote, extreme social distancing is pretty much the only intervention available to help individuals stay healthy.
Now, whatever you think of all that, you have to admit that it doesn't exactly square with what we just saw the other day at the 2024 meeting of the World Economic Forum.
And this is real footage, we'll play, from one of the WEF's panels on climate change, which featured a variety of business leaders, including the CEO of IKEA, who was there.
Towards the end of this panel, a shaman from an Amazon tribe in Brazil is invited onto the stage.
And to put it mildly, she does not comply with the infamous social distancing commandments of the World Economic Forum.
In fact, this shaman violates pretty much every fundamental principle of hygiene that you can possibly imagine.
And to be clear, this was not a spontaneous moment.
The WEF planned it out and invited this shaman, knowing exactly what she would do, and then she did it.
So I want you to watch as the indigenous shaman from the Amazon, some Amazonian tribe, walks right up to each panelist at the WEF, and as part of some kind of ritual, sneezes right in their faces.
[rapping in foreign language]
Why should I?
[Exhaling]
Now as the clip goes on, everybody in the audience erupts in applause.
Then several of the elites in Davos give this shaman a hug after receiving her spittle at point-blank range.
It's as if the last four years never happened.
All that's out the window now.
So really, there's two possibilities.
Either they're really confident that their 10th COVID booster is 100% effective, or there's something else going on here.
They figured out exactly what could explain this.
I went and looked for the translation of the incantation that this shaman delivered to the folks in Davos just prior to sneezing on them.
And here's what she said, apparently.
I'm doing my best to do this justice.
The voice of all the people of the forest, us indigenous people, the voice of nature, voice of the forest, we count on you and ask your help, all the people, so that we may unite the hands and hearts and thoughts in the same direction for healing of the planet.
And the healing is spiritual.
The forest, our forest, is our life.
She is asking for help and she is asking that we may all be united in our hearts and in our thoughts.
And when we are all united in our hearts and our thoughts, our Mother Earth will listen to us.
So this is, kind of as expected, Gaia worship.
There's not really any other way of putting it.
The most powerful business and political leaders on the planet are effectively acknowledging that they are not, in fact, motivated by science or by data or by anything.
This is paganism.
The truth is that they want to sabotage energy production and decarbonize the planet because they idolize the rain gods.
Okay?
These people are pagans.
And in ancient times, we know the world was dominated by paganism, and then Christianity took over, and now we are plummeting back into paganism again.
Of course, none of these CEOs would be caught dead actually living with some primitive tribe in Brazil.
So at some level, they know how preposterous this whole tribal fetish is, but they clearly want to foist it on the rest of us.
And that's what their pagan religion commands.
And make no mistake, This is paganism in its most primitive form.
We could call it neo-paganism, and maybe you could because it's a modern phenomenon in some ways, but This is also primitive.
And we've seen a lot of this in corporate America lately.
You might remember the Apple advertisement from last year, which starred an overweight black woman who's literally called Mother Earth.
And in the ad, Mother Earth talks about how important it is to remove all the carbon from the atmosphere, which of course would instantly kill all human life on the planet.
But that's also a feature, not a bug for these people.
But Tim Cook and the rest of the Apple executives, they just nod along, and they're listening there obediently to Mother Earth.
As more and more major corporations adopt paganism, the implications for civilization are stark, obviously.
And we'll talk about that.
Before we get to that, it's important to emphasize that freakish primitive displays are nothing new for the World Economic Forum.
So here's a clip you might remember from the last meeting of the WEF where, for some reason, they decided to put some kind of a musical performance on, and if you could even call it a musical performance.
But here it is.
Here it is, listen.
(upbeat music)
♪ Like a flower or a tree ♪ ♪ I'll throw my head back and sing ♪
♪ And sing and sing and sing and sing ♪ (singing in foreign language)
(whistling)
(swoosh)
Actually, I think I'd prefer The Witch Doctor over that on second thought.
And as amusing as it is to mock these people, the fact remains that they do have a lot of power.
And their brand of Gaia worship, like any primitive religion, demands human sacrifice.
They want to cause human suffering as an offering to Mother Earth.
Of course, they won't suffer.
They're not going to suffer themselves.
But you will.
It's like the Aztec priest is not cutting out his own heart up top the Aztec temple.
No, he's bringing on the slaves to be slaughtered.
And that's the way it's working here.
And to that end, Watch as a panelist at the WF explains her definition of ecocide, as in genocide of ecology.
What she says should be prohibited.
Essentially, she's calling for a ban on farming and fishing, which would mean mass starvation and depopulation.
It would mean the death of billions of people, like, within weeks.
And that's, of course, what the WEF wants.
Watch.
Ecoside, as a word, is becoming better known around the world, and the concept is generally mass damage and destruction of nature.
But legally speaking, what our organisation and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognised legally as a serious crime.
Because one of the issues that sort of pervades all of this discussion is that we have a kind of cultural, very ingrained habit Of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property.
And that, I mean, if you're campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture, all of these things are serious crimes.
But there's no equivalent in the environmental space.
And so unlike an international crime like genocide that involves a specific intent, with ecocide what we see is actually what people are trying to do, what businesses are trying to do is make money, is farm, is fish, is do all of these things that are You know, producing energy and so on as well.
But what's missing is the awareness and the conscience around the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that.
Well, the WF knows how this plays out.
I mean, they managed to convince Sri Lanka to give up fertilizer because according to the principles of Gaya worship, farming is bad.
So the WF told Sri Lanka that if they wanted to get a high ESG score, which is something that the Great Reset demands, then they'd have to ban fertilizer.
Well, what happened as a result?
The country's economy collapsed.
The president fled under the cover of darkness.
Rioters took over government buildings.
There were widespread power outages and food shortages.
The WF responded to this colossal disaster by removing a page from their website about how Sri Lanka would, quote, be rich by 2025.
Yeah, real rich they are now.
They pretend like they had no idea what happened to Sri Lanka.
And of course, most people in our country never even heard about it at all.
And that's because they want to keep pushing ESG scores so they can ruin other countries.
And we have indeed seen that happen too.
Similar economic collapses have taken place in the Netherlands and Ghana in recent years.
Both countries with high ESG scores, incidentally.
To his credit, the newly elected President of Argentina, Javier Mele, spoke out against the agenda of the WF at the WF this week, and he was kind of the lone voice of sanity.
He condemned these people to their faces.
You could say that he kind of had his Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes moment.
Listen.
Good afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Today, I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger.
And it is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty.
Unfortunately, in recent decades, Motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others and others motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.
We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world.
Rather, they are the root cause.
Do believe me, no one better place than us Argentines to testify to these two points.
Now, a lot remains to be seen as to whether Javier Mele will follow through on his campaign promises.
So far, he appears to be doing so.
But the bigger issue is that very few leaders, if any, are actually saying the same things in this country.
And that leaves us vulnerable, just as the Netherlands and Sri Lanka were vulnerable.
The WEF certainly appears to recognize that, which is why they're already planning to get another lockdown.
And this time it's for something called Disease X.
That has not yet been identified, but watch.
After we started putting a placeholder, you know, the first that came was in the disease X is COVID.
So we have experience now and we are preparing based on that experience.
A lot of assessment has been done by independent panelists and experts.
And based on the recommendation, we have already started many initiatives.
And then the other key in order to have better prepared and to address the disease X is the pandemic agreement.
The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges that we have faced and all the solutions into one.
And that agreement can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because this is about a common enemy and without a shared response, starting from the preparedness, You know, we will face the same problem as COVID.
And deadline for the pandemic agreement is May 2024.
And member states are negotiating.
This is between countries.
And I hope they will deliver this pandemic agreement by that time, on the deadline.
Now, that guy is the director of the World Health Organization.
He doesn't even have a medical degree.
During COVID, we learned that he's a shill for the Chinese Communist Party, and yet here he is still in power.
He's already planning for the next pretext to shut down all the schools and close all the businesses.
And that's inevitably going to happen.
It might happen this year, it might happen in a decade.
You know, if you think we can just move on from COVID and let's not talk about it, let's not worry about the lessons, let's not have any accountability, which is the attitude a lot of people have about it, right and left, well, then you're a fool.
Because it's going to happen again.
That's guaranteed.
They're going to try it.
And when they do, remember that clip of the shaman that they imported from the Amazon to spit in their faces.
Pull up that footage on YouTube, assuming they haven't taken it down by that point.
Share it as widely as you can.
Because these are people whose only concern is causing as much suffering as possible in order to appease their sky god.
They don't remotely care about science or good governance any more than the Aztecs did.
And that's why the World Economic Forum and all the pagan elites who are now covered in the mucus of a tribal witch doctor are today, needless to say, canceled.
