Ep. 1334 - Biden Plans To Destroy What's Left Of The Economy With Ban On Gas Powered Vehicles
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, following in the suicidal footsteps of California, the federal government now wants to phase out gas powered cars across the entire country. This will destroy the economy while doing exactly nothing for the environment. Also, RFK Jr exposes himself as just another leftist. And Sacramento declares itself a sanctuary for child-castraters. Finally, the media declares that anyone who asks any questions about the Baltimore bridge collapse is a conspiracy theorist. That's not a conspiracy theory, though there are some truly wacky ones surrounding this event.
Ep.1334
- - -
DailyWire+:
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:
Legacybox - Shop Legacybox with my exclusive discount: https://www.legacybox.com/Walsh
Lux Blox - Get 25% off your order with promo code MATT25 at http://www.LuxBlox.com
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, following in the suicidal footsteps of California, the federal government now wants to phase out gas-powered cars across the entire country.
This will destroy the economy while doing exactly nothing for the environment.
Also, RFK Jr.
exposes himself as just another leftist, and Sacramento declares itself a sanctuary for child castrators.
Finally, the media declares that anyone who asks any questions about the Baltimore Bridge collapse is a conspiracy theorist.
But that is not a conspiracy theory, though there have been some truly wacky ones surrounding this event.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Is your closet cluttered with home videos and photos that rarely see the light of day?
These irreplaceable heirlooms are not only crowding your shelves this spring cleaning season, but they're rapidly fading away.
Now, with Legacy Box's Spring Cleaning Sale, you can check digitizing your memories off your to-do list and protect them forever for only $9 a tape.
Now, producer McKenna sent a Legacy Box to her in-laws, and they used it to digitize their wedding photos and videos that they haven't been able to enjoy in years.
Thanks to Legacy Box, they can relive one of their most precious memories.
You can create your own Legacy Box filled with camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures.
You'll get digital copies that are 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.
Check protecting your memories off your spring cleaning to-do list with LegacyBox.
Visit LegacyBox.com slash Walsh to shop their $9 tape sale.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Walsh to unlock this incredible offer.
When future historians decide to write the definitive treatise on the downfall of the state of California, we can be sure that the final days of August 2022 will feature very prominently in that account.
It was on August 25th that the state announced a bold plan to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by the year 2035.
Everything had to be electric from that point forward.
What would that do to the economy of the state of California, given how expensive electric vehicles are?
Where were we going to get the materials to manufacture all of these new EV batteries?
No one seemed to care.
Local news anchors were elated, though.
Watch.
Developing news as the California Air Resources Board votes to ban all gas-powered vehicle sales by the year 2035.
I have a Tesla, so to me it's alright.
You know, I don't mind.
I'm glad I'm not paying the gas prices now.
I used to have an Acura.
I loved the car, but I mean, I'd be paying almost $6 a gallon.
It's a multi-phase plan that would require 35% of new cars to be powered by electricity or hydrogen by the year 2026, 51% by 2028, Now, when this news broke, a lot of commentators on the right made the point that the euphoria would probably be short-lived, but no one quite had any idea just how short-lived it would be, because just six days after California's big announcement mandating electric vehicles, the state's power grid failed.
And it failed in spectacular fashion.
The state declared a Level 1 power emergency, and for seven days, residents were ordered to conserve power whenever possible, including by shutting off appliances between 5 and 10 p.m.
They call that a flex alert in California because it happens so often they need a catchy brand name for it.
Watching this debacle from the safety of their air-conditioned living rooms, a lot of Americans thought to themselves, well, that's probably it for California's lofty EV mandate.
Surely they're going to rethink things after this.
After all, if the state doesn't have a reliable power grid to the point that people have to disable their toasters in the evening, then there's no way the grid can possibly tolerate millions of new electric vehicles that start charging all at once.
I mean, you can't tell people to turn off their cars at sundown.
Nobody's going to go for that, especially when they have reliable gas-powered cars already.
And that's not a knock against EVs if you like them.
It's just true.
Without infrastructure, there's no reason to buy one of these cars.
In fact, there are a lot of reasons not to buy one of these cars.
But that's not how California's local media responded to these power outages.
It's not how Gavin Newsom responded either.
They didn't pause and rethink anything.
I mean, they never do.
Instead, they do what they always do, which is they double down on California's commitment to so-called renewable energy, quote-unquote, even as they acknowledge that this renewable energy was responsible for the brownouts.
Watch.
This week's dangerous heat wave is already putting stress on the state's power grid.
And we hate to tell you this, but rolling blackouts are a possibility tonight.
As temperatures are expected to intensify, we will be pushing the limits on our power supply.
And we are now in the window of the highest concern that is this evening through next Wednesday.
As a result, Governor Newsom has declared a state of emergency.
Our hydroelectricity is not as reliable as a consequence of this drought and the lower reservoirs we're seeing across the western United States and certainly here in California.
So we're losing megawatts.
Mega drought means less megawatts.
So on a supply side, we're challenged by these extremes and on a demand side, not surprisingly, people are turning up the A.C.
So as of 2022, when that footage aired, more than one-third of California's energy came from renewable sources, including solar and wind power.
Gavin Newsom has said he wants that number to be 100% by 2045.
And as you saw, Gavin Newsom acknowledges that these renewables, quote-unquote, are one of the reasons that California's grid had just collapsed.
But despite all that, he doesn't roll back the EV mandate.
He doesn't change his plan for renewables in any way.
In fact, just a couple of weeks after he declared a statewide emergency due to a lack of power caused by renewable energy, Newsom again reiterated his commitment to the EV mandate and to a renewable energy grid.
And we know why that is.
It's because Gavin Newsom, well, he lacks any capacity for shame or self-doubt.
And what you may not know, though, and what's truly hard to believe, is that California's bad ideas are no longer confined to California.
Somehow, seven other states, as well as the District of Columbia, have signed on to California's plan to rid the world of gas-powered vehicles, which is known as the Advanced Clean Cars 2 rule.
The states that have signed on include Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington.
Basically, all the states that you would expect to be first up to bat on this anyway.
And to be clear, when I say that they've adopted California's plan, I mean that they are explicitly adopting it by name.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, for example, says that it's eager to adopt the, quote, California standard.
Each of these seven states, like California, now plans to ban all sales of new gas-powered cars starting in 2035.
Specifically, the rules say that only cars with zero emissions, including EVs and a small number of plug-in hybrids, can be sold.
And by the way, there's a gradual ramp-up to the total, Ben.
California's rule requires a third of new car sales to be zero emission vehicles by 2026, so just a couple years from now, and roughly 70% of new car sales to be zero emissions by 2030.
Existing gas-powered vehicles aren't affected, meaning you can still have those.
For now, you can still have those if you've already bought them.
Personally, I would expect that that's probably going to change.
There are other states that have adopted rules to limit the number of gas-powered vehicles on the road, including New Mexico, Delaware, Colorado.
So they won't ban them all outright.
Although, again, it's clear that that's what they're getting to, that's where this is going, but the state-by-state discussion is becoming moot because the Biden administration has just quietly issued its own rule that will essentially have the same effect as California's ban.
The federal government is trying to phase out all gas-powered vehicles, and they're going to do it in the same undemocratic, ham-fisted way as all these states have done it.
They're not going to pass a law or let voters decide the issue.
Of course not.
Instead, the Feds have issued new emissions standards, which function as a de facto ban on many of the gas cars that many of us are already driving.
Watch.
The Environmental Protection Agency is rolling out new pollution standards for passenger cars.
The tailpipe emissions rules are aimed at fighting climate change and will apply to all new vehicles starting with model year 2027 through 2032.
CBS News National Correspondent Dave Malkoff has more from Smyrna, Georgia.
Hi there, Dave.
It looks like you're at a car dealership.
Looks like you've settled into one that you like.
Tell us how these new emissions rules might change the types of cars we drive and how that impacts climate change.
Well, hi Meg, hi Lana.
This is all about reducing emissions and by that measure slowing climate change.
Dave, how do car makers feel about this new rule?
We've heard some are adjusting their EV production numbers and pivoting to hybrids due to consumer demand.
Is now the time to implement this rule?
Well, this is not an EV mandate in any way.
This is an electric vehicle here, but right over here you can see this is a hybrid vehicle where you can Plug this in, you can actually use this as an electric to charge the battery in here while you're stopping and putting your foot on the brake.
So there are lots of choices for those manufacturers.
They can do electric vehicles, they can do things like maybe hydrogen vehicles that will come online in the future.
They'll do hybrids like this or even cleaner gas cars and those can all comply with these rules.
So it's a very sing-songy segment.
Everything is great.
Everyone's happy with these standards.
No one dislikes them.
Everyone's on board, we're told.
The reporter assures us that this EPA rule isn't anything like an EV mandate because it doesn't strictly require that automakers only manufacture EVs.
Technically, they can make hybrids.
They can make hydrogen cars.
And if you're worried, if you're kind of thinking to yourself, well, what's a hydrogen car?
I've never seen that.
It's because it doesn't exist.
Right now, which is a small problem that you're not supposed to concern yourself with, but what we're told is that these car manufacturers have a ton of options, right?
They could do EVs, they could do hybrids, or they could do a type of car that doesn't exist.
So they have three options, one of them doesn't exist, and so then really it's two.
Incidentally, that happens to be the same line that the EPA administrator trotted out when he announced these new rules.
He claimed that the agency is simply expanding, expanding consumer choice.
By telling us things that we can't have and can't drive, they're actually expanding our options.
It's addition by subtraction, apparently.
Because of course, in reality, rather than expanding our choices, they're doing the opposite, and that talking point completely obscures what's really happening.
The Biden administration is using the EPA, using a bureaucracy, using unelected bureaucrats to effectively pass a law banning the sale of most gas cards without ever consulting the voters, and without ever getting the legislative branch of the government involved at all, and they're supposed to be the ones who actually come up with the laws.
Specifically, the EPA's new rule demands that car manufacturers slash emissions on all new passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, light trucks, and pickups by roughly 50% by the year 2032.
And by the EPA's own estimates, that means that up to 56% of new vehicles will have to be EVs, and at least 13% will need to be plug-in hybrids.
That is a massive reduction on the number of gas-powered cars that will be allowed on the road.
Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, assessed that under these rules, quote, Even if Toyota scrapped all its vehicles and just manufactured its best-in-class Prius, the company's fleet average tailpipe CO2 emissions rating would still be more than double the EPA's 2032 standards.
Clearly, automakers cannot comply with the EPA's performance-based GHG program without rapidly phasing out internal combustion engine vehicle sales and rapidly ramping up electric vehicle sales.
Now, as CEI states, this is one of the most extreme rules that's ever been proposed by a federal agency.
Any federal agency.
Similar regulations are already in the works for the trucking industry, which would, of course, destroy the nation's economy.
California is, once again, the leader in those regulations, with some already in effect.
But CBS News has no problem with any of this.
They're happy to tell you that there will be less smog in the air.
So, you know, just roll with it.
It's all good.
It'll destroy the economy, takes away your options, makes everything more expensive, everything worse.
But, you know, you should be happy about it.
The EPA has issued its commandments, and the EPA knows best.
Just trust them.
They know what's best for you.
Which, even if that were true, which it's not, we still have something called the Constitution, and the Constitution empowers Congress, not a federal administrative agency, to pass laws.
Agencies can't expand their mandate so far that they, you know, become a de facto Congress.
At least, that's not how it's supposed to work.
This is a lesson that the CDC learned a few years ago when it tried to prevent landlords from evicting tenants who weren't paying rent.
It's also a lesson the EPA itself learned just two years ago in the case West Virginia v. EPA.
And in that case, the Supreme Court made it very clear that the EPA's Obama-era Clean Power Plan far exceeded the EPA's legal mandate.
Well, now the EPA is doing it again, because this is what federal bureaucracies always do.
They're trying to ban gas-powered vehicles, even though there's no authorizing law passed by Congress which permits the EPA to do that.
You're just doing it anyway.
So, even if this ban were somehow a good idea, which it isn't, it's still unconstitutional.
And the Supreme Court needs to strike it down immediately.
In this country, voters get to weigh the pros and cons of a law like this, not some faceless bureaucrats in an administrative agency.
And there happen to be a lot of cons when it comes to this particular rule.
That's not to say that some electric vehicles aren't great cars.
I mean, if you want to drive one, go for it.
But there are obviously downsides to mandating them for everyone.
Like, massive downsides.
And for one thing, a lot of people are going to be priced out of the new car market.
The average EV costs more than $5,000 more than the average gas-powered car.
Typical repair costs are also much higher for EVs that are involved in accidents.
It's one of the reasons that Hertz, a rental car agency, just scaled back on its massive fleet of Tesla sedans.
And from a national security perspective, it's also worth pointing out that China has enormous leverage in the production of batteries, which are obviously necessary for EV production.
The other issue is that even if every vehicle on the planet suddenly becomes a zero-emission vehicle overnight, They still have to get power from somewhere, and right now the power mostly comes from power plants that burn coal.
The New York Times conceded recently, quote, If a Chevy Bolt is charged up on a coal-heavy grid such as those currently found in the Midwest, it can actually be a bit worse for the climate than a modern hybrid car like the Toyota Prius, which runs on gasoline but uses a battery to bolster its mileage.
In other words, there are common scenarios in which a purely electric vehicle is emitting more common carbon dioxide, ultimately, than a car that you fill up a gas station.
And even outside the Midwest, the differences in emissions aren't as significant as they make it seem.
It's closer to 50% in the best cases, taking into account the emissions related to manufacturing.
All of this, of course, requires that you accept the false premise that the carbon emissions from motor vehicles have any meaningfully negative impact on your life.
Which they don't.
As Michael Schellenberger has pointed out, the number of natural disasters linked to climate and weather have declined from 2000 to 2021.
And the cost of natural disasters, as measured by percent of GDP, is down worldwide since 1990.
It's not what you hear in the media, but that's what's happening.
The number of landfalling U.S.
hurricanes has dropped in that same period.
So has the global frequency of major hurricanes.
Fewer people than ever are dying in heat waves.
And all of this is well documented by the think tank Environmental Progress.
Pretty much the only thing that's gone up is the cost of electricity in California, which rose more than seven times higher than it did in other states.
The reason that states like California persist in pushing these mandates, even when they've clearly accomplished nothing, even when they serve no purpose whatsoever, no purpose for, you know, for us, for actual American citizens, doesn't do anything for us, Is that the environmentalist agenda has, of course, nothing to do with the environment.
It's determined instead to make life more difficult and more expensive, not to mention uglier, as we can see from the climate alarmist attacks on famous art, for example.
The point is also to make life less enjoyable, hence the push for disgusting bug-based foods.
The Biden administration is endorsing all this, not because the science calls for it, and certainly not because they want to preserve human life, But rather because they fundamentally see human life as a parasitic infestation on the planets.
Excluding themselves, of course.
It's not the carbon your car emits that they're after.
It's just, it's you as a human being.
And if this EPA regulation survives, that will only embolden them even further.
Continue to restrict your freedom of choice, even as they tell you that they're expanding it.
This is the greatest encroachment on civil liberties right now that no one is talking about.
And unless you want the car you're probably driving right now to become illegal in the near future, it's time that we change that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, of course, Easter is just around the corner.
And instead of filling your child's basket with mediocre things that will be thrown away or rot their teeth, you
need Luxblox.
My kids love all the different options that Luxblox offers.
They have spaceships, American flags, dinosaurs, cars, anything else your kids can dream up to create, including this... You know, it's kind of like an accordion.
Yeah, it's like an accordion, I guess.
My four-year-old daughter always has me create the most intricate designs.
I'll sit there for hours building for her, just for her to destroy it seconds later.
That's the way it goes when you're a parent.
But if you're unsure which set to get for your kids, a great place to start is with the MegaFlexer Starter Set.
With this set, you can create fun, stretchable objects which are sure to keep your kids entertained.
Luxboxes.
Made right here in America, they wanted to create something that positively empowered kids to think, create, and dream big.
So, whether you're looking for a gift for a child who loves to build, or just a unique addition to your family game night, Luxblox is a perfect choice.
Check them out at Luxblox.com.
Use promo code MAT25 for 25% off.
That's Luxblox.com.
Promo code MAT25 for 25% off.
Report from the Daily Wire.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
announced on Tuesday that he has selected Nicole Shanahan to be his vice presidential running mate as he continues to run as an independent after dropping out of the Democratic Party's presidential primary late last year.
Shanahan, the ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has a history of donating to Democrat politicians, no surprise, and is the president and founder of an organization that invests in leftist criminal justice policy, environmentalism, abortion access, and more.
RFK made the announcement at a rally in Oakland as he touted her alleged expertise in a variety of fields.
And so he's very excited about it.
And, you know, there was a lot of speculation, of course, about who the vice presidential nominee or who he was going to select to be his vice presidential nominee.
Not that it matters.
I mean, the vice president doesn't matter at all, especially doesn't matter for a guy who has no chance of winning.
A lot of speculation, a lot of interesting possibilities were floated, and then he goes with the least interesting person you could possibly find.
But worse than being uninteresting, he has chosen a corporate leftist as his VP.
And before we talk about that, I should mention that prior to announcing it, By the way, at the same event, he brought a member of some Indian tribe on stage for a land acknowledgement.
And a land acknowledgement, of course, is when white people try to atone for the sins of living on allegedly stolen land by acknowledging that the land is allegedly stolen.
And, you know, oftentimes this is done by someone, you know, reciting a little thing.
But in this case, they brought the Indian guy up to give a little rain dance or whatever he did.
So here's what that sounded like.
[singing]
There you go.
I mean, this stuff is, it's so embarrassing.
And I'm not going to get into a whole rant about land acknowledgements, because that's not the point.
You've heard me rant about that many times.
So I'm not going to get into it.
You know my stance.
But all I will say is that this stuff is so humiliating.
Or it should be.
Like, have some damn self-respect.
Have some pride in your history and your culture.
Uh, this idea that we need to walk around in a perpetual state of mourning over primitive tribes that were conquered centuries ago, centuries ago, and we're supposed to still be upset about it?
I mean, the idea we're supposed to be upset at all, but like, still?
Still?
I mean, what?
By the way, when is, when is it over?
I mean, if the United States of America still exists in 300 years, are we still going to be going on about this?
Is it a thousand years from now?
Is it ever time to move on with your life?
If two centuries is not enough time, then that tells me it's just never, never.
5,000 years from now, we're still going to be here whining about, this land was taken from the Native Americans 5,000 years ago.
The trauma is still fresh.
It's still fresh.
I can't get over it.
I'm not going to get into it, but it's incredibly annoying.
Nobody else does this.
No other country does this.
No other culture does this.
Nobody does this.
The Indians don't do it.
They don't do it.
They tell us that we should feel bad, but they don't sit around feeling bad about the Indian tribes that their ancestors conquered and raped and pillaged and enslaved.
You never hear that.
When have you ever heard that?
When have you ever heard any of these people express any remorse?
You know, someone from an Indian tribe, when have you heard them say that, you know, my people in the year 1735, they raided a Cheyenne village and raped their women and kidnapped their children, and I want to apologize for that.
When have you ever heard that?
You've never heard it one time!
In fact, if you ever suggested it, if you went up to someone of Native American ancestry And said, are you going to apologize for what your ancestors did?
They would look at you like you're crazy.
And yet for us, this is supposed to be our permanent emotional state all the time.
And what are we apologizing for?
For bringing this hemisphere out of the Stone Age?
That's what we're sorry about?
We're supposed to constantly apologize?
I'm so sorry it's not the Stone Age anymore.
I'm so sorry.
I'm sorry about literally everything that makes your life enjoyable and livable.
Everything, everything that gives you joy and comfort in life.
I'm sorry about it, apparently, because, of course, if the settlers didn't ever come here, we would have none of that here right now.
So give me a break.
I'm not going to get into it.
All I'm going to say is that just once, just once, I'd like to see one of these events begin with an acknowledgement Of the settlers and pioneers who actually built this country.
And yes, they did build it.
They built it.
They're the ones who built it.
And they're the ones we should be thanking.
How about a little bit of acknowledgement for them?
How's that?
How's that for an idea?
Anyway, the point is that RFK Jr.
has gone full lib.
And that's really the point.
Not a big surprise.
This is the way things go.
This is the direction the tide pulls everybody.
You know, land acknowledgement, appointing, selecting this leftist woman, and it's the way it goes, because any, it, well, it's the direction the tide pulls everyone.
If you are in the leftist sea, you know, if you're in the ocean with them, then it's going to pull you that direction.
The only way to avoid that is to be on dry land, but if you, if you are in the water, it's going to pull you out deeper.
It's just, it's the way it goes.
It's like when you go to the beach and you set your stuff up and you, you know, you have your towel and your shoes there and you go in the water and you try to stay right where your stuff is and then next thing you know you look back and your stuff is a hundred yards away because it's just the water's pulling you that direction and that's the way it goes with these leftists who Like, to present themselves as the reasonable ones.
Like, they're not fully on dry land, right?
They're not on the stable ground of reality.
But they're closer to it.
And so, we're supposed to say, well, they're the reasonable.
They're the good ones.
But what ends up happening?
They always end up out deep.
Way, way out in the deep end.
That's the way it always goes.
Which, in this case, is good news, because I had been worried that RFK Jr.
would pull votes from Trump.
And I think that if this election had happened four months ago or something, that probably would have been the way it worked out.
But now, as he drifts into the deep, into the crazy, it's pretty clear that he'll be pulling votes from Biden.
I think that's pretty clear now.
If he pulls votes at all, I think the more likely scenario is that, at this point, he's not really gonna pull any votes.
You know, not enough to make an impact one way or another.
Because the closer he gets to Biden, the less of an alternative he actually is, and the less motive anybody has to vote for him.
It's a protest vote anyway, and if it's a protest vote where you're voting for someone who's the same as the other guy, it doesn't make a difference.
Either way, he's not going to hurt Trump.
And I thought he would months ago, and turns out I was wrong about that.
Happy to be wrong.
As I so often am when it comes to any sort of political prediction.
I am so often, it turns out, that I'm wrong.
In this case, that's a good thing.
Okay, big news out of Sacramento.
Here is the CBS report.
Watch.
And this resolution came to me from transgender constituents.
The state of California could become the nation's next sanctuary city for transgender people.
Similar to how we've declared ourselves a sanctuary city for immigrants and asylum seekers, we are directing city staff not to spend time with complying with enforcement actions from other states.
Council member Katie Valenzuela says her resolution is in response to the growing number of states restricting access to gender-affirming care.
We are taking proactive steps to ensure we remain a safe place for transgender people.
Of the 23 states banning access, roughly five have made it a felony crime if doctors offer gender-affirming care.
The binding resolution would prevent local authorities from using any city resources to help aid in outside investigations.
This is really oriented towards other jurisdictions, cities, and states outside of California who are currently or have already taken steps to restrict gender-affirmative care.
The debate over transgender rights is a contentious topic across the nation.
They are all coming together to safeguard our children in the state of California.
Just last week, a group gathered on the steps of the California State Capitol for D-Transition Awareness Day.
To end Gender interventions on children.
The group critical of gender affirming care met with fierce opposition from protesters supporting the LGBTQ community.
In response to those against the move to make Sacramento a transgender sanctuary city, Valenzuela says it's about protecting people's rights.
We can to ensure that everybody has access to safe and effective health care and gender affirming care is health care.
So I asked if the resolution had the backing of the mayor.
Council Member Valenzuela said he fast-tracked it to a full vote.
Yeah, so you obviously, you know, we're accustomed to the media being dishonest, especially when it comes to the trans issue.
But however low the bar is, that report you just listened to managed to get under the bar.
I mean, it dug a tunnel and burrowed under the bar, because that was just one lie after another.
And I'm not even talking about the incoherent parts of it, like when they said that the state of California is going to be a sanctuary city.
California is not a city, it's a state, as they said themselves.
What's actually happening is that the city of Sacramento, inside California, is declaring itself a sanctuary city for trans people.
Even though California has already done that at the state level.
And what the hell does that mean anyway?
Well, according to CBS, it means that they will protect transgender people, quote-unquote, who have been banned from accessing, quote, gender-affirming care.
And they tell us that five states have made it a felony to offer gender-affirming care, and a number of other states have outlawed it in other ways.
So, what's the lie here?
Well, there's two lies.
Now we know that the phrase gender affirming care is a lie.
Any news outlet that uncritically uses that phrase automatically loses all credibility forever.
They are taking a side.
Just by using that term, obviously, gender-affirming care assumes at the outset that castrating and drugging and mutilating people is affirmative, and that it somehow brings you into alignment with your quote-unquote true gender, and that is editorializing anytime the phrase is used.
So there's a lie there, but it's worse than that because the report doesn't even mention, at the start, when they're talking about the bans, That these are bans specifically against doctors doing this to minors.
Amazingly, that fact isn't mentioned.
So, bans on gender-affirming care for minors have been categorized as blanket bans across the board for everybody.
And that's a straight-up lie.
That's all that is.
Another one.
Why would they lie about this?
Well, because they know that at this point they can't even admit that this has to do with minors without losing the argument automatically.
Right?
The second they say, well, these are bands that are focused on minors.
The second they say that, they know that every normal person says, oh yeah, well obviously we shouldn't be doing that to kids.
Oh, that's what you're talking about?
Well, of course.
We're not going to do that to kids.
They know every normal person says that, and so they can't even acknowledge that this has to do with kids now.
Their strategy is to simply pretend that that isn't what we're talking about.
And I say all this even though, as you know, I am fully and proudly an advocate for actual bans on quote-unquote gender-affirming care for everyone of any age.
I think it should all be banned across the board for everybody.
I do not think that doctors should be mutilating or castrating anyone, ever, in the name of medicine.
It should never happen.
This is something that doctors should be banned from doing because doctors should not be allowed, ever, ever, ever, ever, to intentionally inflict physical harm on anyone, no matter what, even if the patient says they want to be harmed.
They still shouldn't be allowed to do it, obviously.
I mean, this is just obvious.
It should be obvious to everybody.
But even if I feel that way, that's not what the laws are doing, yet.
So, if Sacramento is a sanctuary city, quote-unquote, what that means in reality is that they are a place where parents can take their children to be castrated.
They are setting themselves up as castration tourism destinations, basically.
That's what's actually happening.
But once again, it's quite obvious why they aren't going to be honest about that.
They're not going to tell you that.
Because if they put it that way, which is actually the honest way, that's not editorializing, by the way.
To say that this is a place where parents can get their kids castrated, it's not an editorialization, that is just literally what's happening.
They're giving them chemical castration drugs, that is the most straightforward, sort of, objective way of categorizing what they're doing.
I could editorialize beyond that.
I could say that it's barbaric, abusive, evil.
All that is editorializing.
It's true.
It also happens to be true.
It's true editorialization.
It's correct editorialization.
But calling it castration is not editorialization.
It's just what it is.
It's all it is.
But they can't say that.
They absolutely know they cannot say that.
Then they lose everybody.
I mean, then it's like 99.999% of all people would not be on their side if they simply described honestly what they're doing.
And so that's why all we get is lies.
On a related note, I also want to mention this is from lgbtqnation.com, the website.
So you already know what you're in for in terms of the quality of journalism.
I mean, it'll be the same quality of what you're used to from pretty much every other corporate media outlet, but Dutch darts sensation Noah Lin is facing backlash after historic back-to-back victories against both men and women in the same week.
Last week, the 27-year-old won the Mixed PDC Challenge Tour in Germany, defeating several past male winners.
She's the first woman to win an event in the series, one level below the sport's top tier.
Van Leeuwen then played a women's event in the UK on Saturday, defeating two highly placed veteran players, including the current number one woman, Bo Graves.
After that quarterfinal victory, Van Leeuwen went on to dispatch Ireland's Katie Sheldon in the final.
So this is a quote-unquote transgender woman who beat both men and women in the span of a week.
Trans journalist and activist Erin Reid wasn't convinced that a trans woman could have any advantage in the sport.
"Transgender women have a biological advantage at darts?
That's what's being claimed by a few people who are trying to get Noah Lynn Van Leeuwen removed
from a women's darts team?
There's no evidence transgender women are better at angles and throwing a dart."
So that's been the narrative from trans activists on this.
They're saying, this is darts, there's no advantage there.
Okay, actually, yes.
Transgender women are better at darts, and they're better at darts because transgender women are men, and men are better at darts.
And why are men better at darts?
Because men have better hand-eye coordination.
That's basic science.
It's a fact.
So yes, men have an advantage.
Again, just a fact.
But also, even if they didn't, This is the important point to make.
Even if they didn't have an advantage in this particular competition, it wouldn't matter.
It wouldn't make a difference.
Okay?
In fact, if a man, pretending to be a woman, was competing in a sport where actually he's at a disadvantage biologically, like let's say figure skating, it still would be an outrage to have them compete against women.
Right?
Well, figure skating isn't really a sport, but you get my point.
And we had an example a little while ago of a man competing against figure skaters as a woman.
And in that case, well then the problem is that he doesn't have a biological advantage, but he does have a political advantage.
And since in figure skating everything is decided by judges, they're more likely to give him a better score because of the politics of it.
But advantage or not, it doesn't matter.
It's wrong because men don't belong in the women's competition because they aren't women.
And that's it.
I don't care if it's a sport or a competition where you've got five trans-identified men competing against women and they all lose, right?
The bottom five positions are all the trans-identified males.
That doesn't make it any less outrageous.
Because it's wrong because they are lying.
That's why it's wrong.
It's not even about the advantage.
It's not fundamentally about the advantage.
It's about the lie.
It's about the deception.
It's about the untruth.
Why shouldn't men compete against women?
Because they are not women.
That's the whole reason.
That's it.
Okay?
If you see a man swimming in the ocean, Why shouldn't you call him a dolphin?
Because he's not one.
That's it.
That's the whole reason why you shouldn't say it.
End of discussion, really.
Well, if we continue the discussion, then you can get to things like advantages.
That's a secondary concern.
The first concern is that it's not true.
It's a lie, and then from that untruth, once we have accepted the untruth as a truth, a bunch of other bad things start to happen, and one of them is that these men have advantages.
But we should always remember that that's not the fundamental problem.
All right.
The New York Post has this article.
The sun will come out tomorrow, but do you care?
Maybe you've opted to partake in the two recently viral lazy trends, bedrotting, an indefinite state of sloth at any time of day, or herkle... herkle-derkling?
What?
To lounge around in the morning when you should be seizing the day.
Why would that be called herkle-derkling?
Lounging around in the morning is...
Why do we need a name for that?
And why do you have to choose the worst name you can possibly think of for that thing that everyone has done?
Lounging around in the morning as Hercule Durkling?
The regret you feel when ignoring a beautiful day in favor of more bedtime indicates that you've been stricken with sun guilt or sunshine guilt.
And based on the number of views the term has garnered on TikTok, it appears to be pretty common.
Dr. Nadia Taymourian, a psychologist from the Moment of Clarity Mental Health Center, explained to Bustle that sunshine guilt is the feeling of remorse one gets when they stay inside on a nice day, and the feeling can intensify if the person assumes everyone else is outdoors enjoying their lives.
User TheReneeReina posted a video explaining the phenomenon earlier this month.
Quote, it is an abnormally beautiful day outside, but I'm tired, so now I feel this pressure to go outside and go for a walk and enjoy the weather while it lasts.
She continued, I can't enjoy myself indoors now because the whole time I'm thinking that I should be outside, so basically my day is ruined.
Virtually everyone in the comment section admitted to feeling sunshine guilt as well.
This type of guilt tends to go hand-in-hand with the fear of missing out or feeling like you're doing something wrong.
And then there's a bunch of... there's... okay.
There's a lot... much more analysis of this from mental health experts, so-called, and so on.
I mean, this is yet again why I could never be a therapist.
I cannot imagine sitting there and having someone come in and say, You know, I'm experiencing sunshine guilt.
You know, I was herkle-derkling this morning and I really felt some sunshine guilt over it.
I can't imagine having to listen to that and take that seriously.
You're not experiencing sunshine guilt.
You're experiencing the sensation of being a self-absorbed dumbass.
So get the hell out of my office.
And you still owe me $300.
This is a full session.
First of all, we don't need a name.
We don't need a brand new term for another kind of stress or brand of depression or whatever.
We don't need a new term for this.
We don't need a new... We don't need... This is the worst thing.
And look, I know that it's always kind of cliche when you start complaining about the younger generations, but... And I think there's a lot redeeming in Gen Z, actually.
Especially any who listen to this show.
You guys are great.
You guys know what's going on, but all the rest of them, I don't know.
But I will say, one of the most annoying things about Gen Z is this tendency to find a name or label for every normal thing that people have always done.
But you have rediscovered it as a trend, and you've given it a label, and you describe these completely banal experiences on TikTok with this new label.
And everyone says, my gosh, I do the same thing.
Of course you do the same thing.
What?
You do this sitting inside your house?
You think that's like a thing?
Well, I can totally relate to your experiences.
I have also sat inside my house at times.
I do the same thing.
Oh my gosh, you sit on your couch too?
So do I. I never knew.
I thought I was the only one.
I thought I was the only one who sat on my couch.
I thought I was the only one who had a couch.
You have couches too?
I've never been in anyone else's house.
I didn't know what other people... I've never interacted with any other human ever.
So I didn't realize that everything I'm doing is just normal human stuff.
So please stop doing that, Gen Z. We don't need a new label.
A lot of your problems, in particular, Stem from just being lazy and unmotivated.
And that's not new.
It's not unique.
It doesn't make you interesting.
It just... That's it.
And being lazy and unmotivated creates a bunch of other issues.
And then you want to come up with separate little labels for all of those.
But it's all the same thing.
It is all the same.
So just stop being lazy.
Okay?
So you have two problems.
If you have sunshine guilt, quote-unquote, first of all, it's because, yes, again, you're lazy, okay?
Like, you should go outside, so you should get some exercise.
If it's a beautiful day and you're lying in bed staring at your phone all day, And you feel guilty about that.
You should feel guilty.
You should feel ashamed.
It's gross.
It's pathetic.
Get outside, touch some grass.
So if you're lying there thinking, oh man, I'm such a loser, well, yes, you are, exactly.
So stop being that.
Stop being the thing that you're being that makes you feel bad.
No, don't try to change the feelings about what a lazy, fat a** you are.
Just stop being a lazy, fat a**.
That's it.
It's so easy, actually.
Well, it might not be easy, but it's so simple.
It's so simple.
And the shame and guilt that you feel, it's not... You know what that is?
It's called your conscience.
You have a conscience.
It's speaking to you.
Listen to it.
So you're being slothful, okay?
It's the sin of sloth.
That you're engaging and you actually have a soul that is speaking to you and telling you, I shouldn't be like this.
So rather than trying to rationalize it or post TikToks about it, or find a community of other people, oh, we're all in the sunshine guilt community.
We can support each other.
Don't do that.
Listen to that voice inside your head.
You're called your conscience again.
And go outside and get some exercise.
That's it.
You know, you could do that.
You could, like, if you're inside and you're feeling lazy and you're feeling guilty about it, especially if you're, you know, especially if you don't have kids, like, you have no excuse to, you know, if you have kids, if you have responsibilities, you might want to go outside, but you can't.
But if you could and you're feeling that way, go for a jog for 45 minutes and then come back inside and that guilt will be gone because now you've gone out and got some exercise.
You don't need to feel guilty about it anymore.
But that's the first problem.
The second problem is, as I always say, stop thinking so much about how you feel.
Okay?
It's not that interesting.
It's not that complicated.
And you know what?
If you're being lazy and you're lazing around all day and you're staring at your phone and it's a beautiful day and you're not going outside, And that's what you've decided to do, and then you're feeling guilty about it?
Okay, well then, fine, you've decided to be lazy that day.
Everyone has days like that.
But you don't need to sit there thinking about it.
You don't need to sit there dwelling on your feelings about it.
How do I feel about this?
How do I feel in this moment?
How do I feel in this moment now?
Well, here's a new moment.
How do I feel now?
How do I feel?
How do I feel about how I feel?
How do I feel about how I feel about how I feel?
How do I feel about how other people feel about me?
You're in this vortex of self-obsession.
Find something outside of yourself to care about.
For five minutes, if you can.
Baby steps.
Try to spend five minutes of your day thinking about something other than your own feelings about yourself.
And ironically, that'll make you feel a lot better about yourself if you do.
Despite the anticipated rate cuts by financial experts, inflation continues to rise.
The United States is grappling with a staggering debt of $34 trillion.
And yet, we continue to print more money, driving up the prices of everyday essentials.
You can bury your head in the sand, or you can do something about it.
Consider diversifying at least some of your savings into gold with Birch Gold.
As a leading dealer, of precious metals in the United States. Birch Gold is
committed to helping you discover how gold, silver, and other precious metals can help protect
your lifestyle in the face of current and coming economic instability. Birch Gold makes it easy to
own gold. They'll help you convert your existing IRA or 401(k) into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
Best part is you won't pay a penny out of pocket. Make gold part of your saving strategy with Birch
Gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold.
They've been the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for over seven years, helping thousands of our listeners, and they can help you, too.
Text WALSH to 989898.
That's WALSH to 989898 now.
Russia has been in the headlines for weeks due to the actions of Vladimir Putin.
To comprehend Putin's motivations, we must examine the historical context that shaped his behaviors.
In the new season of What We Saw in Empire of Terror, host Bill Whittle unmasks communism by taking a closer look at the history of the Soviet Union.
This tale of terror offers a compelling presentation of the horrors that plagued the Soviet Union and the viciousness of its leaders.
The reality is modern-day Russia has been centuries in the making, and this series will give you a better understanding of its history as well as the communism that threatens our own homeland.
In episode four, which is streaming right now on DailyWirePlus, Bill Whittle uncovers the horrors committed by Lenin and his Bolsheviks immediately after the successful revolution.
Not a DailyWirePlus member?
Well, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
What we do know is that a 948-foot-long cargo ship built in South Korea, operated by a Singapore-based company, slammed into a bridge support beam, causing the bridge to fall into the Patapsco River.
At this point, six people are presumed dead, all of them construction workers who were fixing potholes on the bridge at the time.
There were apparently no other cars on the bridge when this happened, and traffic would have already been light because it was 1.30 in the morning at the time of the incident, but also because, according to reports, the crew of the ship, called the Dolly, issued a Mayday call which mobilized emergency personnel to shut down traffic on the bridge right before the collision.
And as for the why of it all, well, it appears that there was a blackout on the ship.
That's the sort of thing that doesn't happen very often to ships out on the open water, but it can happen.
And when it does, it can be catastrophic.
And in this case, it seems that the loss of power may be linked to contaminated fuel.
Here's a Fox News report, quote, A safety investigation into the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore, Maryland will include whether contaminated fuel was a factor in the cargo ship losing power and crashing into the bridge.
The lights on the dolly began to flicker about an hour into the ship's trip early Tuesday.
A harbor pilot and assistant reported Power issues and a loss of propulsion prior to the collision, according to a Coast Guard briefing report.
Quote, the vessel went dead, no steering power, no electronics.
An officer aboard the ship said Tuesday.
One of the engines coughed and then stopped.
The smell of burned fuel was everywhere in the engine room and it was pitch black.
One cause of ship blackouts is contaminated fuel that can create problems with its main power generators.
A complete blackout could result in a ship losing propulsion and that smaller generators can kick in, but they're unable to carry all the functions of the main ones and they take time to start.
So, that's the working explanation of what happened right now at the moment.
A deliberate attack on the bridge was ruled out almost immediately.
It was unclear at first how they could have known so quickly that it wasn't done intentionally.
But it makes sense now, you know, now that we know that a mayday call was issued from the ship alerting police to shut down traffic.
If there was any sort of terrorist attack, you probably wouldn't perpetrate it at 1.30 in the morning, first of all, when traffic is at its lowest, and you almost certainly wouldn't warn police ahead of time to get everybody off the bridge, unless these were the most polite and thoughtful terrorists the world has ever seen.
So, with terrorism likely put aside, many other questions remain.
Plenty of valid questions.
But the media has already jumped in, as they always do, to declare that anybody asking any questions is automatically a conspiracy theorist.
Rolling Stone and NBC News have both run lengthy articles condemning the, quote, right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding the bridge collapse.
Rolling Stone reports, quote, "Right-wingers are more concerned
with using the incident to attack the Biden administration and spread conspiracy theories,
as has become the case with just about any news, making, with any news making a tragedy in America."
Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union
said on Newsmax that, quote, "We've never fully come out of all the lockdowns
and the COVID issues," adding that, quote, "If you talk to employers in America,
filling slots with employees who aren't drug addled is a very huge problem."
He prefaced the implication that drugs may have played a role
by noting that he is, quote, "No expert on what's going on on the seas."
Representative Nancy May suggested Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act may be to blame.
Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec posted a picture of the wreckage along with the caption, POV, your president is Joe Biden.
Several right wing accounts call for Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to resign.
Several others blamed diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Now, NBC News ran with an identical narrative in their article, and just to be clear, none of the examples listed are conspiracy theories.
Some of them are theories.
Some of them are questions.
Some of them are just statements.
None of them are conspiracy theories.
They might be wrong, they might be right, they might be partially right, they might not be right at all, but none of them are conspiracy theories.
Did this collision have something to do with the competency crisis?
Is that how the ship ended up with contaminated fuel?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Given that DEI is, at a minimum, contributing greatly to the competency crisis, does that have something to do, at some level, somewhere along the line, with this incident?
Again, maybe, maybe not.
We don't know yet.
It's a fair question.
Should Pete Buttigieg resign?
Well, he definitely should resign.
That was the case before this happened.
But when we notice that you have this string of transportation-related disasters that have happened during his tenure, is it fair to ask these questions?
Of course it is.
None of these are conspiracy theories.
Like, not everything is a conspiracy theory.
These are potential explanations or possible factors, and all of them are perfectly reasonable things to wonder about.
The term conspiracy theory has lost all meaning, as it is now used to mock and dismiss basically any question a conservative asks about any major news event, or any possible explanation that a conservative offers, however reasonable it might be.
The moment you open your mouth to say anything, anything at all, about an event that has just occurred, It is automatically a conspiracy theory.
That's the way it works now.
And the only way to avoid that charge is just to parrot exactly what NBC News is telling you and not to stray from that script by one single word.
That's what the term conspiracy theory has come to denote.
But that's not what a conspiracy theory is.
Okay?
I'll show you what a conspiracy theory actually is.
Because there have been some related to this bridge collapse.
A guy named Jimmy Corsetti tweeted this, quote, Oh my God, this can't be a coincidence.
The ship that crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was headed to Sri Lanka.
The flag of Sri Lanka is a lion.
The ship in the opening scene of Barack Obama's Leave the World Behind is named White Lion.
Okay, so here's a conspiracy theory.
That's what a conspiracy theory looks like.
That's how it works.
But none of those examples from Rolling Stone are conspiracy theories.
That one is.
So Barack Obama recently produced a film for Netflix From what I've heard, it was pretty bad.
Neither here nor there.
Apparently, in that film, there's some kind of accident involving a cargo ship, and that ship's name has the word lion in it, and the flag of Sri Lanka has a lion on it, and the cargo ship in Baltimore was headed to Sri Lanka, and Jimmy insists that this can't all be a coincidence.
But in fact, this is a classic example of a coincidence.
You could put that tweet in the dictionary under coincidence.
Perfect example of what one is.
What Jimmy is obviously implying is that somehow Barack Obama had something to do with the bridge collapse, which was in some weird, indirect way foretold in the film he produced.
Like, why would Barack Obama want to coordinate the collision of a ship into a bridge at 1.30 in the morning?
What would he gain from that?
And why, if he did, why would he leave clues about his plan in a Julia Roberts movie that came out six months ago?
And that's never explained because, of course, it makes no sense.
This is one of the features of conspiracy theories, actual conspiracy theories.
They are half-baked, fanciful, utterly baseless, hinged on incredibly tortured and tenuous connections between wildly unconnected things, and they also, strangely enough, often seem to assume that the nefarious forces coordinating these catastrophic events always like to leave breadcrumbs.
They like to leave little clues as to their sinister plots, so that random accounts on Twitter can put the pieces together.
A conspiracy theorist, an actual conspiracy theorist, lives in a fantasy world based on superhero movies that he's watched.
And in his world, the bad guys are, you know, the kind of movie villains who deliver evil monologues explaining their plans right before they're caught.
So that's a conspiracy theory.
Here's another one.
I just watched Biden's presser on the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore, and I just wanted to come to you guys with a few questions.
Okay, great, the government's there, but he also said that this was an accident.
Period.
Nothing about an investigation, nothing about where the boat's from, to anything.
Just, it was an accident, and we're gonna take care of it.
And we're not leaving until it's done.
So take that how you will, please discuss below.
I can only say so much, you guys know that.
But I also want to say and point out, don't let this also mask you from seeing what's going on with P. Diddy, Puff Daddy, and that whole conglomerate of Uh, you know what?
I've been saying it forever.
It's finally going down.
Is it a coincidence that this was a container ship hitting a major port bridge on the exact same time that his houses get invaded?
That's also a lunar eclipse or a full moon or some kind of some kind of moon that happened last night.
Remember I did a TikTok on it?
I'm like, guys, if you haven't seen the moon yet, go out and look at it.
It's pretty wild.
You can't tell me that this isn't all connected.
Some kind of moon happened last night.
Well, I'm glad that some kind of moon happened.
I mean, if there was no kind of moon, we'd be in big trouble.
She says we can't tell her that this isn't connected.
Well, I can tell you that because it isn't.
The moon certainly has nothing to do with anything.
And Diddy's house getting raided in Los Angeles and Miami for sex trafficking.
Would not seem to have any bearing on a shipping accident in Baltimore.
Like, what even is the theory here?
The government conducted these large, dramatic raids against a very famous person and tried to distract from it by, what, forcing a Singaporean ship to slam into a bridge?
How did that work exactly?
Did they tell them they had to?
Did they, did like, did Navy SEALs take over the ship and do it themselves?
Like, how did that work?
And why?
What would that achieve exactly?
The answer is absolutely nothing.
People are still interested in the Diddy case and will continue to be.
So, this is another characteristic of actual conspiracy theorists.
They are constantly claiming that this or that event is meant to distract from some other event.
Right?
Everything that happens is like, it's either the thing, it's like the one, there's like one thing that's actually happening in the world, And then everything else that's happening is to distract from that one thing.
Because we live in a world where only one thing can happen at a time.
It's not possible.
Well, how could Diddy's house be raided and then there's an accident in the same week?
Well, I don't know, because we live on a planet with 8 billion people and there's stuff happening all the time.
I mean, there's like billions of things happening every second of the day.
So they imagine that the government is not only sinister, which of course the government is sinister, but also as something capable of pulling off one complicated caper after another, keeping everybody quiet about all of it forever, and doing all of this most of the time for no other reason than to distract us.
Which means that these evil geniuses, who have this capability, Still have not noticed, somehow, after all of these years, that none of their distractions actually work.
And the public doesn't actually pay attention to any of their distractions for more than, like, a day and a half.
I mean, because that's... By tomorrow, no one's talking about the bridge collapse anymore.
Not because it's not important, but because nobody pay... No one talks about anything for more than a day and a half.
Anything!
So if you want to distract us for a day and a half, there are much easier and more efficient ways to do it.
Joe Biden could just trip going up the stairs again, and that would occupy our attention for at least as long as a bridge collapse.
So actual conspiracy theorists live in a world where bad things never happen on their own, accidents never happen, coincidences are impossible, and anything that seems remotely strange or anomalous must automatically have a complex, dastardly, quite cinematic explanation behind it.
And that's because actual conspiracy theorists use conspiracy theories as a way of coping With the randomness and uncertainty of life.
That's what's really happening here on a psychological level.
They are afraid to admit that in the real world, bad stuff happens and things go wrong very frequently.
Like, basically all the time.
You know?
And this makes them feel vulnerable.
So they invent a new version of the world where everything is deliberate and human agency controls everything.
This makes them feel, in an odd way, safer.
And it keeps them entertained, which, you know, is the main thing, of course.
And that's what conspiracy theories are about.
It's easy to lose track of that because 99% of what the media calls conspiracy theories these days aren't actually conspiracy theories.
And that's why the actual bridge collapse conspiracy theorists and the media outlets accusing the rest of us of being conspiracy theorists, when we're not, are all today cancelled.
