Ep. 1326 - The Radical Wokeness Of The Video Game Industry
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the video game industry has perhaps done more to indoctrinate children into wokeness than any other industry. Yet it largely escapes scrutiny in the mainstream. We will try to change that today. Also, Democrat witnesses at a congressional hearing are unwilling to say that non-citizens shouldn't vote in our elections. A new study finds that post-op trans people have a higher suicide rate than they did before the surgery. And Ben Shapiro gets in big trouble on the internet for saying some true things about the social security system.
Ep.1326
- - -
DailyWire+:
Take advantage of Jeremy’s March of Man-ness deals now! : https://bit.ly/3TqGI8N
Watch Bill Whittle’s An Empire of Terror only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/49JCJdl
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Pivotal Debt Solutions - Get out of debt today! Visit http://www.ZapMyDebt.com
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
- - -
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 video game industry has perhaps done more to indoctrinate children into wokeness than any other industry, yet it largely escapes scrutiny in the mainstream.
We'll try to change that today.
Also, Democrat witnesses at a congressional hearing are unwilling to say that non-citizens shouldn't vote in our elections.
A new study finds that post-op trans people have a higher suicide rate than they did before the surgery.
No surprise there.
And Ben Shapiro gets in big trouble on the internet for saying some true things about the social security system.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
I'm here today because my mother chose life and you're here today because your mother chose life too.
The miracle of life is a gift everyone deserves because every life is precious.
That's why we've partnered with Preborn's network of clinics.
Preborn introduces unborn babies to their mothers through ultrasound.
After hearing her baby's heartbeat and seeing her precious baby, she can be twice as likely to choose life.
Through love, compassion, and free ultrasounds, Preborn has rescued over 280,000 unborn babies, and every day, Their clinics rescue 200 unborn babies.
Now that is a miracle.
One ultrasound is just $28, the cost of a dinner, or you can sponsor five ultrasounds for 140 bucks, helping to rescue five unborn babies' lives.
Any amount will help.
All gifts are tax deductible, and 100% of your donation will save babies.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250, say the keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
So here's a statistic that, at least if you were born at any point prior to the 1990s, might be hard to believe.
By revenue, the gaming industry is bigger than both the movie industry and the music industry combined.
And for the past several years, it hasn't been especially close.
The difference is consistently more than $100 billion per year.
So, video games are a massive market, one that's mostly targeted at young people, of course.
But despite those numbers, for the most part, the games industry has avoided mainstream scrutiny.
You'll see far more discussion about, say, Sidney Sweeney or Taylor Swift than you'll ever see about prominent video game voice actors and directors who pretty much No one knows anything about.
Everyone's heard of Lionsgate or Paramount, but almost no one's heard of studios like Don't Nod Entertainment, for example.
And that's significant because these no-name studios are behind the single most coordinated effort to indoctrinate millions of children through entertainment that's ever occurred in this country.
This effort is maybe more powerful than the teachers' unions, if only because these propagandists mostly work in secret.
Even if you homeschool your children, they're not immune to it.
You might have heard something about one of the companies behind this indoctrination effort called Sweet Baby Inc.
or SBI.
In a moment, I'll get into the details about what exactly that organization is doing and who's helping them do it.
But first, I want to get the good news out of the way.
Which is that if there's any silver lining, it's that this effort to indoctrinate children is incredibly ham-fisted.
Some of the dumbest people in the world are behind it.
So take that studio I just mentioned, Don't Nod Entertainment.
They're behind the very popular Life is Strange video game series, which has been played by tens of millions of people.
And to give you an idea of how overt the propaganda is in Life is Strange, here's just one mercifully short sequence involving, what else, A racist white guy.
There's some backstory about how he kidnapped an innocent Hispanic kid or something.
And then this.
Watch.
Gonna tell the police you kidnapped me.
Nice try.
But I know who you are and what you did in Seattle.
I saw it in the paper.
Maybe I should call ICE to make sure you're a citizen.
F*** you, hillbilly.
I'm American.
Watch it, punk.
Whatever.
I'm going to jail for this.
Pretty sure the local police will vouch for me over a thug like you.
Where's my brother?
Wish I knew.
Little s*** took off.
I'll find him.
Don't worry.
If you touch him- You think I'd hurt a little boy?
Guess you didn't have any second thoughts about leading him out into the middle of nowhere, though.
That's real safe for a little kid.
If he's lucky, he won't end up like his criminal big brother.
Just let me go!
Please!
You're the reason we need to build that wall.
You hold tight.
Now, I guess I lied.
I said that it was mercifully short, but that felt like three hours long.
And I will say also that, you know, this is neither here nor there.
Well, maybe it's not, but, you know, when I... Obviously, I don't pay much attention to video games.
When I started looking into the story we're talking about now and watching some of these videos, I was...
Like, I sort of expected the graphics and just the overall quality to be better now than it is, because really low quality all around.
But he says we need to build a wall.
That's according to the white racist kidnapping the innocent Hispanic boy.
And this is a game that if Wikipedia is to be believed received generally positive reviews upon release, critics praised the story.
So we can conclude that the bar is incredibly low in this entire industry.
All the developers have to do is beat their audience over the head with rote left-wing propaganda, and their game will be well-reviewed and well-received.
The more recent game, Suicide Squad, is another prominent example.
They decided to write a story about Batman's toxic masculinity, which ended with a girl boss shooting Batman.
Spoiler, I apologize for that, should have warned you.
Anyway, here's part of that sequence.
You had a good run, Brucie.
Flying around Gotham, punching bad guys, cleaning up the streets, causing long-term mental and emotional damage to everyone you knew.
It's our turn now.
After all we've been through.
But you didn't think it'd be me at the end, huh, Bates?
Are we done with your bad stand-up routine?
Almost.
But you always gotta end on your best joke.
[MUSIC]
I can't anymore.
That's, okay, well, you can imagine just how many purple haired women must work at
I mean, they probably provide the hair dye on tap in their company.
Now, I didn't play that game, obviously.
I haven't played any of these games.
I'm not a video game fan or player, as most people, I think, know by now.
But the point is that these clips were all over the internet because of how awful they are.
They're just terrible in every way, even just from a quality perspective.
Again, they're bad, even if you happen to agree with their politics.
But the fact remains that For children of a certain age, the propaganda doesn't need to be subtle.
All they got to do is present it to children and it can be effective.
And that's why some anonymous people using the games platform Steam decided to figure out exactly who's putting this garbage in games and why.
They found that the company I mentioned earlier called Sweet Baby Inc.
I have to say, no relation to the Sweet Baby gang.
I swear off any association.
I would file a lawsuit for copyright infringement if not for the fact that I don't have a copyright, and also Sweet Baby Inc.
existed first, technically, but never mind that.
Anyway, these people on Steam found that Sweet Baby Inc.
has contracted with major publishers to push the principles of DEI in video games as aggressively as possible.
Sweet Baby anchor SBI worked with the developers of the game I just showed you, Suicide Squad, and they've also had a role in several other major releases recently.
On their website, SBI boasts that they're committed to installing principles of diversity into games, and they do it forcibly.
In fact, the founder and CEO of SBI, a woman named Kim Belair, recently spoke to game developers and instructed them to threaten their companies unless they comply with Sweet Baby's DEI mandates.
Watch.
And if you're in development, and you are part of like that dominant voice, you're like a cis, hetero, white dude, or just adjacent to that, do not wait until the end to call your consultants.
Bring them in at the beginning, and instead of asking them, hey, is this very racist thing we did very racist, or is this deeply offensive thing we did deeply offensive, are you hurt by it?
Ask them what they want to see.
Ask them what would thrill them, what would bring them joy, and if you have a team lead, put that request to them very, very early.
If you're a creative working in AAA, which I did for many, many years, put this stuff up to your higher-ups.
And if they don't see the value in what you're asking for when you ask for consultants, when you ask for research, go have a coffee with your marketing team and just terrify them with the possibility of what's going to happen if they don't give you what you want.
So this is how DEI works in every industry, of course.
The goal is not to improve the company's product in any way.
It's to blackmail companies and threaten them into submission.
And in this case, they're just saying it out loud.
Pay the DEI tax or we will destroy you.
Only in the games industry, where everyone is dumber than they are in every other industry, do they just come right out and say it as directly as that.
Along these lines, as you might have guessed, so-called games journalists are somehow even dumber than journalists in other industries, too, which, I mean, is really, really saying something.
They're just completely unable to hide their real goals or display any hint of subtlety whatsoever.
For example, in response to clips like this surfacing, Games writers have produced several articles portraying SBI as the victim of a harassment campaign by which they mean people are noticing what SBI is doing and we know that on the left the worst thing you can ever do is just notice.
Noticing is the greatest crime of all.
People are noticing and so that's harassment.
It's harassment to notice.
For example, here's how a writer for the website Polygon, Joshua Rivera, has responded to people who are concerned about SBI.
SBI quote, he says quote, in a just world, these clowns would have their Steam accounts
turned off, their PlayStations bricked, and get booted from any respectable social platform.
So in the games industry, the journalists just come right out and demand that you're
deleted from the internet if you dare to look deeper into their narrative or to question
anything they say.
So let's look deeper into the narrative in that case.
In a recent podcast, Kim Blair explains that her company's mandate is to make every game political.
There has to be diverse representation in all contexts, even in, say, World War I. Watch.
A lot of the time that kind of sensitivity work results in cuts of certain things or slight changes.
But what I prefer to do, and I don't really call it sensitivity reading, but I think of it as just bringing representation to something, is trying to build a narrative and a story that include Moments and elements custom-made to bring representation and joy to people.
And so that's kind of where Sweet Baby lands on it.
And I think it's the same way when we put diversity into the past.
People go, oh no, but you're just putting diversity in.
They don't even feel ready because they've been exposed to so much, whether it's whitewashed, whether it's just colonized media, that they go, oh, there can't possibly have been diversity back then because my understanding of it was that This was a homogenous time.
And so I think I look at it like that.
Or they make excuses for it, like, yeah, well sure, okay, maybe there were some women in World War I that were on the frontlines, but it was only in these specific situations, so we shouldn't show it in the game.
Exactly.
You have so much of that happening, and for me, there are so many leaps that we already take with history.
There are so many things that we decide are true, and so many of the protagonists that we choose for our games are exceptional by their nature.
So why not take that further?
So, SBI wants to, quote, build a narrative and a story that includes moments and elements custom-made to bring representation and joy to people.
And she uses the example of World War I. Well, if you're familiar with the history at all, there were not a lot of women fighting on the front lines of World War I. But they shoehorn that into their game anyway, because at every possible opportunity, they need to minimize and demonize white men.
White men cannot be the hero of anything, even historical events where they were the heroes.
Like World War I. And many other historical events, by the way.
White men have been the heroes of many historical events.
But, you know, that can't be allowed to happen in games, because they have to attack white men whenever possible.
We're seeing this at all levels in the gaming industry.
Here, for example, is Dani LeLanders.
She worked, reportedly used to work at Sweet Baby Inc.
just a year ago, and now she works for a studio at EA, one of the biggest game studios on the planet.
And watch as she explains why she doesn't hire white people on her team, because apparently they commit all kinds of microaggressions.
Watch.
I have a team of 21 right now for Validate.
It's a pretty big team.
It's a crazy big team for indie games.
But who is your team?
Validate has a team of mostly people, mostly all people of color.
We have no white people on our team.
I did that because I wanted to create a safe environment.
And I know the best way for an environment to be safe is to be around people who are just like me.
Um, and I'm not saying that white people in the industry are creating unsafe environments.
I'm not saying that.
That is not what I'm saying.
I am saying that sometimes it is hard to work with white people because they think that something may be okay, but it was really a microaggression.
And no one wants to deal with that while you're trying to make a game that they love.
Now, notice that she doesn't say what the microaggressions were that these terrible white people committed.
We can imagine.
Maybe those nasty white people said something nice about her hair.
Maybe they asked where she was from.
Maybe they said, hey, cut that line of dialogue about building the wall.
It's a little too on the nose.
Who knows?
In any event, this is an employee of a major game studio straight up admitting that she doesn't hire white people.
And that's not just unethical, it's illegal.
Hey, you're not allowed to do that.
And it's the kind of thing that's usually left unsaid in major corporations, but it's standard practice in the games industry.
Just come right out and announce it.
Because, you know, this is what makes people of color safe.
Which, by the way, every time this comes up, that people of color, quote-unquote, people of color are unsafe against white people, when they're around white people.
On top of everything else, it's just like, factually, that's completely wrong.
A black person, statistically, is much more likely to commit an act of violence against a white person than the other way.
And that's just, there's no getting around it, it's just a fact.
To give another example, also in response to the FBI story, a senior editor at the gaming site Kotaku wrote, quote, Now the people writing this garbage are true believers.
They are the low-IQ foot soldiers.
But the reason they're so well-funded is more interesting.
As the former games executive Mark Kern explained this week, the cost of producing games is extremely high.
It's higher than it's ever been, in fact.
So game studios are looking to raise money in any way possible.
And one way to get a lot of money is through ESG financing.
Watch.
It's not that gamers are, you know, upset about, you know, oh, hey, we have some diversity in the game.
It's actually the way that they go about it with pure tokenism, with phoning in weak characters instead of creating strong new characters.
And more importantly, it's about a vindictiveness to destroy the past, to destroy the IP, to ignore the source material.
and to tear apart these beloved characters in some sort of fitful rage
that we don't understand and is very disingenuous.
And I think that is the tremendous reaction to Suicide Squad.
And this is going to have an immense financial impact.
The way games are funded, you don't use your own money.
Even EA.
Games are hugely expensive to make.
They're upwards of $250, sometimes $600 million for certain live games.
It's incredibly how expensive they are.
And to do that, Your CFO is your best friend. You're counting on your CFO
to get you tax breaks to get you in to put studios and regions which are financially favorable. And you will
borrow the cheap money, you will get as cheap money to even EA does this. I worked with EA, we were putting together a
deal where they were taking bailout money from the banks in the last financial crisis that we had. And they were
applying that cheap money towards games. Same thing with COVID money, they're applying that cheap money towards
games.
And what has been the cheapest money while interest rates were still low, you know, a couple of years ago, it was ESG
financing.
And so they're going to take this money and they're going to put it into games.
So what ESG financing entails, Kern goes on to say, is that game studios have to agree to all kinds of conditions,
including hiring companies like SBI to diversify their games.
In other words, what's happening here is much bigger than SBI.
It's about the companies that fund SBI.
And that includes a fund called Baby Ghosts, which is also run by anti-white managers who are proud of their bigotry.
It also includes the biggest institutional investors on the planet, like Vanguard and BlackRock, which own a substantial portion of gaming companies like Microsoft.
And these entities are creating the incentives.
The only good news, as Kern points out later in that interview, is that ESG financing is drying up, in part because interest rates are changing and there's more exposure than ever to this propaganda, which makes it less effective.
The U.S.
government appears to be aware of that, and they view it as a potential problem.
They want the propaganda to continue.
And we know that because on its website, a non-profit called Take This labels all criticism of SBI as harassment, and they're coordinating a response to it.
What's Take This?
Well, apparently, according to the website, they are a mental health non-profit that's funded by the Department of Homeland Security.
In other words, your tax dollars are paying for the defense of propagandists targeting children in the video game industry.
For some reason, DHS is involved.
And actually, it's worse than that.
As the Intercept reported this month, quote, "Gaming companies are coordinating with the FBI
and Department of Homeland Security to root out so-called domestic violent extremist content,
according to a new government report." Noting that mechanisms have been established with social
media companies to police extremism, the report recommends that the national security agencies
establish new and similar processes with the vast gaming industry. So what this means is that
the video game industry, without a lot of fanfare, has transformed into a tool of both propaganda
and surveillance.
It's an effective way to indoctrinate children, precisely because it hasn't received much attention, and also because children spend, many of them, hundreds of hours a year, and that might be an undercount, a severe undercount, with this kind of content.
So it should get a lot of our attention.
And now finally, that attention is here.
And it's yet another reason to keep these games as far away from your children as possible.
And if you do that, games journalists, literally the lowest form of journalists on the planet, will accuse you of harassment.
And that's exactly how you'll know that you're doing the right thing.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is given by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
So we'll start here.
Health and science reporter Benjamin Ryan, who's written for the Washington Post, New York Times, and other publications, has a report that he shared on Twitter.
And interestingly enough, this guy has gone after me many times in the past.
for being a transphobe or whatever, but much to his credit, he reports this.
"Study finds that the attempted suicide rate among transgender women who received a vaginoplasty in
California was twice as high during the period after the surgery compared with the period before
the surgery." And of course, as you know, transgender women, we're talking about men
who call themselves women, who get a surgery to have a fake vagina installed by mutilating their
genitals.
The investigators analyzed data on all 868 people who received a vaginoplasty and 357 people who received a phalloplasty in California from 2012 to 2018.
There were an average of two years of data before and after surgery.
A total of 22% of the vaginoplasty group and 21% of the phalloplasty group had at least one ER or inpatient psych encounter during the study period, whether before or after surgery.
If there was a psych encounter prior to surgery, 34% of the vaginoplasty group and 27% of the phalloplasty group had a psych encounter after surgery.
Among those receiving vaginoplasty, the rate of suicide attempts was twice as high after the surgery at 3.3% compared with before at 1.5%.
3% compared with before at 1.5%.
Okay, so we're told that so-called gender-affirming care prevents suicide, but
of course, there was never any evidence to support that.
It was just an assertion.
It was an assumption, repeated as fact ad nauseum.
And as I've had to remind everyone many times up until now, you know, up until now, almost all factual claims about the benefits of these procedures were and had to be speculative at best.
Because these procedures had never, until recently, been performed at a scale that allowed us to study it and come to any kinds of real, you know, reliable conclusions.
You know, you can't really study the effect of something on the population if it's not happening, or if it's only happening in vanishingly small cases.
You need it to happen a bunch, and then you can study it.
So all we could do was make assumptions up until now.
And of course, the only logical assumptions were that sexual butchery would have dire physical and psychological effects.
Really, we didn't need to study it.
We never should.
Someone tells you what a vaginoplasty is, even if you had no other information, If you are a sane person, you hear that, and you don't need to say, well, let me see the studies.
Let me see what the studies have to say.
You immediately know, well, no, we can't do that.
We can't do that to people.
Are you kidding me?
It's just not the kind of theory we should ever need to test out.
We should just know, as a society, that it's a terrible idea, and we should never do it.
But we have done it.
And we've done it a lot at this point, so now we do have the studies.
And this is what they say.
We were told that suicide rates would go down, and instead they went up.
And of course they did.
Of course they did.
In fact, you know, I cannot imagine myself being suicidal, but if I woke up one day and found that this had been done to me, yes, I would be suicidal.
In fact, I can't imagine not being suicidal if this was done to you.
Because it's such a horror.
It is the worst horror you can imagine.
And you're trapping people in a mutilated, destroyed body.
You're turning them into carved-up, disfigured versions of themselves.
Of course that doesn't help their mental well-being.
And you probably understand this already, but for anyone who doesn't, a vaginoplasty destroys the male genitalia and creates in its place a permanent open wound.
It creates something that the surgeon will call a vagina, but that is not what it is.
It will never have the function of female genitals.
It won't function as that.
It won't look like that.
The only people who, you know, So what that tells us is that the only people who undergo this procedure and at the end of it won't be overcome with crushing despair are those who go into this procedure fully understanding that they're not creating a vagina, they're not going to have a vagina, it's impossible, and that really what they're doing is castrating themselves and then they're going to walk around for the rest of their lives with a festering wound between their legs.
So, the only people who potentially could come out on the other side of this, not suicidal, are those who know that going in.
And then, in theory, maybe some of them won't be disappointed with the result because they know that's what the result's going to be.
But, you know, obviously if there are any patients in that category, Those are deeply sick, mentally, emotionally, spiritually deeply sick people.
And if you want that done to your body and you understand what you're doing and you still want it done, then you are a very, very sick person.
And you need help with that.
You need help with that mental sickness that you're suffering from.
The last thing you need is for this mutilation to really occur.
The fact that you want it done is evidence of a deep, deep problem.
And yet, the vast majority of men who undergo this procedure to turn their genitals into a permanent open wound, they don't actually want that.
That's not what they want.
They do, in fact, want and think that they will be getting an actual vagina.
Actual female genitalia.
Now, of course, wanting that also is sick, as a man.
But, you know, for most of the people, that's what they want.
And they think that they will get it.
And they don't understand that they can never have that.
They won't ever have it.
They will never have a female body.
Doesn't matter how badly they want it.
Doesn't matter how sad it makes them that they don't have a female body.
They never will.
Ever.
They get this one body and this one life and that's it and it will never be anything else.
And so the vast majority go into it profoundly confused and delusional and those people will wake up from the surgery horrified and plagued with regret.
And they will live their lives in despair for as long as their lives continue after it.
And for some of them, it won't continue very long, unfortunately.
You know, I've used the analogy before of a man who, you know, goes to a surgeon asking for his arms to be removed and replaced with wings because he wants to be a bird.
And it's a very close analogy because, you know, even if his arms are removed, And these weird wing-like extremities are put in its place.
He won't actually be a bird.
And he won't even be able to fly.
He'll be stuck instead with these useless feathery flaps of skin.
He'll no longer have human arms, but he'll also be no closer to being a bird.
He won't even be like one inch closer on the path to birdhood after the surgery.
Not any closer.
After he gets the surgery, he will be as much not a bird as I am, or you are.
The surgery will not advance him towards that goal, and yet he will still have sacrificed one of the defining physical elements of being human.
So he's given that up, and received nothing in its place.
Nothing but those big, unmovable flaps that don't even really look like wings, and certainly don't function as them.
So it's just, it's the worst trade-off imaginable.
You give up this, you know, something that is defining and very useful and natural to you as a human being, you give that up and get nothing.
So it's not even really a trade-off.
It is just a sacrifice on your part.
You're sacrificing something that no one should ever sacrifice, and you're doing so needlessly and to no gain to you.
I guess that leads us finally to the final point that they're saying the attempted suicide rate after surgery has doubled, but keep in mind that these were people who got the surgery from 2012 to 2018.
You're going to see that rate of suicide double again and double and double for that same group of people.
Because even at 2012 and 2018, it's still, these kinds of procedures were not as common even then as they have been, you know, as they were in the five years after that.
But also, the longer that these men have to live with this new reality, the more likely it is that they're going to become overwhelmed by despair.
Meanwhile, something related I also want to mention, Daily Wire has this report.
England's National Health Service announced this week that children will no longer be given puberty blocker prescriptions after experts concluded that there were serious safety concerns.
The NHS's decision comes after it commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to review the published evidence on this drug, also known as puberty blockers, which prevent the body from making sex hormones that are needed for an individual to grow and develop into a healthy adult.
And so now they're no longer going to be giving these prescriptions.
And, you know, there's never been a better example of the sunlight is the best disinfectant philosophy than this.
Because, you know, we never really needed to explain or to argue for the fact that it's a bad idea to chemically castrate kids.
We did explain it, right?
We did make the arguments against this practice.
But the explanation arguments were never really the point.
They certainly weren't the tipping point.
They aren't the reason why the child castration industry is falling apart.
Thank God.
And it is falling apart across the Western world.
And, you know, I think in five to ten years from now, there's a very good chance that this just isn't happening anymore.
Anywhere.
To kids.
Okay, it'll still be happening to adults, which is also a problem we need to deal with, because that shouldn't be allowed either.
But, I think as far as...
The issue with kids goes, it's, you know, they are, the child castrators are losing ground every day across the Western world, and they'll continue to lose ground.
And I don't think anything's going to reverse it.
I don't.
And call me uncharacteristically optimistic on this point, but I don't think anything reverses this trend for them.
I think they keep losing ground and losing and losing until there's no ground left.
And the reason is exactly what I'm talking about.
There's nothing they can say.
Now that everybody knows this is happening, there's nothing they can say to change the fact that everyone recognizes that this is insane to do to kids.
And that's the point.
We didn't need to... I won't even give us, those of us who are opposed to this and have been in the anti-gender ideology movement, I'm not even going to give us credit for winning the argument.
Because it wasn't like we made brilliant arguments and people said, oh, you know what?
I hadn't thought about it like that, but I think you're right.
That's not what happened.
Our job actually was much easier than that.
All we had to do was make sure people knew.
We had to bring awareness.
Like, this is happening.
And it's happening all over the country and in other Western countries as well.
And it's becoming more and more common.
And, you know, this is what it is.
When you hear about puberty blockers, this is what that means.
Here you go.
That's all we had to do.
Because the wrongness of it is immediately obvious to anyone who has a moral compass at least better aligned than the moral compass of say, I don't know, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.
Like, if you're at least more ethically and morally balanced than that guy, you automatically understand that these puberty blockers are poison that we shouldn't be giving to kids.
As soon as you're able to understand that this is happening, and as soon as someone tells you what a puberty blocker is, because you might not know that until someone tells you, And once you have those two pieces of information, this is what a puberty blocker is, and they're being given to kids, and here's why they're being given it, as soon as that information is out, almost everybody says, no way, we can't, no way, you can't give that to kids, that's crazy.
And so our movement has mostly been about making sure people know this, and now most people do.
And you can't, that's, you know, that's the quintessential sort of toothpaste that can't be put back in the tube.
People know it, they know what it is, you can't change that.
And most people are not going to tolerate this, and that's what we're seeing.
Okay, in a House Armed Services Committee meeting yesterday, a Department of Defense official had this to say about the coming Haitian invasion or, well, the continued or maybe increased coming Haitian invasion in the United States.
Let's watch.
So what's the difference between Haiti and a failed state?
It's telling, right?
We can't really identify them, because the gangs are in charge, the government has been thrown out, and as a Florida man, I'm deeply concerned about this wave of people that we're about to have, that we are having, coming from Haiti, and it will accelerate, because I've gone to Opelika, and I've spent time with the folks that are engaged in Operation Vigilant Century, and they say the number one push factor that drives these Haitians into Broward County, Palm Beach County, where they don't disperse throughout the country, they stay in Southeast Florida, That that driving factor is the deterioration of conditions in Haiti.
So what are we doing to prepare for that wave and to ensure that these people are not paroled into the United States as the administration has done with people on the southern border, but instead are repatriated back at the dock at Port-au-Prince?
Congressman, we're doing a number of things to ensure that we're keeping track of the situation and we're prepared.
At the moment, we have not yet seen large numbers, what we would characterize as a maritime mass migration.
Do you anticipate a mass migration, though?
We are alert to that possibility.
I think you're right that the driving conditions in Haiti could very well press more people.
We've recently approved some additional assistance that we can provide to the Coast Guard.
I think that that has now fully been approved.
We'll be providing notifications, if we haven't already, to provide additional shipboard assistance.
And what they say would really support them would be more naval vessels, would be DOD support.
And because I think you correctly said that there is an anticipated mass migration here, there are specific legal authorities that we can access, that I would implore you to access.
Specifically, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13276.
And in that executive order, there is the ability for any president To designate an anticipated mass migration and then get grey hull naval vessels into the Straits of Florida to deter that migration and then to repatriate those people before they get to Florida.
Okay, so they are anticipating this mass migration from Haiti, which, as is covered there, I mean, of course it is a failed state.
I mean, if Haiti doesn't count as a failed state, then what the hell does?
In every literal sense, it's a, well, unless you want to argue it's not a failed state because it was never really a state to begin with, at least not any time in the last two centuries.
But, no, it's a failed state, and so there's going to be A renewed rush of illegals quote-unquote refugees coming from Haiti and my view on this and and you know Of course, it'll be called cruel, but I don't really care.
My view is that I don't think we should take in any Haitian refugees because we've already
taken enough and we can't afford anymore.
And it's just not possible.
It is a country that is, as we heard, overrun by violent gangs.
And whether those violent gangs are also engaging in cannibalism or not, and the fact that that's
a question at all in the first place tells you something, whether or not they are, we
know that violent gangs run the country.
And you start bringing in hordes of people from Haiti?
There's just no way to know.
I don't care what anybody says.
I don't care what they claim about the vetting that supposedly goes on.
There's no vetting.
There's no way to vet it anyway.
What are you going to vet?
What are you going to check the references?
There's no way to know.
So there's just no way to know.
And if you're bringing in, you know, uh, shiploads of Haitians, you know for a fact that at least some of them are in this criminal violent element and we're shipping them into this country.
That's reason enough to not do it.
But, but also, We just can't afford it anymore.
I think we just can't.
And there's an entire globe with 190 other countries on it.
And we need to turn to them and say, okay, your turn, guys.
You can step in here.
Your turn.
Like, we can't take everybody all the time.
The rest of you guys can help out.
There's no reason why the United States of America needs to be the hub Where the entire third world comes.
And we can't afford it anymore.
And it's killing our country.
And it's not right.
It's not right to us.
And there's no reason for it.
We shouldn't even have to justify it.
We shouldn't even have to explain.
Like, make all the other countries explain.
Why aren't you guys taking them in?
And that should be the answer.
So, when I say that I don't think we should bring in any of the Haitian refugees, I'm not saying that I think that they should be stuck in Haiti.
I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm saying there's a whole other, there's an entire world that they can go to.
It doesn't need to be us.
And when it comes to illegal immigrants or asylum seekers or refugees, whatever label you want to put on it, we are at capacity.
We're far above capacity.
So, no room at the inn, no vacancy.
There's a whole other world out there, a lot of other countries.
So they could step in.
And if they won't, then why is that not, like, why do we have to defend ourselves and justify us not wanting to bring anybody else in?
Why doesn't the rest of the world have to justify their own refusal?
Stay on the same, similar topic.
There was another, a different committee hearing yesterday.
This is the Federalist Report.
Says, none of Democrat witnesses in a congressional hearing Tuesday could say resolutely that they believe only citizens should be able to vote in a federal election.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee asked the witnesses to provide a basic yes or no answer to a series of questions about non-citizens voting.
And I was looking for the video of this moment, I couldn't find it.
Maybe it's out there somewhere, I just didn't look hard enough.
But here's the description of it from the Federalist.
Lee asked each of the witnesses, do you believe that only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in federal elections?
Now before we get to their answers, that's one of those really easy questions, not a trick question.
It's a yes or no question, not a trick question.
It's not like one of those unfair yes or no questions where, yeah, you could say yes or no, but you kind of need to say more than that.
Like a yes or no doesn't suffice, you need to be able to explain it.
This is not one of those questions.
Should foreign citizens who are not citizens of the country be able to vote in our elections?
No.
Of course not.
Obviously not.
But that's not the answer that he got.
Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Damon T. Hewitt, said, quote, We don't have a position about non-citizens voting in federal elections.
We believe that's what the current laws are.
And so, we're certainly fighting for everyone who is eligible under current law to vote.
We don't have a position.
And by the way, not having a position on whether non-citizens should be able to vote is having a position on it.
President of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project Lydia Camarillo said, That's a decision of the state law, but I want to emphasize, and Lee interjected, it's a decision of state law as to who should vote in federal elections.
States decide who gets to vote in various elections, and in federal elections, I believe, we should be encouraging people to naturalize and then vote.
And then Lee pressed, okay, but you're saying that the federal government should have no say in who votes in a federal election.
Kamarilla responded, I don't have a position on that.
And then they went to the next person, who's ACLU's voting rights project, Sophia Lynn Lakin.
Okay, finally, I want to mention this briefly.
answer on whether or not they should be able to.
All they did was kind of fall back on, well, you know, the current law is, but they couldn't
say that they don't want non-citizens to vote.
And the reason why they couldn't say that is because, of course, they do want non-citizens
to vote.
And, as they say, the mask is off now and has been off for a while.
Okay, finally, I want to mention this briefly.
Wall Street Journal has this headline, "What's it like to work for a Gen Z boss?"
Very different.
If the early managers are any indication, the workplace will be less hierarchical, more informal, and a lot more focused on mental health.
And then we get into the article where it talks about the experiences of, you know, as Gen Z has come of age and now, you know, you've got people in Gen Z who are in their, I guess, mid to late 20s at this point and are now getting to positions of management and even ownership in companies.
What's that like?
I mean, it's, Working for a Gen Z manager, I can only imagine it's a horror beyond comprehension.
It's not something that I would ever, that I would wish on my worst enemy.
Well, it's not true.
I'd wish that on my worst enemy, but I certainly wouldn't wish it for myself.
But we get some information about what that's like and here's a little bit of what it says.
At a New York startup company called August, employees enjoy Mindfulness Fridays, a more relaxed workday for deep focus without meetings.
The company, which makes menstrual care products, also has manager-driven quarterly heart checks to see how direct reports are feeling about how hard they're working and how much they're paid.
It's a work style introduced by Gen Z co-founders Nadia Okamoto and Nick Jane, who graduated from Harvard and Princeton, respectively, during the pandemic.
Okamoto says, we talk a lot more than most places about how to prevent burnouts.
Apparently, Okamoto was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder two years ago and speaks openly about it.
One of the things I've learned the most is to slow down.
A self-described fast-paced entrepreneur who published a book with a law sophomore says that she's fast-moving, but she doesn't expect her employees to move fast, etc.
and so forth.
Mental health is very important.
Then we get to this part.
This is my favorite part.
Research shows that Gen Z workers can be challenging to work alongside.
A survey of 1,344 managers by ResumeBuilder.com found that 74% believe Gen Z is more difficult to work with than other generations due in part to lacking skills as well as motivation.
In another Resume Builder survey that interviewed hiring managers who assessed a Gen Z candidate, 58% said Gen Z-ers didn't dress appropriately, 57% said they struggled with eye contact, and 47% said they asked for unreasonable compensation.
But those weaknesses might be in the eye of the beholder.
What older Americans see as workplace liabilities, others see as signs of potential leadership strengths.
Okay, that's fine.
So, just to review, says the Wall Street Journal, it may be a leadership strength to struggle with eye contact, be unreasonable, To dress inappropriately and to lack skills and motivation.
This is what they just said.
That those qualities, they may seem bad, but that may be a leadership strength.
Now how in the world could that possibly be a leadership strength?
Just imagine like a person, not motivated, walking around slumped over, not making eye contact, Right?
Completely unreasonable, dressed like a slob.
Oh, that's a leader.
That right there, that's a leader in the making, is what we're being told.
How could that possibly translate to good leader?
That's the opposite.
That is right down the line, bullet point by bullet point, the opposite of good leadership.
That is, in every way, the opposite of what a good leader is supposed to do and how they're supposed to carry themselves.
So, how could that be good leadership?
Well, that brings us to, like, the greater point here, which is that, you know, what you really find in the sort of Gen Z transformation of the workforce is an intense focus, an exclusive focus on the self, right?
On what I need and what I want.
Obviously, Gen Z did not invent that.
They didn't invent the habit of being selfish and self-centered and self-focused.
That's always existed in the human species, and in particular since the advent of modern culture, wherever you want to place that, but modern culture did not start with Gen Z. That has been the defining feature of modern culture for as long as we've had it.
is this intense focus on the self.
But with Gen Z, it's just kind of reached its full... this poison fruit has reached full bloom, we might say.
And now you have a generation of people who largely just cannot see anything but themselves.
They cannot look outside of themselves.
They just can't.
Or at least they're unwilling to.
And so that's the nature of this transformation, which is why Like, and you continue down the article and you read it, and some of the things that these Gen Z managers are doing, on the surface, could be good.
Like we read in the first paragraph that during these Mindfulness Fridays, they don't have meetings.
Okay, well that's good.
Cutting meetings out is always a good thing.
95% of meetings that happen in every company Everywhere could be erased.
You could cut out at least 95% of your meetings.
In some cases, you could probably cut out all of your meetings, and you'd be fine.
But certainly at least 95% you could cut out.
95% of meetings are a total waste of time.
So if you're cutting out meetings, that's always good.
It's a good idea.
Cut out meetings.
It's just that the reason for doing it.
So even when they stumble on a sort of correct conclusion, or they stumble on a good idea, They stumble on something that, you know, that might actually help with productivity.
It might actually help with employee morale.
Employee morale matters because it feeds into productivity.
And it makes people happier.
And it may shock you to learn.
I actually believe that it's good for people to be happy.
You want people to be happy in general.
You want them to be happy when they're working for you, but also just in general because that's a better way to live.
So, Even when they stumble on something like that, it's always for the wrong reason, though.
And it's because they're focused on the wrong things.
Which is why they may stumble on a correct conclusion every once in a while, but most of the time, the conclusions are wrong, too.
Because you're starting from the wrong premise.
And what we're hearing now is that, you know, in every facet of life, and in the workplace too, especially in the workplace, all that really matters is me.
Right?
All that matters is me.
All that matters is how I feel.
How am I feeling in this moment?
So, and as I walk through, as I go throughout my day, and every task I have, I'm constantly doing an inventory to see how do I feel right now?
How do I feel about doing this?
How is this making me feel?
Me, me, me, me, me.
And if I discover that there's something that I'm doing that in this moment I don't like doing, it's making me feel bad, Then I should just stop doing it, because all that matters is me.
Which is exactly the wrong approach.
And the way to be a healthy person, and a happy person, and a productive person, and also a good, you know, worker, on top of just being a good person, is to be thinking about things beyond yourself.
You know, the first question you should be asking is not, how do I feel about this?
But in any context, it should be like, how is this working?
Is this making me a better person?
Is this making me a better family man?
Is this making me a better citizen?
Is this making me a better employee?
Is this making me a better worker?
Am I being a better team player?
Those should be the questions you ask.
That should be the inventory.
And then after you've got through those questions, Then you can ask yourself, well, how's it making me feel?
But here's the great thing, is that if you're asking yourself all those other questions, and then you're checking yes on every, okay, well, this is making me a better person.
It's making me a better team player.
It's making me better for my family, and so on and so forth.
You check yes on all those boxes, when you get down to the question of how's it making me feel, that question becomes irrelevant.
And it almost answers itself.
Well, yeah, it makes me feel better.
Of course it does.
Because I'm doing the right thing.
And I'm focused on something other than myself.
And when I focus on things other than myself, not only do I become a better person and do I become more productive and I become more successful, but I also, as a byproduct, become happier.
So does your debt keep you tossing and turning at night?
It's like you can't get away from it.
The unfortunate reality is that our banking system is designed to trap you in debt.
These insanely high-interest credit cards and loans make it nearly impossible to pay off your debt.
Thankfully, there's a new way out of the debt trap.
Pivotal Debt Solutions.
Pivotal Debt Solutions isn't like the old-school debt relief companies that string your debt out for years.
They have new aggressive strategies to end your debt faster and easier than you thought possible.
Pivotal Debt Solutions can cut or even eliminate interest.
They will help you find programs to write off your balances so you owe less.
They can stop those threatening phone calls.
The bottom line is that Pivotal Debt Solutions will find every solution possible to end your debt permanently.
Before you do anything, contact Pivotal Debt Solutions at zapmydebt.com.
Talk to them for free and find out how fast they can help you get out of debt.
That's zapmydebt.com.
Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially with all the rain we've had here in Nashville.
That's why I'm so grateful to have Windshield WOW.
Windshield WOW is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses two magnetic cleaning paddles, one on the outside and one on the inside of your car, to clean both sides of your windshield, all from the outside.
Being able to clean both the front and the inside window at the same time It's a game changer.
I wish I had one of these years ago.
Windshield WOW applies firm cleaning pressure.
It's super thin to get into those tight dashboard areas.
Seriously, all you gotta do is push around the outside paddle and the inside follows automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
Washing your car windshield enhances visibility and driving safety and helps preserve the integrity of your vehicle's glass and paintwork.
It's a simple yet essential aspect of car maintenance that shouldn't be overlooked.
What are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com, use code WALSH to check out for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com, code WALSH.
Jeremy's Razors is doing the unthinkable.
This is a sale you cannot miss out on.
Jeremy's Razors is lowering all prices for every razor.
You want a trial set?
Lower price.
You want the starter set that comes with more cartridges?
Lower price.
Smooth 6?
Precision 5?
You guessed it.
Lower price.
Take advantage of Jeremy's March of Madness now.
Go to Jeremy'sRazors.com to get your razor at a discount right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You're not going to trend because everybody is listing their top three favorite things about you.
You'll never click on someone's name on the trending list and find that the majority of tweets about that person all agree that the person is wonderful and intelligent.
It would be nice to live in a world with that kind of internet, but that's not the internet we have.
And so Ben was trending because lots of people, including a huge number of people on the right, We're very mad at him based on a clip that Media Matters posted to Twitter.
And the clip now has 11 million views, with the majority of those 11 million people agreeing that Ben is a very mean and terrible person.
In the clip, Ben is talking about the retirement age in the United States and expressing his point of view that providing a taxpayer-funded retirement to everybody starting at the age of 65 is not sustainable.
Here's part of that clip.
Watch.
And let's be real about this.
It's insane that we haven't raised the retirement age in the United States.
It's totally crazy.
If that were the case, Joe Biden should not be running for president.
Joe Biden is 81 years old.
The retirement age in the United States at which you start to receive Social Security and you are eligible for Medicare is 65.
Joe Biden has technically been eligible for Social Security and Medicare for 16 years, and he wants to continue in office until he is 86, which is 19 years past when he would be eligible for retirement.
No one in the United States should be retiring at 65 years old.
Frankly, I think retirement itself is a stupid idea unless you have some sort of health problem.
Everybody that I know who is elderly, who has retired, is dead within five years.
And if you talk to people who are elderly and they lose their purpose in life by losing their job and they stop working, things go to hell in a handbasket real quick.
But put all of that aside, just on a fiscal level and on a logical level, When Franklin Delano Roosevelt established 65 as the retirement age, the average life expectancy in the United States was 63 years old.
Today, the average life expectancy in the United States is close to 80.
It's totally insane that you believe that you should be able to work from the time that you are essentially 20 to the time that you are 65, which is a 45-year period.
Pay in, and then you'll receive social security benefits sufficient to support you and your family, you and your wife or whatever, for like another 20 years.
That's crazy talk.
That is not fiscally sustainable.
Okay, now Ben responded to this posted clip with a follow-up tweet saying, quote, Yes, if you're mentally and physically healthy, taxpayers should not pay you to retire at 65.
When Social Security was created, life expectancy was 64.
Today it's 78.
Also, people require purpose.
If you can retire and find purpose, go for it.
For many, that's a bad idea.
So, his primary point is about the sustainability and fairness or lack of fairness of the Social Security system.
His argument that most people shouldn't retire at 65 because it removes purpose from their lives is an aside, which is why he says leave that aside.
Not really relevant to the main point.
As far as that aside goes, of course the reality, and I don't think Ben disputes this, is that some people need to retire at 65 or even before that because of health reasons.
Other people want to retire around that age so they can invest themselves in something else that gives them greater purpose.
You know, there's plenty of people who work a job and they hate it and they work it for decades to provide for their family, even though they don't find a lot of purpose in it.
Which, by the way, is very, very noble.
It's a noble thing to work a job and work it reliably and provide for your family, even though you don't enjoy it.
That's the position that a great many people are in, if not most.
And people like that, when they can retire, they want to retire as soon as they can.
Totally understandable.
And, you know, if you're in that boat and you want to retire and you can find something else to do with your life that will bring you greater joy, again, fantastic.
Now, some people, on the other hand, retire and have nothing else to do, and they fall into despair and kind of a listlessness, and they're dead a short time later.
So the point is that unless you're very sick, it's not a good idea for anyone of any age to have nothing to do and no real objective or purpose to get them through each day.
That doesn't always mean that you have to have a job.
I mean, there are stay-at-home moms who never have jobs outside the house, although they have plenty of work to do, and yet have plenty of purpose and meaning in their lives.
And Ben obviously doesn't disagree with that.
So, you know, it's a mixed bag as far as retirement goes, but the basic point That people need to have purpose in their lives, a reason to get out of bed in the morning, is undoubtedly true.
It's also undoubtedly true that having a job can very often be a part of that, though not always.
It doesn't have to be, and isn't necessarily in all cases.
Now, let's leave that aside, as Ben says himself in the clip.
That's not really the point.
The point is tax-funded retirement.
Okay, if we're not talking about tax-funded, Then it's just, like, do whatever you want, you know?
If you're able to afford to retire, if you want to retire, if you can.
If you can retire at 35, and you want to, and there's something else you want to do with your life, I mean, go for it!
We're talking about tax-funded retirement.
The Social Security system.
That is the real topic here.
And most of the debate, which has not been a debate, so much as a chorus of people screeching hysterically, has been centered around the question of Social Security.
As I said, a huge number of people attacking Ben and valiantly defending the social security system have been conservatives, including prominent ones.
So let's deal with that.
But before we get into this social security question, I must also say again that if you are attacking a fellow conservative based on a Media Matters clip, You are a traitor to your people and you should be ashamed.
I mean, this should be one basic rule of engagement that we all recognize on the right.
You never go after one of your own publicly using a Media Matters clip as fodder.
You especially should never take their framing of the clip as gospel and assume that whatever is in the clip is all that person had to say on the subject.
Like, you should know how Media Matters functions by now.
You should know how they work.
And if you're a conservative joining forces with Media Matters to attack somebody on the right, you are automatically wrong.
Automatically!
It doesn't matter what the subject is.
You are wrong.
You're wrong by default.
But in this case, you're also wrong on the substance, because Social Security is, without a shadow of a doubt, an unsustainable, unfair, morally atrocious, and economically insane system that is only defended by both parties because it is politically unpopular to be honest about it.
But I'm not a politician running for office, so I can be honest about it.
The system is a farce, and it should be abolished, obviously.
That doesn't mean we should abolish it overnight.
It doesn't mean we should leave elderly people high and dry with no safety net.
All it means is that the current system is a disaster on every level and we should be looking for a way out.
The conversation should be, how do we get out of this boondoggle without harming people?
But we can't have that conversation because most politicians on both sides have declared that this awful, insane, unsustainable, self-destructing system must be kept entirely intact and untouched and allowed to continue exactly as it is until it all falls apart anyway.
Again, that is not a position that anyone has taken because they think it's the right position.
It's a position taken out of pure cowardice and cynicism.
So, let's clarify a few things here.
First of all, when you receive Social Security, you are not getting the money that you paid into the system.
The money you receive Is not your money.
That money, your money, is gone.
The government has spent it. It is gone.
The government is not taking Social Security from you and your paycheck and keeping it in a special box.
Or is it the lock box? I think is what Al Gore said.
And you know, keeping it there to give to you when you retire.
That's not the way the system works.
No, the system is a giant state-run Ponzi scheme where current beneficiaries are paid out of the contributions of
people who are currently working.
So you are not funding your own retirement with the Social Security that you pay.
You are funding the retirement of currently retired people.
It is, again, a Ponzi scheme.
And one that becomes less and less sustainable with each passing year.
Not only because people are living much longer past retirement, as has been observed, but also because people are having fewer kids, which is the bigger problem here.
Fifty years ago, there were many more workers available to support each retired person.
That number is dropping exponentially by the decade, which creates a system that becomes weaker and more top-heavy, and inches closer to inevitable collapse as it continues.
And everybody knows that, but nobody wants to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, the workers propping up the system are much poorer than the older people they're supporting.
In fact, the net worth of people 65 and older is, on average, more than double the net worth of people in their 30s and 40s.
This is a system that takes thousands of dollars every year from working-class families and gives it to people who are, on average, wealthier than they are.
In fact, millions of Social Security recipients are literally millionaires.
Millionaires who, again, are not receiving the money that they paid in because that money has already been stolen.
That's gone.
It's been gone for decades.
They are instead receiving money directly out of the paychecks of working class families with young children to feed.
And it's not a small amount.
We're talking about thousands of dollars every year that working class families who have children to feed, who have college tuitions to pay, who have car payments and mortgages and everything else, that money is stolen from them and given to people, some of whom need it and some don't.
And on top of that, everyone understands that Social Security, one way or another, probably won't exist in its current form when the 35-year-old working class person today is eligible for it.
The system will collapse, and future generations will be left holding the bag.
And instead of trying to do something to avoid that catastrophe, the current approach is for everyone to just get everything they can out of this insane system, and then, I guess, just let your children and grandchildren deal with the consequences when they're dead.
You know, like, when you're dead, let your children and grandchildren deal with it.
I want to get mine, and screw them, they'll deal with it later.
I'm not going to be here.
That's the mentality.
And it is, to put it mildly, a selfish way to approach this issue.
Social Security is a bad investment.
And, I mean, it's not really an investment at all, because, again, it is a Ponzi scheme, where the money invested today is immediately pilfered.
There's no investment at all.
But if you want to call it an investment, then you cannot deny that it is a very bad one.
It's an investment that yields no return.
If you were to take the thousands of dollars a year stolen out of your paycheck for Social Security and actually invest it, invest it in any other way, really.
You would have two, three, four, five times as much, if not more, by the time you hit retirement.
If you simply put all that money in a high-yield savings account, and you just kept it there, you would be in a much better situation come retirement.
Not only that, but if you kept your own money, and this is a point I rarely hear anyone make, if you kept your own money, saved it yourself, invested it, whatever you want to do with it, it's your money.
That also means that when you die, if there's any left over, you can pass it down to your children and grandchildren.
But with Social Security, if you pay in for 40 years, and then you receive checks for two years, and then you die, all the rest of what you're owed is kept by the government.
It doesn't go to your children.
You know, it does not become generational wealth.
See, this is the theme with this system, if you haven't noticed.
Rather than pass down wealth to our children, which is what we should be doing, it requires our children to pass their wealth to us.
It is exactly backwards.
And the only people who really benefit, I mean the people who really profit from this, are the corrupt politicians who keep the system going.
And they don't keep it going because they're concerned about grandma.
Okay?
That's not why they do it.
They do it because of the power and control it gives them over all of our lives.
Now, we should, and do still, have programs to help elderly people who are in need and impoverished.
And there are plenty in that category.
Now, again, every time we talk about Social Security, all we ever do is we talk about the poor elderly people who need it, which we should talk about that.
But we totally ignore the fact that there's a whole category of older people who are rich and don't even need it.
And yet we're taking money from people who have like a fraction of their wealth.
It's crazy.
But as far as the elderly people who are actually poor or in need, nobody thinks that grandma should be kicked out on the street to die.
But if you think that this state-run Ponzi scheme is the only way to ensure that grandma is okay, then you have been brainwashed by those corrupt politicians.
They have used fear tactics to get you to agree to a system that is hurting you.
The tale is old as time.
The truth is that ending the social security scam would be an enormous win for the American people, and especially for the middle class.
Each paycheck would increase substantially.
I mean, you could save or spend your money as you choose instead of having it stolen and squandered by the reptilian scumbags in D.C.
It would be, I cannot think of a single thing that could be done that would transform people's lives at that scale that quickly.
And yeah, you know, while we're at it, we can abolish all foreign aid.
We can take a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy.
I'm all in favor of that.
I advocate for it all the time.
And all of this would result in a drastic increase in prosperity for working people everywhere, immediately, overnight.
And that's exactly why none of it will ever happen.
And it's also why few politicians will even pretend that they want it to happen.
And that is why, even if it's not really cancelled, and never will be, as far as this show is concerned, Social Security is today cancelled.
