Ep. 1306 - The Best Way To Protect Your Kids From Being Harmed By A Smartphone Is To Not Give Them A Smartphone
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Mark Zuckerberg performatively apologized at a congressional hearing for the harm social media does to kids. But the real answer to preventing that harm isn’t yelling at Big Tech CEOs, it’s parents taking responsibility for their children. Also, James O Keefe catches another white house official on camera making damning confessions. A man is charged with committing a hate crime against satan. And officials in DC are trying to figure out why violence and crime is rising among kids in the city. I have a few answers to that question.
Ep.1306
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Lady Ballers, the Most Triggering Movie in America here: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Legacybox - Shop Legacybox with my exclusive discount: https://www.legacybox.com/Matt
Hillsdale - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
- - -
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, Mark Zuckerberg performatively apologized at a congressional hearing for the harm that social media does to kids, but the real answer to preventing that harm is not yelling at big tech CEOs, it's parents taking responsibility for their children.
Also, James O'Keefe catches another White House official on camera making damning confessions.
A man is charged with committing a hate crime against Satan, and officials in D.C.
are trying to figure out why violence and crime is rising among kids in the city.
I have a few answers to that question.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show
There's something magical about reliving old family films.
As I sit down and press play, I'm transported back in time.
The flickering image on the screen are more than just recordings.
They are reminders of how I came to be the man that I am today.
Thanks to Legacy Box, I can access those precious memories at the touch of a button.
You can relive your memories, too.
Simply create your own Legacy Box filled with camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures.
You get digital copies that can be easily enjoyed, shared, and organized.
It's like magic.
Legacy Box is the world's largest digitizer.
They've helped over 1 million families relive their wedding days, chaotic childhood sporting events, and even those long road trips.
And by going to LegacyBox.com slash Matt, you can enjoy 50% off as well.
But you have to hurry.
This offer won't last long.
Start preserving your past and save 50%.
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Matt to get started today.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Matt.
For a long time, it hasn't been clear what could possibly prompt a tech oligarch in this country to apologize for anything, really.
Everybody knows that Tim Cook will never say he's sorry about working with sweatshops in China, just like Jeff Bezos will never apologize for selling all of the garbage products that these sweatshops produce.
And you certainly won't hear Mark Zuckerberg say that he regrets his efforts to manipulate the last presidential election.
Spent hundreds of millions of dollars to influence everything from mail-in voting to the design of the physical ballots that were delivered to voters' homes.
And to this day, he seems to be proud of it.
He also doesn't seem that bothered by Facebook's decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
He certainly didn't release the Facebook version of the Twitter files or anything like that.
There was no meaningful mea culpa.
Zuckerberg just said that the situation, quote, sucks, and that was the end of it.
That's what makes this moment from yesterday's hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on online child safety so interesting.
After some prodding from Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, Zuckerberg stood up and apologized to the families seated behind him.
These are families who say that their children were exploited.
Or died because they encountered content on Meta's social media apps, whether that's because they were bullied and committed suicide, or because they bought drugs on Instagram, or they participated in the Blackout Challenge and suffocated, or they were in child pornography, or other unspeakable horrors along those lines.
And they were all there, and after being, again, prompted to do so, Mark Zuckerberg stood up, and this is what he said.
Who did you fire?
37% of teenage girls between 13 and 15 were exposed to unwanted nudity in a week on Instagram.
You knew about it.
Who did you fire?
Who did you fire?
Senator, I don't think that's... Who did you fire?
I'm not going to answer that.
Because you didn't fire anybody, right?
You didn't take any significant action.
Senator, I don't think it's appropriate to talk about individual HR decisions... It's not appropriate?
Do you know who's sitting behind you?
You've got families from across the nation whose children are either severely harmed or gone, and you don't think it's appropriate to talk about steps that you took?
The fact that you didn't fire a single person?
Let me ask you this, let me ask you this.
Have you compensated any of the victims?
Sorry?
Have you compensated any of the victims?
These girls, have you compensated them?
I don't believe so.
Why not?
Don't you think they deserve some compensation for what your platform has done?
Help with counseling services?
Help with dealing with the issues that your service has caused?
Our job is to make sure that we build tools to help keep people safe.
Are you going to compensate them?
Senator, our job, and what we take seriously, is making sure that we build industry-leading tools to find harmful content, take it off the services, and to build tools that empower parents.
So you didn't take any action, you didn't fire anybody, you haven't compensated a single victim.
Let me ask you this, there's families of victims here today.
Have you apologized to the victims?
Would you like to do so now?
They're here.
You're on national television.
Would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your product?
Show them the pictures.
Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people?
I'm sorry for everything that you have all gone through.
It's terrible.
No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered.
So it's hard to hear exactly what Zuckerberg says there.
So here's the quote.
I'm sorry for everything you've all gone through.
Nobody should have to go through what your families have suffered.
This is why we have invested so much and are going to continue industry leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things your families have suffered.
Now, this is being treated as sort of an unscripted moment.
Maybe it was, but it's still worth dissecting one way or another a little bit.
The implication of what Mark Zuckerberg said is that if his social media platforms had done more, maybe these people's children would still be alive.
As carefully workshopped as this apology is, it's still an unprecedented mission from the head of a major technology company.
Even though Zuckerberg stopped short of admitting that his products were directly responsible for any deaths, he did convey at least some sense of remorse to these grieving families.
And that's the headline that's been blasted everywhere in the media, as you might expect.
But it's important to clarify exactly what Mehta is accused of and what Mark Zuckerberg is apologizing for.
Last summer, the Wall Street Journal reported that Instagram not only hosts child pornography, but also promotes child pornography through its algorithm.
This was a discovery that, incidentally, did not prompt any kind of sustained advertiser boycott from major corporations, unlike the time Elon Musk agreed with a post that criticized the ADL.
In any event, Instagram was exposed to promoting some of the worst kind of content imaginable.
As Ted Cruz demonstrated at yesterday's hearing, Instagram didn't even block child pornography that its algorithm had identified.
And here's how Mark Zuckerberg explained that.
Instagram also displayed the following warning screen to individuals who were searching for child abuse material.
These results may contain images of child sexual abuse.
And then you gave users two choices.
Get resources, or see results anyway.
Mr. Zuckerberg, what the hell were you thinking?
All right, Senator.
The basic science behind that is that when people are searching for something that is problematic, it's often helpful to, rather than just blocking it, to help direct them towards something that could be helpful for getting them to get help.
I understand get resources.
In what sane universe is there a link for see results anyway?
Well, because we might be wrong.
We try to trigger this warning, or we tried to, when we think that there's any chance that the results might be wrong.
Okay, you might be wrong.
Let me ask you, how many times was this warning screen displayed?
I don't know, but the... You don't know?
Why don't you know?
I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.
Well, that's a bad enough excuse on its own.
Sure, it's conceivable that content that isn't child pornography may have gotten caught up in the algorithmic net, as Zuckerberg is suggesting, but you don't show the content anyway out of fear of censoring non-child pornography.
If you think it might be child pornography, you just shut it down, period.
Obviously, that's what you should do.
But the problem for Instagram is that, even beyond that, for years they refused to censor even child pornography that was right out in the open.
According to the Journal, users on Instagram could use hashtags like preteensex to find these materials, and the platform made no effort to shut that down.
It was like Twitter before Elon Musk bought it, when Yoel Roth was running things, and at most, users would get this little dialogue box, which they could easily dismiss, even when there was no doubt what they were looking for.
To the extent that Zuckerberg was apologizing for anything at yesterday's hearing, it was this flagrant disregard for the welfare of children, and possibly for the various federal laws against child pornography that his company may or may not have violated.
And that apology is long overdue.
I mean, that's the least he could have offered under these circumstances, and it's not even close to enough.
But to be clear, Zuckerberg was not apologizing for the mental health effects of Instagram and Facebook.
You may have heard that he was, but it's not really true.
We can be sure of that because later on in the hearing, Zuckerberg denied that there's any research showing that his products impair the mental well-being of young people.
Watch.
Mental health is a complex issue, and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes.
This is the part of Mark Zuckerberg's testimony that underscores why no one, and in particular no parent, should ever rely on big tech oligarchs, or US senators for that matter, to safeguard their children on the internet.
First of all, you don't need to look at existing research to know that excessive social media use is bad for children.
It's just common sense.
You can tell intuitively that children who spend hours staring at a screen are going to suffer as a result.
Our brains are not wired to scroll endlessly through social media feeds.
And typically, when you do things that are extremely unnatural, especially when you're a child whose brain is constantly changing, and it's unnatural, again, to just sit there staring at a screen for hours a day.
We're not made to do that as human beings.
But if you do that, then bad things happen as a result.
But we don't need research to tell us that, because we all know it's true.
Putting aside the actual content that kids are engaging with on the internet, ignoring the fact that much of the content is actively harmful, and degrading, and bad, and toxic, and worse, Just the very fact that children are spending the majority of their waking hours staring at a little glowing rectangle is troubling enough on its own.
You know, if you went up to someone who didn't know anything about the internet, maybe someone who just came here through a time portal from 1920, and you told them that the focal point of life for most children in our culture is a little screen, and they spend almost all their time just staring at this thing, and they care about nothing as much as they care about the screen, that person would automatically recognize that this is a very bad development.
No other information is required.
In fact, he would go back in the time machine to his own time period in a panic, having learned that human beings 100 years in the future have become voluntarily zombified.
No research required to know that it is bad.
But in any event, we do have research, and there's a lot of it.
Researchers have demonstrated a causal link between social media use and poor mental health outcomes.
It's not just correlation, it goes beyond that.
Jonathan Haidt is one of the leading social psychologists in the country.
He's at NYU, and here's how he responded yesterday, quote, Zuckerberg is wrong.
There are now dozens of experiments showing causality.
I laid out the evidence.
And here's some of the evidence.
As psychology professor Jean Twang has noted, Quote, teen pregnancy crime, physical fights, and child poverty are all down since 2010, but teen depression doubled.
It should have gone down, but it didn't because smartphones and social media led to social isolation and sleep deprivation.
It was in the year 2012, the first year that a majority of children in this country possessed a smartphone, that teen mental health plummeted.
And you can see, I mean, it's very clear in the charts.
Smartphones are introduced, and then alongside it, depression and everything else skyrockets.
Twang looked at more than a dozen other possible explanations from COVID to the economy, and none of them fully explained what was happening.
And you can just look at the charts and see how stark the change is.
The chart shows that the percent of U.S.
adolescents and adults with major depression in the last year, 2005 to 2021, is from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, as you expect.
The graphs for the youth suicide rate look similar.
And as far as these researchers can tell, there's no other serious alternative explanation for what's happening here except cell phone and social media use.
That's because this phenomenon happens all over the world across varying economic conditions.
Everywhere that kids had cell phones, mental health declined.
And pretty much at the exact rate that they were getting cell phones.
The same pattern played out in five Nordic nations, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and Finland.
Of course, this doesn't mean that other factors are not contributing in some way to the decline in mental health in this country.
The number of Americans who go to church every week has dropped from 70 million in 2008 to 62 million
in 2022 and still falling for example and that's not helping.
And obviously it's not just happening because the iPhone was invented.
There's also the rise of victim culture in schools, which teaches young people that nothing is ever their fault.
They're always oppressed.
They're always a victim.
They've been trained to see themselves that way.
As Jean Twang writes in her book, Monitoring the Future, many more young people have an external locus of control, quote-unquote, as compared to the 1970s.
Now that means that they believe that they don't have control over their lives, which is a feeling that leads to higher instances of depression and anxiety, and this is what people are trained to believe these days.
So this has been a trend for some time, but again, in the chart, you see a massive spike around 2012, when most young people got smartphones for the first time.
And as far as arguments about correlation go, this one is pretty strong.
But it gets stronger when you look at the evidence showing causation, and that evidence is also mounting.
A study in JAMA Pediatrics, for example, found that regular social media use appears to change the brains of young people.
It modifies how they respond to social cues.
Quoting from the study, quote, this cohort study examined whether early adolescence frequency of checking behaviors on three popular social media platforms, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, was associated with trajectories of functional brain development across adolescence.
Adolescents who engaged in high habitual checking behaviors, that is checking social media, show distinct neural trajectories when anticipating social feedback compared with those who engaged in moderate or low non-habitual checking behaviors, suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.
The study goes on to state that researchers don't yet know exactly what the effects of this divergent brain development might be, largely because this research is still relatively new.
I mean, all this stuff is new.
But it does appear, based on all the evidence we have, that social media use is basically rewiring the brains of young people.
It causes development that is clearly unnatural and not fully understood.
So again, common sense, historical trends, medical research are all pointing in the same direction.
They're all pointing to the conclusion that introducing kids to smartphones and social media use, especially early on in childhood, could cause, and probably is causing, real and permanent damage.
Given that conclusion, and the solution is sort of obvious, badgering Mark Zuckerberg at a hearing is not going to solve the problem.
And I'm all for having laws protecting kids, particularly when child sex trafficking and pornography are involved.
We need all the laws possible to protect them there.
But at a certain point, in addition to that, Parents need to be willing to do some actual parenting.
Accountability needs to begin not with one tech CEO, or even all of them, but with the millions of parents who give their kids devices with internet access in the first place.
According to the New York Presbyterian Healthcare System, 42% of kids have smartphones by the age of 10. 42%.
And 91% have a smartphone by 14.
So that means that almost all kids have smartphones with internet access at least two years before society has deemed them responsible enough to operate a vehicle.
There is just no conceivable valid reason why a 10-year-old needs a smartphone, especially when dumb phones that only call or text still exist and can be purchased easily and are cheaper.
The underlying problem is that most of the parents are addicted to social media too, so they get their kids started on the habit so that it frees up more time for them to scroll their own phones.
And that's how the phones have taken over most households.
They've become the focal points of most families.
That's the root of the problem.
But of course, senators can't subpoena millions of parents and yell at them.
And that's not going to make very good television anyway.
So instead we demand performative apologies from tech billionaires for making the dangerous thing that we ourselves are willingly buying and handing to our children.
You know, it's a lot like handing your kid a cigarette while simultaneously ranting about the evils of the tobacco industry.
In this case, it's tempting to offload all the blame to Mark Zuckerberg, as unlikable as he may be to many people.
That's probably why there was so much applause at the hearing yesterday, as Zuckerberg was dressed down by Josh Hawley.
But there's now clear evidence that children are suffering while this theater plays out in the Senate.
They're becoming more depressed, more addicted to drugs, less self-assured, more anxiety, everything else.
And so reliant on smartphones that their brains are changing because of it.
The solution is not to bully Mark Zuckerberg, even though he's maybe the easiest person on the planet to bully, and I'm sure it is kind of fun.
But the real solution is something far simpler, but apparently quite radical these days.
The solution is for parents to be parents.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
What was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone, and it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson in this eight-lecture course.
Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever you want.
Start your free course on American citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll.
There's no cost and it's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
hillsdale.edu slash walsh.
Daily Wire reports Michael Cassidy, a 35-year-old Navy veteran, was charged with a hate crime on Tuesday after he admitted to beheading a satanic statue that was on display in the Iowa State Capitol building last month.
Cassidy, a Christian who lives in Mississippi and previously ran for a congressional seat, was arrested and charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief after beheading the statue.
Court documents now say that the damage done to the statue will cost between $750 and $1,500 to repair, and prosecutors allege that Cassidy acted in violation of individual rights under Iowa's hate crime statute.
The documents also note that in light of new evidence, his charge has been up to third-degree criminal mischief, a Class D felony.
Lynn Hicks, a spokesperson for the Polk County Attorney's Office, told the Des Moines Register, Evidence shows the defendant made statements to law enforcement and the public indicating he destroyed the property because of the victim's religion.
The victim.
And the victim is Satan here, it would appear.
The Satanic Temple of Iowa had received permission from the state to display the statue in the state capitol, and then it was torn down.
Cassidy said, I saw this blast, at the time when he destroyed it, he said, I saw this blast from the statue, it was outrage.
My conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree, and so I acted.
Now, the first thing that comes to mind here, and has come to many other people's minds, is that we have never heard of anybody getting hate crime charges for tearing down a monument in any other context that I can think of.
And yet, we have heard of and seen many monuments being illegally destroyed.
Hundred-year-old statues, memorials decapitated, defaced, toppled, stomped on.
Set on fire, like thrown into the ocean, okay?
I mean, this is what they've done all over the country dozens and dozens of times.
No hate crime charges.
At all.
It's only when you desecrate a monument to Satan that you get the hate crime charge.
And this is also in Iowa, for God's sake.
This is America's heartland.
And even there, they're charging somebody with committing an act of hate against Satan.
Now, You know, I've said we've never heard of someone getting hate crime charges for tearing down a monument until now, and that's true, but there have been similar sorts of situations recently.
We have seen people get hate crime charges for defacing and tearing down pride flags, which is a different sort of monument, you might say.
So those are the two things.
Pride flags and satanic monuments.
Those are the two things that are specially protected by the law.
Why is that?
Well, because that's our state religion.
Effectively, you know every country will protect its most sacred symbols and in our culture These are our sacred symbols pride flag satanic culture That's our effectively our state religion but Looking at this from a legal perspective Is is an entirely different thing like yes, Satanism is essentially has essentially become the state religion Because it is the religion of the elites.
But officially, legally, definitionally, Satanism is not a religion.
Like, from a strict definitional standpoint, any definition of religion that I have seen looks something like the one from a dictionary.com, which is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a god or gods.
Now, Charging this guy with a hate crime rests on the claim that he destroyed this monument in order to attack a religion.
But is Satanism a religion according to the literal definition of the term?
No, it's not.
Now again, you know, as I've said, you could ask the Satanists themselves and they will be the first to clarify that they do not actually believe in a literal theological Satan.
Or in God.
They are atheists.
So, Satanism is an anti-religion.
Now, the caveat here is that the Satanists themselves do not consider themselves to be worshipping an actual devil.
Now, they are actually worshipping Satan, even if they don't consider themselves to be doing that.
But what they're actually trying to do is worship the same thing that Satan worships, which is the self.
It is the worship of the self.
That's what Satanism is.
Which is why Satanism and Leftism essentially mean the same thing.
It's the worship of the self.
But, if you were to ask them, they would say... In fact, they would laugh at you.
This is what they do.
This is the game they play.
If you accuse them of worshipping the devil, they'll laugh.
The devil's not real!
So, in that case, then how could you get any religious protections?
Religion, by any working definition, involves a belief in some sort of superhuman power or deity.
And you've got them... You have them saying, themselves, that they don't have that belief.
So the question is whether an anti-religion... Should an anti-religion religion be protected as a religion?
And the answer is obviously no.
It's no because it's illogical and contradictory, and no because this is obviously not what was intended when religions were granted protection to begin with.
And when I say to begin with, I don't mean when hate crime laws were first invented.
I mean when the First Amendment was written.
Satanism was never meant to be included, obviously.
Does anyone actually think otherwise?
No.
Even the ghouls at the Satanic Temple, they know that.
Even they know that the Founding Fathers never had in mind that they were granting religious protection to Satanism.
So the whole thing is a mockery.
It's intended to be a mockery.
The satanic altar is a mockery, a parody of Christianity.
So the idea that If we protect religions, particularly the religion that built this country, which is Christianity, that we must also protect cosplaying atheist dorks who call themselves Satanists, it's just absurd.
The whole thing is totally absurd.
But we live in an absurd country now.
Daily Wire has another report.
James O'Keefe released new video Wednesday from a Sting operation in which he talked to a White House official who offered insight into private White House deliberations about myriad issues concerning President Joe Biden and the 2024 election, including the mental decline of the president and widespread dissatisfaction with Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Guerrilla Journal said he met with Charlie Krager, a cybersecurity policy analyst and foreign affairs desk officer in the executive office at the White House, earlier this month while undercover.
And they were at a restaurant, they were having drinks, and I guess we'll play a little.
So it's a 13-minute video that he posted of this conversation with this guy, and it looks like it's a date, you know, at least the guy thought that's what it was.
And let's play just like the first couple minutes and get some of the highlights here.
I work at the White House.
So you're pretty high up in the government.
Yeah, I'm fairly high up.
I'm good at keeping secrets, and so I manage two federal agencies, the State Department and USAID.
So when you say security, like you're protecting... The networks of the federal agencies that you give all your information to.
The mission is to protect information.
Yes.
And we serve, we are like the President's voice when we go into meetings in terms of Discussing and promoting the President's priorities.
Is he gonna be the nominee?
Yes.
And she will be the Vice President nominee.
There was a debate about removing her from the ticket.
Sadly, they didn't.
What the fuck?
They quit on her in mass.
But with him, I mean... Yeah, I know, I know.
He's got dementia.
Yeah, well, he's definitely slowing down.
But they know that he has those issues.
I think so.
And the polling shows it.
They're not going to say it publicly.
Well, why not?
No. - And Kamala Harris, she's not popular, but you can't remove
the first black lady to be vice president from the goddamned presidential ticket.
Like what kind of message are you gonna send to like every African American voter?
How would you spin that?
People would be like, what the fuck?
Like, she's a woman and she's multiracial.
I think that they're really concerned about us.
But they won't say... I guess if they say it publicly... Correct.
They can't say it publicly.
They can't say it publicly.
No, no.
They've got to throw the line.
But they won't say it publicly... Correct.
They can't say it publicly.
They can't say it publicly.
No, no.
They've got to throw the line.
I mean... I'm just telling you what I've heard.
You're good.
You're just telling me the truth.
Does it make sense?
No, but that's what I've heard.
I've had a meeting with Michelle Obama at one point when I was an intern and someone asked her, will you ever run for office?
And she said no, emphatically.
Really?
I've seen all the shit my husband has had to go through and that does not interest me.
Good at keeping secrets, he says.
That's his best quality, is that he can keep a secret.
And then he's blabbing all the secrets to this guy he doesn't know and has never met before.
That's how good he is at keeping secrets.
First of all, when I heard that James O'Keefe himself went undercover and got this footage, I assumed that he must have had some kind of killer disguise.
I was thinking mustache, maybe a fat suit.
I was thinking it'd be like Eddie Murphy in Nutty Professor.
I thought that's what he was going in.
Full method acting.
But instead, he disguised himself as himself.
It's just him.
How do you not recognize that that's James O'Keefe?
He put on glasses.
And that's it.
Hiding in plain sight.
And it worked, I guess.
Maybe the idea is that, like, make yourself obviously James O'Keefe so that the other guy sees you, and then thinks, well, that obviously can't really be James O'Keefe.
Like, it's reverse psychology.
You're so obviously James O'Keefe that the other guy assumes that it's so obvious that you are James O'Keefe that you must not really be James O'Keefe, because if you're really James O'Keefe, you would not be as obvious about being James O'Keefe.
Maybe that's the level they're playing on here.
That's some real psychological trickery going on.
But I still don't understand how this... How does this still work?
I know they're not going to give away their trade secrets, but how do they find these guys that are just willing to spill their guts to somebody they don't know?
Knowing that James O'Keefe is out there, and having seen this exact video a million other times, They still fall, I don't get it.
And here's, look, if you're a Democrat operative, not that I'm trying to give you any advice, or help you in any way, but if you're a Democrat operative and you're on a first date with someone who is asking way too many questions about your line of work, then you should probably just assume that you're being O'Keefed.
Or don't.
Don't get me wrong, if you want to embarrass yourself, if you want to continue embarrassing yourselves, it's great, it's fantastic.
But for the record, I'm saying this could be avoided.
And actually, if you're anyone and you're talking to anyone else who is asking a million questions like this, you should be suspicious.
Not that I'm promoting paranoia, I'm not saying you should be paranoid, but it's like in my entire life, okay?
And you can probably think yourself, it's like the same thing.
In my entire life, I've only met...
Maybe one person who in real life will listen intently and ask interesting, penetrating questions and lots of follow-ups so that in a conversation you feel like you're talking to Joe Rogan on a podcast.
Like a regular conversation feels like a long-form podcast interview because of all the follow-up questions and they're really interested and they're asking.
I've met one person in real life who is like that, and that would be my wife.
She's the best listener and asker of questions that I've ever encountered in my life.
It's not even close, actually.
Maybe my whole marriage has been a James O'Keefe sting, sting operation.
I don't know.
But for anyone else, you should be worried, because no one else asks.
Like, in a normal conversation, people are just wrapped up in their own lives.
And so in a normal conversation, they ask, well, what do you do for a living?
Oh, I do this.
Oh, cool.
And then they move on.
They don't ask anything else about it.
But as for what this person actually said, of course, it should be a major scandal.
We've got somebody from the White House admitting, among other things, that the president is senile.
We can all see it.
We know it.
But he's admitting it.
And the rest of the stuff, the stuff about Kamala and how they want to replace her, but they can't because she's a black woman.
All that is interesting.
All that is newsworthy.
But the scandal is the admission by a White House official that the president has dementia.
Because remember, that was the question.
O'Keefe said, he has dementia.
And the guy said, he's slowing down for sure.
And the thing is, if the president doesn't have dementia, and somebody says, he has dementia, doesn't he?
You would say, no, he doesn't.
You wouldn't say, he's slowing down for sure.
It's like if somebody said, he's a murderer, isn't he?
You wouldn't respond by saying, well, he's made a lot of mistakes for sure.
You would just say, no, he's not a murderer, explicitly.
That's definitely not the case.
So if it needed to be confirmed, we have it confirmed from the White House, from a White House official, unintentionally confirmed, you know, that the president has lost his mind.
And everyone knows it.
Everyone at the White House knows it.
The whole world knows it.
And we're going to march on ahead anyway.
Because it doesn't matter.
It makes no difference, apparently.
And instead, what's happened is that the Biden campaign, in order to deal with this problem, to deal with the problem that their candidate has lost his mind and is senile, they are projecting, and so they've ramped up their attacks against Trump on the basis of Trump having dementia.
So they're now continually tweeting out and posting all these clips of Trump supposedly losing his train of thought and mumbling and all the kinds of things we see from Biden all the time.
Now the Biden campaign is putting out all these videos of Trump supposedly doing the same thing.
And the thing is, most of those clips are pretty weak.
Or they're just flat out lying about what's in them.
Or they're taking a clip of Trump just sort of rambling.
And they're trying to frame it like he has dementia, and they want us to forget that, well, that's always been Trump.
When Trump was 50 years old, he's a guy that just rambles off the top of his head, so that's always been him.
That's no different.
So I don't know if this tactic is going to work on their part, but this is what it's come to.
This is where we are now, where we're going to have a campaign, a presidential campaign, Between two people accusing each other of being senile.
No, you have dementia.
Not me.
That's going to be the campaign.
That's what we have.
That's what 2024 is going to be.
Great sign.
Great sign for America.
That's when you know things are going really well for your country.
I've had this for a few days that I wanted to mention.
Not the most pleasant story in the world, but most of the stories we talk about aren't very pleasant anyway.
AP News reported on this.
Alabama executed a convicted murderer with nitrogen gas on Thursday, putting him to death with a first-of-its-kind method that once again placed the U.S.
at the forefront of the debate over capital punishment.
The state said the method would be humane, but critics called it cruel and experimental.
Officials said Kenneth Eugene Smith, 58, was pronounced dead at 8.25 p.m.
at Alabama Prison after breathing pure nitrogen gas through a face mask to cause oxygen deprivation.
It marked the first time that a new execution method had been used in the United States since lethal injection, which is now the most commonly used method, and that was introduced in 1982.
The execution took about 22 minutes from the time between the opening and closing of the curtains for the viewing room.
Smith appeared to remain conscious for several minutes.
For at least two minutes, he appeared to shake and writhe on the gurney, sometimes pulling against the restraints.
This was followed by several minutes of heavy breathing until breathing was no longer perceptible.
In a final statement, Smith said, tonight, Alabama causes humanity to take a step backwards.
I'm leaving with love, peace, and light.
And, you know, this guy, we should be really concerned about his opinion about how society takes a step backwards or forwards.
You know, we should really.
He's, of course, a credible source of information on that, given that he was executed for carrying out a contract killing on somebody's wife.
A guy hired him to kill his wife, and the guy that hired him, I think, committed suicide a long time ago, or would have been executed as well, and should have been.
And so he's the only guy left, and he was executed for it, as well he should be.
You know, this is, it's like the worst kind of murder, obviously.
That's why it's a first-degree murder, where you go in and you're, you know, you're doing it for money, and it's just like cruel and callous, in the extremes, the most cruel and callous thing you can do.
And it's the kind of thing where, if you do that, we don't need you in society anymore.
You've punched your ticket out of society permanently.
And that's the way that it should be.
And you can't call it unjust.
Because these are the laws, everyone understands it.
These are the rules for living in human society.
This is the bar, this is where we're setting the bar.
It's pretty low.
Like, it's about as low as a bar can get.
Where we're saying, You know, if you want to at least continue living, you cannot do these things here.
And we're not even saying that if you want to continue living, you can't kill someone else, because there are plenty of murders where you don't get the death penalty.
It's only like the worst kinds of murders.
Do not commit the worst kinds of murder imaginable if you want to avoid execution.
And if you're not able to get over that bar, then you have earned yourself the death penalty, and there's no reason for anyone to mourn you or feel bad about it.
Um, but the issue here in this case was the method of the execution.
And so when this happened, and we talked about this before the execution was carried out, there's a lot of controversy over the method they're going to use.
Is it really painless or is it going to cause suffering?
And then after the execution was carried out, there were a lot of leftists and activists that were upset about it.
And there were a lot of people on social media.
Giving all these graphic depictions and descriptions of what it was like for this person to be executed in this way, and how he was writhing in pain for multiple minutes.
And I guess we're supposed to feel very badly about that.
But of course I don't, and there's a couple reasons that I don't.
The first reason is that, and this is the part of this conversation that most people won't say, but I think Why are we assuming in the first place that execution should be painless?
So we got it into our heads as a society in the last few decades that it's like a foregone conclusion.
That of course, if we're going to do executions, that of course we should do it in a way that's painless.
And I'm not exactly sure why that's the case.
You'd have to convince me of that.
I'm not really convinced.
If somebody has earned death By their own actions.
Have they not also earned the pain that comes with the death?
Are we saying that you can earn an execution, but the pain that comes with being executed, you haven't earned that part of it?
But the other problem, of course, is that the whole idea of a painless death is basically incoherent.
Because death, execution, killing someone, that's what this is.
You're killing someone, obviously.
And killing someone is an ugly, brutal thing, no matter how you do it.
There is no non-brutal way of doing it.
There's no pretty way to do it.
And probably no matter how you do it, there's going to be a considerable amount of pain.
And even if you're able to minimize the physical pain, which again, I'm not even sure why necessarily that is important, but if it is, there's still the immense psychological pain Which would be even greater than the physical pain.
You think about the psychological pain.
First of all, you're sentenced to death, and then you're waiting for the execution.
Walking into the death chamber, knowing they're about to execute you.
I mean, it's impossible to even fathom the amount of psychiatric, psychological, and emotional pain that comes with that.
But you earned it.
This is justice.
So the whole idea of a painless execution is a misnomer.
And that's because We're not really, the issue is not really, well we want to find a painless way of doing it.
Because really the most painless way to do it, for everybody involved, would be, you pass down the sentence, you convict the person, you've proven that they've done it, you've proven it in a court of law, they're convicted, it's proven, this is it, okay.
And then, a day later or two days later, you execute them, and you do it firing squad, bullet to the head, you do it death by hanging.
Many of the methods that have been used for centuries are perfectly fine, and they're very quick, they're swift, and they're probably as painless as it's going to get.
And you're minimizing the pain for everyone, even the psychological pain of the condemned.
If you're worried about that, well, you're minimizing it because you're just getting it over with, rather than stretching it out for decades.
Well, they sit in solitary confinement somewhere.
So, that tells me, because we don't handle it that way, that tells me that all this stuff about the different methods of execution and what's the right way, it's not really about minimizing pain.
It's about insulating society from the reality of what the death penalty actually is.
It's like finding ways to sanitize it and insulate us from what that actually is.
So we are always looking for ways to carry out executions that don't look like executions.
And we're not doing that for the sake of the person who's being executed.
It doesn't really matter to them at the end of the day.
They're going to the same place no matter what.
It's really for us.
And that's why I think the whole thing is a fool's errand.
This pursuit of this sanitized form of execution.
I think we should all face it for what it is.
The person who's condemned should have to face what they've done and face the reality of what their punishment is.
And the rest of us should face it, too.
This is what it is.
This is what happens to people that are—to very bad people who do these bad things.
And it's not ugly.
I mean, it's not pretty.
It's not nice.
But this is what it is.
All right, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
We're experiencing a lot of global instability as we plunge into the new year.
North Korea is testing missiles.
Iran continues to increase its aggression.
Oh, and by the way, we have a presidential election coming up in November.
How do you protect your family in the midst of all this chaos?
A great place to start is by protecting your savings.
It's not too late to invest in gold with Birch Gold Group today.
Unlike many other investments, gold can act as a safe haven investment during turbulent
times by providing a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.
Birch Gold will help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
It won't cost you a penny out of pocket.
While diversification does not eliminate risk entirely, Birch Gold's experts can help you
manage and reduce, providing a more resilient foundation for your financial well-being.
I urge you to talk to one of their trusted experts today.
Just text WALSH to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold with
with an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau countless five-star reviews
and thousands of happy customers.
I encourage you to check out Birchgold today.
They've been the exclusive gold company of The Daily Wire for the past seven years.
You can trust them, and I trust them as well.
Text WALSH to 989898 to claim your free info kit today.
That's WALSH to 989898.
Secure your savings now.
AJ Campbell says, sorry to disagree with you, Matt, but there's a perfectly good reason the criminals who went after the pro-life senators weren't prosecuted.
Merrick Garland explained to Congress the crimes happened at night in the dark.
We all know that crimes committed after the sun goes down are impossible to solve.
Honestly, Matt, gotta get with it.
You're right.
I had, that is, you know, I guess I owe an apology to Merrick Garland.
I had completely forgotten about that.
I was, silly me, I had assumed that the Justice Department is going after pro-life activists
but not making any attempt to track down and arrest the people that have actually committed
acts of arson and vandalism against pro-life centers, which also, by the way, are protected
under the same federal law that protects the abortion clinics.
And I had assumed there was some sort of ideological or political bias, but you're right, I completely
forgotten that Merrick Garland did say that the reason they haven't been able to prosecute
any of those crimes that have been committed against pregnancy centers is that they were
done at night.
And so there's no way of knowing, and we all know that if a crime is committed at night,
there's just no way, you can't prosecute it.
No one's ever been prosecuted for a crime committed at night.
It's because it's too dark.
So you can't, there's no way.
That's why the night time, everyone knows the sun goes down, sun down to sun up.
It's like the purge every single night.
You can commit any crime you want and you won't be arrested for it.
Which, I'm being sarcastic, but like in many major American cities, that is basically how it works.
Anna says, Matt, do you realize that even your own Daily Wire colleagues don't agree with your blind faith in the moon landing?
Maybe you should debate Candace Owens about it.
I have debated Candace Owens about it just a couple days ago, but we debated off air.
We had a long conversation about this, and I'd be perfectly happy to have this debate on air.
We should.
We should do that.
Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
Ankush Sharma says, Taylor Swift is one of the worst, most over-pushed acts our culture has ever been beset with, but it's not an op.
Yeah, I mean, you're right.
It's not a psy-op.
Taylor Swift's not a psy-op, as we covered yesterday.
Is she one of the worst, most over-pushed acts?
I don't know.
I only say that because...
Think about all of, I mean, I just don't think that, we talked about a low bar, again, I mean, it's, well, in this case, it's kind of a high bar, however you want to look at it, but that's a high bar to get over, to be the worst pop act that's ever been pushed on the culture.
I just don't think, she's mostly pretty innocuous.
That's, when I think of Taylor Swift, up until she became public enemy number one, for some people on the right, I think just like innocuous.
Innocuous bubblegum pop type stuff.
Really no different from what pop music.
So you could take Taylor Swift songs today and you could supplant them in the year 1998.
And they would sound like it's all this stuff could have been made in 1998.
It could have been part of the pop scene in 1998.
in 1998, which cannot be said about some of this other stuff.
I mentioned Sexy Red, she's just one example.
And it's kind of interchangeable, like she's the... Five years from now, she probably won't even be on the scene anymore, if she's even still alive.
But, so it's always, you know, it's her, someone else, or whatever, Cardi B, you know.
It takes some of these thoughts, like, that stuff, even in the 1990s, could not have existed.
It would have been too vulgar and stupid and just obnoxiously garishly obscene even for the pop scene 25, 30 years ago.
Leaf says, Matt, are you secretly a Swifty?
Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate.
Look, this has been the charge, this has been the accusation.
I realize that I I'm not doing anything to beat those charges.
But if that makes me a Swifty, if the simple take of she's innocuous, if that makes me a fan, then I guess so.
I was thinking about this the other day.
There was a meme a few years ago.
When the left would always get angry at Taylor Swift for not being more political.
And so that was the mean.
Anytime something happened in the world politically, culturally, it's like, what is Taylor Swift?
Taylor Swift's silence about this is deafening.
They were just insisting on seeing her as a political sort of creation.
And now it's like the right is doing the same thing.
And my take has always been on the Taylor Swift question that she's just a pop star that makes dumb music that is mostly pretty harmless.
Finally, Cherry says, this is not a role model.
A 34-year-old who's made a living off of bad relationships with a huge fan base of young girls is not a role model.
I would agree with you there.
Certainly not a role model.
She's not a woman that I'm presenting to my daughters as a role model.
Like, in general, if kids are looking up to... Inevitably, lots of kids do end up looking up to pop stars as role models, but that's not ideal, and they shouldn't.
And it is true, as I said yesterday, Taylor Swift, like her whole thing, She's, how old is she, 35, something like that?
33, 34?
In her mid-30s, still singing songs about breakups like she's in high school still.
You know, it's a little bit pitiful, and it's immature, and it's ridiculous.
Um, but yeah, I guess I am grading her on a curve because when I compare that, when I compare that problem with someone who's just immature and you need to grow up and you're 34 years old, you're too old to be singing about breakups, like compare that to a lot of this other stuff that's out there, it's just, it's hard to find the time to complain about that in my mind.
Lady Ballers is the hilarious story of how a group of male losers who can't win against other men decide to identify as women and join a women's basketball league.
Yes, it's absurd, it's ridiculous, it's laughable, but it's a lot of fun.
And yes, it's happening right now in the world.
Here's a quick look at what is being called the most triggering movie of the decade.
Leftists are losing it over Lady Ballers.
Nothing's changed.
This movie is a straight-up and intentional transphobic hate crime.
What?
I see you.
The Lady Ballers movie needs to be banned.
I'll cancel you.
Can I get the blinds, please?
Go to 11.
The most toxic BS you've ever seen.
You're a monster.
Yeah!
Next-level hate speech propaganda.
That's it?
That's the pitch?
Watch the most triggering comedy of the decade.
Lady Ballers, streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Don't wait!
Watch Lady Ballers the movie that Hollywood didn't make so we did exclusively on daily wire plus now
It probably won't surprise you to learn that there has been a rash of violent crime involving young people in
Washington DC recently.
Of course, there's a lot of violent crime involving young people in every major city in America, but in our nation's capital, the problem is especially pronounced.
For example, between 2017 and 2022, D.C.' 's homicide rate rose by 180 percent.
Other crimes, like carjacking, have risen almost as dramatically during that time frame.
So what could possibly be driving this epidemic?
That's a question that some people in positions of authority are finally starting to ask themselves.
On a national level, the Democrat Party still hasn't noticed the crime, the mayhem, the murder plaguing our cities.
But on the ground, in these communities, even the most oblivious political leaders have been forced to at least admit that there is a problem.
But what is the cause of the problem?
Well, a recent report from some kind of agency that makes reports about this stuff Claims to have the answer, reading from WTOP in DC, quote, music videos and inflammatory social media posts have been a driver of shootings in the nation's capital in recent years, according to a report released this week by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, an independent agency in DC that identifies local public safety challenges.
Researchers spoke with street outreach workers, violence interrupters, and more than 70 police officers in D.C.
who were selected for their particular knowledge and expertise of gun violence.
Among those who were interviewed, there was nearly unanimous agreement on the primary driver of gun violence.
There's a deadly mix of group, crew, gang members making music videos taunting or disrespecting their rivals that are posted on social media, and those videos spark or further inflame neighborhood conflicts that escalate into shootings, according to the report.
While the music videos were identified as the primary issues, other comments and pictures posted to social media by group members also lead to shooting.
Additional leading causes of shootings include drug sales, drug use, robberies, personal disputes such as fighting over a young woman, and the increased availability of firearms, the report found.
The article then goes on to mention that out of the nearly 1,000 shootings, both homicides and non-fatal shootings in D.C.
in 2021 and 2022, almost all of the victims and suspects were black, male, and under the age of 35.
Which is not breaking news to anyone who's paid any kind of attention.
The violent crime problem everywhere in the country, from coast to coast, is driven in a vastly disproportionate way by young black males.
Now, are music videos and social media posts to blame?
That's one theory.
A report from DC's Fox affiliate offers some other ideas to explain specifically why juveniles are increasingly committing these crimes.
Watch.
Tonight, new insight into the crime crisis involving young people in the district.
There has been an alarming increase in the number of teens involved in shootings and homicides in DC.
Our Katie Barlow reports there is much more to this story.
She's live in Northwest for us tonight.
Katie.
Well Kenneth, although there has been an increase, an extraordinary increase, in juvenile involvement in both shootings and homicides, juveniles still constitute a small portion of overall shootings in the district.
That's according to a new report from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
But, the report also notes that over a quarter of suspects arrested for non-fatal shootings are kids, and that number has gone up.
We think a lot of things need to change.
We think, for example, that we need to have greater prosecution of juveniles.
We have seen our kids become more violent at younger ages and have less accountability.
D.C.' 's Attorney General Brian Schwab is responsible for prosecuting juveniles.
Schwab's team pushed back on the mayor today, saying they prosecute 85% of gun possession cases involving a minor and 65% of carjacking cases.
A spokesperson said finger-pointing and playing the blame game will not improve public safety, but also points out that there needs to be a focus on prevention before prosecution becomes necessary.
Finger-pointing and playing the blame game won't help, says the Attorney General, but actually, of course, it will.
In fact, the first step in solving any problem is to figure out who or what is to blame for it.
The blame game is a critical part of the problem-solving process, and usually you can identify the parties to blame because they're the ones saying we shouldn't blame anyone.
You know, it's like the people that are out there saying, no, let's not play the blame game.
Well, those are always the people to blame, no matter what the situation is.
It's perhaps not a surprise that the blame game is the least fun for the people who are actually to blame for the problem.
And in this case, the Attorney General's Office defends themselves against the charge that they aren't prosecuting criminal minors by pointing out that they do prosecute 85% of gun possession cases and 65% of carjackings.
Now, I don't think I've ever seen someone so thoroughly incriminate themselves in an effort to exonerate themselves.
Only 65% of carjackings involving minors are prosecuted?
That's not even the number of convictions or jail sentences passed down.
Those are just prosecutions.
That's to say nothing of the lenient sentences and plea agreements that are often given.
Recall, for example, those two teenage girls who carjacked an Uber Eats driver in D.C.
and killed him in the process.
And they were prosecuted, and the prosecution resulted in a sentence that will have them back out on the street when they turn 21.
That sort of thing happens a lot.
But even by the Attorney General's own admission, And remember, this is a statistic that he offered in defense of himself.
35% of carjackings by minors aren't prosecuted at all.
35% of carjackings!
It's not even, like, just vehicle theft, which is also bad.
But actual carjacking, where someone's in the car and you drag them out or point a gun at them and take the car.
Do you know what that number should be?
Like, the number of carjackings that are not prosecuted?
You know what percentage of carjackers should be completely ignored by prosecutors?
0%.
Anything above 0% is a scandal.
35% is a farce.
There were almost a thousand carjackings in D.C.
last year, which was double the year before that.
If 35% of juvenile carjackings aren't prosecuted, that means dozens, if not hundreds, of carjackers are intentionally and knowingly left to roam the streets.
And that's a number that the authorities in the nation's capital are proud of.
They're saying, see, we're tough on crime.
We only let a third of our carjackers go without even a slap on the wrist.
So is this the reason why so many kids in D.C.
and across the country are becoming violent criminals?
Yeah, it's part of the reason.
The fewer negative consequences there are for a certain behavior, the more of that certain behavior you will get.
This is a basic fact of human psychology.
Any parent knows this to be true.
If a child doesn't suffer any negative consequences for bad behavior, he will continue behaving badly.
And if the bad behavior is really, really, really bad, like carjacking, then you're going to get a lot of really, really bad behavior, and worse.
What about social media and rap videos?
Again, yes, no question.
All that plays a part.
No reasonable person can deny that.
As for rap videos, it's not just that the kids are making their own videos and making fun of their rival gangs and all that kind of stuff.
It's also rap music in general has obviously, for decades now, been one of the drivers of violent crime in our cities.
The fact that there are people who will still deny this self-evident, common-sense fact is absurd.
Though not shocking, given that people deny all kinds of self-evident, common-sense facts these days.
But the reality is that a child Who grows up from the moment of birth listening to music that explicitly glorifies and encourages violence and criminality will be more likely to engage in that behavior than he would have if he hadn't grown up listening to it.
And again, like the fact that anyone would still deny this.
Is ridiculous.
We are human beings.
We are persuaded and moved by art and by messaging in the media we consume.
The entire advertising industry, hundreds of billions of dollars, is built on this fact.
That you can encourage and promote people to do things with just messaging.
If you saturate the airwaves with a message encouraging people to do something, more people will do it.
That is not a complicated equation.
But all those factors are, to one degree or another, downstream.
They're not the source.
They're important points, but they're not the most important.
They are factors, not the biggest factor.
Why are so many black kids in D.C.
killing and robbing and committing all manner of other violent crimes?
Well, before we talk about social media or music videos or even the criminal justice system, we have to talk about the fact that almost all those kids are growing up in homes without fathers.
Nearly 80% of black babies in D.C.
are born to unwed mothers.
Which is 10% higher than the already sky-high unwed birth rate for black people nationwide.
80%.
Which leaves... And you've heard this figure before, but think about what it means for a second.
We usually don't trace this all the way down.
So that leaves 20% of black kids with a father in the home when they're born.
But keep in mind that the black community also has by far the highest divorce rate.
Okay?
So...
A huge portion of the black kids lucky enough to be born with a father in the home will not have a father in the home by the time they reach middle school.
So how many black kids in D.C.
or any other major city have a father in the home for their entire childhood?
Well, it's hard to say exactly.
But that number is way less than 20%.
That much we can say for sure.
The black child in a stable home with married parents who stay married is an anomaly.
It is a rare exception to the rule.
And that's the problem.
Every other problem is rooted in that one problem.
You could and probably should ignore every other factor and just focus on this one for now.
Because it's like the whole story.
Why do black kids end up committing so much crime?
Why do they end up dead or in jail or in gangs or all of the above?
How do you explain the black poverty rate, black unemployment, so on and so on?
Well, the black nuclear family basically doesn't exist.
That's how.
Black kids are not growing up in stable homes with mothers and fathers.
Almost none of them are at this point, especially in the cities.
And that's it.
I mean, that's all you need to know.
It's almost ridiculous to talk about anything else when you've got that factor hanging there right in front of you.
And yet this one major underlying factor is the one factor that is almost never mentioned in any article lamenting or analyzing crime and violence in the black community.
They'll talk about criminal justice and social media and music videos and systemic racism and policing and literally every single thing besides this one thing that is, without a doubt, the main thing.
Your community has no chance of success, is doomed to misery and failure and disaster and poverty and chaos if you do not keep your families together.
And if you abandon the family almost entirely, if you become the first demographic of people in human history to essentially eradicate the nuclear family completely, then there is no hope.
Like, nothing else will matter, nothing will help.
No improvements can be made.
Like, we might as well just give up and stop trying.
If you've given up on the family, then it's over.
There's nothing... Okay, well that's it.
That's it.
Nothing else we can do.
So, this is the thing we should be talking about.
When it comes to the plight of the black community, it's really the only thing we need to talk about.
Or at least, we shouldn't talk about anything else until we have talked about that.
And that is why the people who wish to continue ignoring this issue, the main issue, the whole issue, They are the ones who are today cancelled.
