Ep. 1382 - Outrage Erupts Over Black Republican Who Says Black Family Was In Better Shape During Jim Crow. He's Right.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Republican representative Byron Donalds is being attacked by the media and the Left for nostalgically pining for the days of Jim Crow. Except that's not what Donalds actually did, of course. In fact, he made an important point that people should pay attention to. Also, Deborah Birx is back with a new virus to fearmonger about. WNBA players cry harassment after being politely asked a question. And what the hell is "queer time theory?” Is it as nonsensical as it sounds? Of course it is. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show
Ep.1382
- - -
DailyWire+:
Father’s Day Deal: Get 15% off your Jeremy’s Razor: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN at http://www.ExpressVPN.com/WALSH
BJU Press - Learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities at http://www.HomeSchoolHelp.com/WALSH
- - -
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, Republican Representative Byron Donalds is being attacked by the media and the left for nostalgically pining for the days of Jim Crow, except that's not what Donalds actually did, of course.
In fact, he made an important point that people should be paying attention to.
Also, Deborah Birx is back with a new virus to fearmonger about.
WNBA players cry harassment after being politely asked a question.
And what the hell is queer time theory?
Is it as nonsensical as it sounds?
Of course it is.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Big tech companies enrich themselves by taking your personal data.
They grab your web history, email metadata, and video searches to create a detailed profile on you and then sell that off to the highest bidder.
Companies aren't just selling products anymore, they're selling you.
To protect my identity and data from these tech giants, I use ExpressVPN.
Think about all the websites you visit.
These giant corporations track everything you do and say online.
Using your public IP address, they can uniquely match your activity and know your location.
ExpressVPN makes you anonymous online by camouflaging your IP address and
replacing with a different secure IP of your choice.
ExpressVPN also encrypts all of your data to protect it from hackers,
anyone else who might try to spy on you.
What I like most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use.
Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and
you're protected.
If you, like me, believe that your internet data is yours and
not for greedy corporations to exploit, then ExpressVPN is the solution.
Protect your data with the number one rated VPN provider today.
Visit ExpressVPN.com/WALS to get three months free That's exprssvpn.com slash Walsh.
Expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
The big political news last night was that Donald Trump has supposedly started sending vetting materials and questionnaires to a variety of potential vice presidential nominees.
The names include Doug Burgum, Marco Rubio, Byron Donalds, Elise Stefanik, J.D.
Vance, and Tim Scott.
Of course, the list is subject to change, so it probably doesn't mean a whole lot at this stage.
We have no idea, you know, what to make of it exactly.
I will say that Most of the names on the list, but not all, are rather uninspired, and a few of them would be actively bad and harmful choices, so I hope that's not the direction he goes.
At the same time, what we can be pretty sure of is that right now, and for the last several months, the Democratic Party has been working on ways to attack every single one of those potential nominees, of course.
None of the names on the shortlist are a surprise, so they've presumably been digging up opposition research and monitoring everything these politicians say, hoping they can catch a slip up or take something out of context.
That's to be expected at this point, of course.
But even with that expectation in mind, the attack that's unfolding right now on one of those potential vice presidential candidates, Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida, is worth talking about.
It's maybe the single most revealing smear campaign of the election cycle so far.
On Tuesday, Donald was speaking at an event in Philadelphia, along with Texas Congressman Wesley Hunt.
The point of the event, apparently, was for the Trump campaign to reach more black voters by speaking honestly about the challenges that black communities are facing right now.
Of course, the main challenge in black communities, as I've said many times and many other people have said, Is the epidemic of fatherlessness.
It's the collapse of the nuclear family.
There can't be any problem bigger than that when your nuclear family has collapsed.
Black Americans have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births as compared to every other racial group by far.
Roughly 77% of black children born in 2015 were out of wedlock.
That's the most recent year I found data for this.
Hispanics had a much lower rate at 56%, but still too high, followed by whites at 30% and Asians at 27%.
All of those numbers are too high.
But with the black family, the numbers are, of course, the highest.
It's not a coincidence, by the way, that if you were to look at a list of average household incomes in the USA by race, it would be the exact inverse of the fatherless list.
So Asians have the highest household income, followed by white, then Hispanic, then black.
As far as I can tell, these numbers have held steady for decades.
They've been consistent long enough that many people have come to believe that they're inevitable.
But that's not true.
There was, in fact, a time in American history where whites and blacks had roughly the same chances of growing up in a single-family home.
This was a period when most black women got married before they had kids.
And it's not ancient history we're talking about.
I'm talking about the first half of the 20th century, and in particular the 1950s and 60s.
At the event in Philadelphia, Byron Donalds addressed all of this directly.
He began by talking about his own personal experiences with the fatherhood.
And then he pointed out that two-parent black households weren't always an anomaly.
It didn't used to be this way.
Watch.
During Jim Crow, the Black family was together.
During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative, because Black people have always been conservative-minded, but more Black people voted conservatively.
And then H.E.W., Lyndon Johnson, and then you go down that road, and now we are where we are.
What's happened in America the last 10 years, and I say it because it's my contemporaries, it's Wesley's contemporaries, you're starting to see more black people be married in homes, raising kids.
When you home with your wife raising your kids, and then you look at the world, you're saying, now wait a minute, time out.
This does not look right.
How can I get something to my kids?
It goes back to the conversation of generational wealth.
Not just having a job.
Generational wealth.
I'm looking at my kids.
How can my kids be on my shoulders when they take off in life?
That's what's happening.
So everything that Byron Donalds just said there is true.
It's not even remotely debatable, in fact.
From 1890 to 1950, black women had an even higher marriage rate than white women.
And in the 1950s, the rates were about equal.
Quoting from the Hoover Institution, in 1950, the percentages of white and African-American women aged 15 and over who were currently married were roughly the same, 67% and 64% respectively.
But by 1998, the percentage of currently married white women had dropped by 13% to 58%, but the drop among African-American women was 44% to 36%, more than three times larger.
Additionally, between 1950 and 1997, the proportion of black births to teenage unwed mothers rose by 166%.
Any political party that wanted to reduce black crime rates and ensure that more black children go to school, get good jobs, want to reduce poverty in the black community, would be talking about these figures non-stop.
They're clearly the key to understanding what's wrong in black communities and how to fix them.
But Democrats very desperately don't want to have that conversation because, as Byron Donald said, it implicates them, starting with Lyndon Johnson and the great society welfare programs that arose from the civil rights era and going on from there.
Now, as the Harvard professor Paul Peterson put it, quote, some programs actively discouraged marriage because welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household.
Marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage, placed at risk a mother's economic well-being.
Peterson crunched the numbers and found that, quote, in 1975, a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from great society programs.
Adjusted for inflation, that means households would need to bring in $100,000 to match what the government would give them for free.
In other words, the government was providing a massive economic incentive for poor mothers to raise children alone in single-parent homes.
And because black mothers are an extremely poor demographic group, the incentive affected black families the most.
Now, it's not to say that this is the only explanation that can account for the decline in the black family unit.
There's a lot else going on.
You can also look at the decline of industry, the offshoring of manufacturing jobs, the rise of feminism, which cannot be underestimated as a factor, the influence of the entertainment industry, and so on.
But no reasonable person can doubt that a $100,000 government incentive to break up family homes was indeed a major factor that contributed to broken homes.
And a serious political party, one that cared about black communities, would learn from that disaster and immediately reform, if not actually abolish, these kinds of welfare programs.
But the Democratic Party has no interest in acknowledging any responsibility for their role in creating the crisis in the black community.
After all, a core plank of Democratic Party mythology is that the civil rights movement was an unbridled good and that no mistakes whatsoever were made in the process of creating the welfare programs that have persisted for generations.
So instead, the Democrats' top representative in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, just decided to simply lie about everything Byron Donald said.
Watch.
Mr. Speaker, it's come to my attention that a so-called leader has made the factually inaccurate statement that black folks were better off during Jim Crow.
That's an outlandish, outrageous, and out-of-pocket observation.
We were not better off when a young boy named Emmett Till could be brutally murdered without consequence because of Jim Crow.
We were not better off when black women could be sexually assaulted without consequence because of Jim Crow.
We were not better off How dare you make such an ignorant observation?
lynched without consequence because of Jim Crow. We were not better off when
children could be denied a high quality education without consequence because of
Jim Crow. We were not better off when people could be denied the right to vote
without consequence because of Jim Crow. How dare you make such an ignorant
observation. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
It's kind of incredible how bad this guy's Obama impression is or maybe it's
supposed to be MLK.
He kind of has the cadence down, I guess, or he's trying.
Then he starts repeatedly attacking a statement that no one made.
Byron Donalds did not say that black Americans were better off during Jim Crow.
He said black families were together during that time, and they're not together now.
Those are two distinct statements.
But I keep Jeffries apparently can't grasp the distinction, or he can grasp it, but he's pretending that he can't.
So he just makes a complete fool of himself attacking a straw man over and over again until he ends by somehow embarrassing himself even further.
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself, really?
We're quoting, what, Ice Cube songs now on the House floor?
This is what passes for rhetorical genius in the Democratic Party post-Obama.
This is the guy that'll make the Speaker of the House if they ever get back the majority.
Hakeem Jeffries wasn't alone, of course.
The brain trust at the Congressional Black Caucus put out a statement demanding that Byron Donalds apologize for telling the truth.
They wrote, quote, This is a pattern of embracing racist ideologies that we see time and again within the MAGA Republican Party.
Representative Donalds is playing his role as the mouthpiece who will say the quiet parts out loud that many will not say themselves.
His comments were shameful and beneath the dignity of a member of the House of Representatives He should immediately offer an apology to black Americans for misrepresenting one of the darkest chapters in our history for his own political gain.
Well, they got one part right.
Byron Donalds did indeed say the quiet parts out loud.
He said the one thing the Democrats simply cannot allow anyone to say, which is that the policies of the Democratic Party drastically increased black dependency on the government and in the process destabilized the family structure.
That is, which again, is a fact.
And you notice that none of these people that are complaining about Byron Donalds, none of them have even attempted to claim that he's wrong about what he actually said, because it's just a fact.
It's an undeniable, indisputable, verifiable fact.
And that's the third rail that Democrats don't want any politician to go anywhere near, even though with every passing year, it's getting harder and harder to deny it.
The Democratic Party has controlled pretty much every major urban center in this country for decades, and after all that, they've only made things worse.
You know, Selma, the site of the famous civil rights marches, the city that's been run by Democrats in perpetuity, well, they just went to virtual classes a few weeks ago, not because of COVID, but because too many children are getting shot.
Watch.
Happening now, some Selma City schools moved to virtual learning today over concerns about gun violence.
Selma's superintendent says there were multiple shootings over the weekend, and at the direction of local law enforcement, Selma High School and Saints Virtual Academy Alternative Learning Center were asked to go virtual learning.
WSFA 12 News anchor Judd Davis is live in the newsroom with more.
Judd, how long will this change be in place?
Well, Bethany, those schools you mentioned will be virtual for today only, at least for now, and all other schools in Selma will not be impacted.
The school superintendent says over the weekend there were several shootings involving teenagers and one teen was seriously injured.
No word on where those shootings happened or if any arrests have been made.
Now, we have tried to get in contact with the Selma Police Department so far.
No word back to get any new information.
The school superintendent says quote the Selma City School District has decided to transition to virtual learning until the suspects are apprehended or until police presence is increased in our schools.
This decision can comes out of concerns of possible retaliation, so it is possible the virtual learning could be extended, but so far we're told it is just for today.
Bethany.
Well, that's always a sign that everything's going well in your community when you have to shut down schools because there's so much violence.
And they're not even talking, apparently, about necessarily threats against the school itself, but just in the community.
The community itself is so violent.
That you can't, it'd be too dangerous for kids to go to school.
Hakeem Jeffries and the Democratic Party never talk about Selma, even though Democrats have been running it for decades.
The city that became famous during the Civil Rights Movement remains, to this day, one of the poorest places in the entire country.
I mean, it's so dangerous now that they're keeping children home from school.
That doesn't necessarily mean the people of Selma were better off under Jim Crow.
However, Hakeem Jeffries wants to define better off.
But it does mean that the government certainly hasn't helped matters.
In the wake of the civil rights movement.
If there's ever going to be a return to normalcy in Selma and dozens of other cities like it, then it's necessary to first acknowledge that LBJ's great society and its offshoots haven't actually created great societies.
They've done the opposite.
Byron Donald's made that case this week, and by completely melting down in response, Democrats in the House have admitted, basically, that he was right.
right. Now let's get to our five headlines.
I want my kids to be prepared for the future and for them to have the skills
and knowledge to seize the opportunities before them.
Education is a key component of that preparation, which is why my family homeschools and why many other families are choosing homeschool as well.
If you're currently homeschooling or thinking about homeschooling your kids, I encourage you to check out BJU Press.
BJU Press is dedicated to providing families with educational resources and tools that train students to analyze and think critically about real-world problems.
That's not all.
Their textbooks and resources are rooted in a biblical foundation, bringing all subjects under the ultimate authority of God's Word.
BJU Press not only provides a robust curriculum that is both biblical and academically sound, but also fosters a sense of community as well.
BJU Press offers a complete line of K-12 textbooks and teacher-supported materials, many of which are available electronically.
Visit homeschoolhelp.com to learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities.
homeschoolhelp.com.
That's homeschoolhelp.com.
The Hill reports Deborah Birx, a physician who served as former President Trump's coronavirus response coordinator, warned that the United States is making the same mistakes with the bird flu as it did with COVID-19.
Birx served as the coronavirus response coordinator in Trump's administration.
Of course, you remember her.
The one with all the scarves, the scarf lady.
A third human case of bird flu was identified in the state of Michigan last week, according to the CDC.
Like other previous cases identified since March, the person is a dairy farm worker who had exposure to infected cows.
The CDC has maintained that the current public health risk in connection to the bird flu is low, but that it will continue to monitor the situation.
But Debra Birx is very concerned about it.
Here's the clip, watch.
We're not testing to really see how many people have been exposed and got asymptomatically infected.
We should be testing every cow weekly.
You can do pooled PCR.
We have the technology.
The great thing about America is we're incredibly innovative and we have the ability to have these breakthroughs.
We could be pooled testing every dairy worker.
I do believe that there's undetected cases in humans because we're once again only tracking people with symptoms.
When we did that with COVID, the virus spread throughout the Northeast undetected because it took a long time to get to the vulnerable individuals.
But in the meantime, thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were infected with asymptomatic or mild disease and never came to medical attention.
We have to switch from symptoms Testing, so this is what she wants to do, test every cow weekly.
Every cow, every week.
Well, there are, I don't know if you know how many cows are in the United States.
I didn't know off the top of my head, but I looked it up and at least a five second Google search tells me there's 30 million cows in the United States.
So she wants to conduct 30 million cow tests every week.
That's 120 million cows tested a month.
Who's doing all these cow tests?
What happens if the cow's infected?
Do we kill the cow?
Can we eat them?
Bird flu burgers, that could be a thing, maybe discounted.
Has a nice ring to it.
But Burke says that we have to be worried about bird flu.
Even though there have been a tiny handful of cases, we still should be worried.
Because what about asymptomatic spread?
Where have we heard that one before?
That sounds very familiar.
In fact, this whole thing seems very familiar.
I seem to remember a few months before presidential election, there's a new virus.
Familiar plotline, isn't it?
Which is why it's a good thing.
Thankfully, the thing we can be grateful for is that these people are not creative.
They don't have any original ideas.
They just repeat themselves over and over again.
It's the same script ad nauseum.
Just like in Hollywood, there's nothing but reboots and remakes with these people.
And so, they're just trying the exact same thing again with this.
When of course, in reality, There's no reason why we should even be talking about a virus that has supposedly infected three people in a country of 330 million plus people, not counting all the illegal immigrants.
There's no reason to even talk about it.
What should we do in response to it?
Nothing, really.
And if you're going to be at all worried about viruses and illnesses that three people have, there's like hundreds of scary diseases out there that are currently infecting at least a few people.
So there's no reason to talk about it, really, but the only reason they do want to talk about it, of course, is, as we said, a few months before the election, this is how the script goes.
Okay, New York Times has this report.
Multiple Chicago Sky players, which WNBA team, shared their accounts of being harassed outside the team's hotel in Washington, D.C.
on Wednesday night with star rookie Angel Reese saying a teammate had a camera put in her face as she got off the bus.
Reese wrote on X, this is really out of control and needs to stop.
Sky arrived in Washington, D.C.
ahead of their game against the Washington Mystics on Thursday night.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the team was harassed by a man targeting Kennedy Carter, who spells her name C-H-E-N-N-E-D-Y Carter, so it should be Chennedy.
Why would you do that to your kid?
You want to name your kid Kennedy, fine.
Why would you spell it C-H?
Because now you've doomed your child for the rest of her life.
She's going to have to correct people.
Every person that sees her name is going to read Chennedy, and she's going to say, oh no, it's Kennedy.
Or when she gives her name to someone, she says, oh, my name's Kennedy Carter.
They're going to write it down.
No, no, no, it's with a CH.
Why would you do that?
Just to be clever with your spelling?
Don't be clever with the spelling of a child's name.
Just give them a regular name with regular spelling.
Anyway.
Kennedy Carter has received nationwide attention for her hard foul on Caitlyn Clark in the Sky's Game against Indiana Fever.
We talked about that.
Sky 4 Brianna Turner said she wasn't at the scene of the incident.
At the scene of the incident.
But the absurd headlines recently has certainly created an unstable environment for our safety, she says.
Sky Forward Isabel Harrison posted, Thank God for security.
My teammate being harassed at our hotel is insane.
Couldn't even step off the bus.
Okay, well.
These players were harassed.
They needed security.
Harassed, accosted.
Unstable environment.
They're unsafe.
Out of control.
It has to stop.
It sounds pretty bad.
It sounds terrible.
And if people are harassing WNBA players, they really do need to stop.
Harassment is bad.
We can't have that.
So is this what we've come to in America?
That now WNBA players can't even get off a team bus without being harassed?
That's pretty rough stuff.
That's bad.
Well, fortunately, there is video evidence of this harassment.
I mean, the guy who did the quote-unquote harassing is the one who recorded it.
And so we have video of it.
And I think we'll be able to play this whole video uncensored.
It is pretty, it's pretty dire.
It's pretty disturbing, pretty tough to watch.
But here it is.
Ms.
Carter, have you gotten a chance to reach out to Caitlyn?
Relax.
Have you gotten a chance to reach out to Caitlin?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Kennedy, have you gotten a chance?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
The basketball world wants to know if he's gotten a chance to reach out to her.
That was it.
That was the whole thing.
You're probably watching, waiting for the harassment to start, but that was it.
So that was the harassment.
A guy standing at a distance politely asking a question.
That's harassment.
A question that's not even really a gotcha question or a hard question, not even a hostile question.
It wasn't even like, how dare you, how could you treat someone like that?
It was just, have you had a chance to reach out to her?
That was the most innocuous question you could ask.
And that's what makes them feel threatened.
Their safety is jeopardized.
One guy with a camera asking a question for 20 seconds.
That's what these women are whining about.
So, not a big surprise, but many of these WNBA players have revealed themselves to be some of the most insufferable human beings on the planet.
And by the way, maybe that solves the mystery for you ladies in the WNBA, the ones that a lot of you are complaining that Caitlin Clarke gets more attention than you do.
Well, partly it's because she's better, but also she seems, you know, and I don't watch her, I don't follow WNBA basketball at all, but she seems like a nice, normal, likable person.
You know, just seems like a nice, like a normal person.
And you, on the other hand, are incredibly unlikable.
Just very unpleasant, annoying, whiny.
So nobody likes you.
The fans don't like you.
Most likely the people in your personal life don't even like you.
Not because of racism, it's because of your defective personalities.
Hope that makes you feel better.
Hope that's reassuring to you.
It actually shouldn't be.
Like, I would rather be the target of racism than have people not like me because of just who I am as a person.
So, I don't know.
If it makes you feel better, but that's the problem.
Whether it's Angel Reese or this other Kennedy Carter, whoever.
People don't like you.
It's not because of your race.
It's just because of who you are.
It's because of everything else about you besides that is why they don't like you.
Meanwhile, here you are getting attention like you asked.
You whined that you weren't getting attention.
Now you're getting the attention you ordered.
You ordered the attention.
You pointed to it on the menu.
And you asked the waiter for it.
You said, yes, I'd like to order some attention, please.
Can I get the all-you-can-eat attention platter, please, with free refills?
And you got it.
That's what you wanted.
And now you're whining about that, too.
So, when people don't pay attention to you, you whine.
When people do pay attention to you, you whine.
I'm starting to think that you just will whine about anything, no matter what.
It's almost like you're always the victim, regardless of the circumstances.
Because if you want to be famous, and you want people to pay attention and to care about the WNBA, this is part of being a famous person.
Is that when you walk down the street, somebody might come up with a camera and ask you a question.
That's part of the whole thing.
It's part of the deal.
But no matter what, they are the victims, as we've seen.
We talked a moment ago about reboots and rehashes and sequels.
Daily Wire has this, "The numbers show that women and young moviegoers just aren't showing up for the female-led dystopian
Furiosa a Mad Max saga, and it might mean the end of the franchise."
The latest Mad Max film opened domestically over the long Memorial Day weekend and brought in a dismal $32 million at the box office, just barely beating the Chris Pratt-led The Garfield movie, which earned $31 million the same weekend.
Diving into the numbers, The Blaze News found that between the Charlize Theron-Tom Hardy 2015 Mad Max Fury Road and the newest one, led by actress Anya Taylor-Joy, Fewer women and young moviegoers turned out to watch the George Miller-directed film.
In 2015, the film's opening weekend saw a 40% female audience compared to the latest opening, which only had 29% female viewership.
At the same time, the film also failed to attract the coveted age demographic of ages 18 to 24, with only 21% turning up to watch the latest Mad Max film compared to 31%.
Watched the one in 2015, and so it's just doing poorly.
So Hollywood's very rough summer continues, and they were hoping that Mad Max would bail them out, and it didn't.
I haven't seen the film, but from what I've heard, it's, you know, it's a decent, it's pretty good.
It does have a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, both by the critics and the audience, 90% from both, which is...
Which is pretty impressive.
It's kind of rare these days that critics and audience agree, and to agree exactly at 90%.
So, pretty impressive.
I'm assuming it's a decent movie.
Why isn't it performing?
Well, for one thing, it's a Mad Max movie without Mad Max.
And this is something Hollywood has been trying a lot recently, of course, where they put out a movie That's like in the universe, right, of some iconic character, but without that character in the film.
And it rarely works.
And it's working less and less.
There are diminishing returns on this sort of thing.
And they've tried this with a lot of franchises.
They just put out basically the worst movie of all time.
What was it called?
Madam Web.
Madam Web.
And it was a movie in the Spider-Man universe, but without Spider-Man.
And it flopped and it was terrible and everybody hated it.
Of course, because why would you want to watch a Spider-Man movie without Spider-Man?
Why would you want a Mad Max movie without Mad Max?
The studios do this because they're trying to milk the IP, the brand.
It's obviously why they do it.
But they still somehow don't understand just how exhausted the audience is with the same stuff over and over and over again.
Which is why if you want to tell a story about some woman in a post-apocalyptic world who goes on an adventure or whatever, then fine, tell that story.
It doesn't have to be in the Mad Max universe, it could just be in the universe.
Just tell the story.
Not every story has to be connected to some other story.
Let it live and die on its own.
Let it stand on its own two feet.
I mean, Star Wars is the most infamous example of this.
Every five weeks, they put out another thing that's in the Star- You know, and so it's just a- All it is now, it's just a sci-fi film or show that has no connection to the main, whatever, Star Wars storyline, but it's in the Star Wars universe.
Well, how about just make a- If you want to do a sci-fi show, just make a sci-fi show.
It's its own thing.
It doesn't have to be in that universe.
There's a whole actual universe where you could fit a lot of stories.
And then also people are sick of the female action hero thing.
So I think that's part of this as well.
Audiences were never all that interested in female action heroes to begin with.
But now people are really tired of it.
And from what I understand, this one is not really woke feminist propaganda.
Maybe it is.
I'm sure there's some of that in there.
But, even if it isn't, it's still a female-led action film, and there simply isn't much interest in that.
There just isn't.
And there never has been.
With few exceptions, even after Hollywood has been pushing this for 15 years now, they've been relentlessly pushing this.
You gotta have an action movie, it should be a female lead, and they've been pushing it, but Most of the most successful and beloved and iconic action films of all time are male-led, still.
And that's because, generally speaking, men make better action heroes.
They just do.
Men, generally speaking, are better suited for those roles.
And most of the time, audiences are more interested in that.
Audiences relate to them more, even female audiences.
But Hollywood's gonna keep trying until, I guess, they beat us into submission with this stuff.
All right, here's quite a grim story, unfortunately.
This is from The Independent.
When Michael Ballmer found out that he was terminally ill with colon cancer, he spent a lot of time with his wife, Annette, talking about what would happen after his death.
She told him one of the things she'd miss most is being able to ask him questions whenever she wants because he's so well-read and always shares his wisdom.
That conversation sparked an idea for Ballmer.
Recreate his voice using artificial intelligence to survive him after he passes away.
The 61-year-old startup entrepreneur teamed up with his friend in the U.S., Robert Locascio, CEO of the AI-powered legacy platform Eternos.
Within two months, they built a comprehensive interactive AI version of Bomber, the company's first client.
Eternos, which got its name from the Italian and Latin word for eternal, says its technology will allow Ballmer's family to engage with his life experiences and insights even after he's dead.
It's among several companies that have emerged in the last few years, once becoming a growing space for grief-related AI technology.
One of the most well-known startups in this area, California-based Storyfile, allows people to interact with pre-recorded videos and uses its algorithms to detect the most relevant answers to questions posed by users.
Another company called Hereafter AI offers similar interactions through a life story avatar that users can create by answering prompts or sharing their own personal stories.
There's also Project December, a chatbot that directs users to fill out a questionnaire answering key facts about a person and their traits, and then pay $10 to simulate a text-based conversation with the character.
The character being your dead loved one?
Another company, Seance AI, offers fictionalized seances for free.
Like I said, it's grim.
This is grim stuff.
Quite literally a Black Mirror episode.
I think this exact plotline was a Black Mirror episode.
And so we continue to use dystopian sci-fi as an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.
And this kind of thing It's so deeply depressing on a level that's almost inexpressible.
The idea of being turned into a chatbot after you die.
It's truly a fate worse than... It's worse than death.
It's worse than hell.
I mean, it's better to burn in the fires of eternal torment than to be made into Siri.
Or at least it's like... They're one and the same.
It's like, that is hell.
That's, you know...
I tell you this right now, if anyone does this to me after I die, I'm going to come back and haunt you.
I'm going to haunt the hell out of you if you do this to me.
It's full-on poltergeist if I find out that I've been turned into a chatbot.
And this is probably the best example, the starkest example, the bleakest example.
of our death phobic culture.
We are a culture terrified of death.
And I know you might say that every culture has been afraid of death, every person is afraid of death to some extent, and that's true.
So maybe death phobic is not exactly the right term.
We aren't afraid of death as much as we are in In denial about it.
The Denial of Death is a book I mentioned on the show before.
It was written in the 70s by a guy named Ernest Becker, who ironically died shortly after it was published.
He won a Pulitzer, I think, for the book, but was not alive to receive it because he had died.
But this was his theory, that modern society is in denial about the reality of death.
It refuses to even really acknowledge the reality of death.
Because death is finality.
Death is the end of something.
Death is a conclusion.
Death is something that we can't really control.
It has a power over us that we can't change, that we can't mitigate.
And we like to believe that we're in control of everything, that we have total control over every aspect of our lives.
And that nothing can happen or should be allowed to happen if we don't want it and if we don't like it,
if we don't identify with it.
So we wanna be able to say to death, oh, I don't identify.
No, I don't identify as dead.
I don't, that doesn't work.
Dying doesn't really work with what I wanna do in my life.
I don't really, I don't know.
I just don't connect with that.
Sorry, death.
That's what we wanna say, but of course we can't.
And in modern society, we have just a lot of trouble with all that, so we find ways of trying to fool ourselves
It's just kind of this game that we play to avoid its reality.
That's what a lot of the cosmetic surgery industry is about.
That's what our obsession with youth is about.
That's why we act like our age is some kind of embarrassing personal detail.
Which is endlessly absurd.
That, you know, asking someone how old they are is embarrassing.
That if somebody is 52 years old, or whatever it is, that they should be embarrassed by that.
One of the many things that we take for granted, we probably think that, oh, you know, it's normal.
You don't ask people that question.
Well, it's not normal.
I mean, in most societies, it was the opposite, actually.
If anything, it was embarrassing to be too young.
Being old was a sign that people were proud of that.
You know, the village elder.
The village elder is 75 years old.
He's quite proud to be 70.
Tell everybody that.
Because what does that mean?
It means you've been around for a long time.
You have wisdom.
There's wisdom that comes with it.
And that was revered.
And now we have the exact opposite.
I mean, it really is.
It's the world we've all lived in.
The world we all grew up in.
So it's impossible to not take it for granted to some extent.
But we should try to understand, at least on an intellectual level, how ridiculous it is to live in a society where older people pretend to be younger.
They try to make themselves look younger.
They don't want to talk about their age.
They want to be seen as younger.
Like if you say to a 55-year-old woman, oh, I thought you were 35.
She'll take that as a compliment.
Oh, thank you.
That's an insult.
And to be thought of as significantly younger than you are, you should be insulted by that.
That's another way of saying you are not mature.
You know, I expect older people to have a certain gravitas and wisdom about them, and you don't have that.
And so that's what I'm telling you.
And you take it as a compliment.
So, but that's all, it's all part of the same, it's all part of the same thing.
That we are, what is all of that about?
Like why is it, why is it embarrassing to be older?
It doesn't make any sense.
The only reason why it could be considered embarrassing is because we understand that being older is, you know, with age comes greater proximity to death.
And that is the fact that we are embarrassed by, and afraid of, and don't want to acknowledge.
And this is, so far, the bleakest manifestation of this, that we can try to say, well, I'm not really dying at all, because I'm going to be, I'm going to live forever in my loved one's phone.
I'm going to be an app.
I'm going to live forever as an app on my loved one's iPhone.
My God.
Jeremy's second-gen razors are bigger, better, and now a number one bestseller on Amazon.
I know what you're thinking.
Matt, your beard is the stuff of legends.
What do you know about razors?
Well, you're right about that.
This beard didn't just happen.
It's a blend of genetics, perseverance, maybe a little divine intervention, if I could go so far as to say that.
But I get it.
Some men go for the clean-shaven look.
I don't know why, but they do.
If that's your style, Jeremy's razors are the best choice.
Jeremy's second-gen razors have been completely redesigned from top to bottom.
We're talking about an ergonomic handle for superior durability and comfort, with blades that are sharper and longer-lasting, and they're not made in China.
Jeremy's knows every man is different, so they offer options.
The Sprint 3 is perfect for a quick, clean shave, while the new and improved Precision 5 offers an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
While other well-known razor companies are busy worrying about DEI and woke ideologies, Jeremy's Razors are focused on what really matters, delivering the best shave possible.
Because shaving should be about removing your facial hair, not your common sense.
Get your Jeremy's 2nd Gen Razor today on Amazon and shave like a man, not a manifesto.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
Today for our daily cancellation, we turn to something called Rainbow History Class.
Apparently Rainbow History Class is a website dedicated to teaching people about LGBT history and other subjects related to LGBT.
They have what they call teachers who post social media videos about various LGBT topics.
Just to give you an idea of what and who we're dealing with, here are just a few of the teachers they have listed on their website.
There's Rudy, they, them, a rainbow history teacher and creative.
Also Blossom, they, them, listed as a linguist and Spanish teacher.
Pomara Fifth, he, her, they, a drag performer.
Giancarlo de Vera, they, he, CEO of Gay and Lesbian Multicultural Council.
This is my favorite, Ellie, she, her, whose official title, as listed on the site, is Lesbian Fashion Historian.
So if you've ever sat around wondering You know, what lesbians were wearing in the 1700s or in the Middle Ages or in ancient Rome, then Ellie can tell you all about it.
Personally, I have often said, and anyone will tell you this because I talk about it all the time, I've often said that if I had access to a time machine, I would go to Egypt in the time of the pharaohs and inquire about lesbian fashion trends.
I would show up and say, hey, what do lesbians wear?
Around here.
And then, once they tell me, I'll say, oh, great, thanks, and I'll get back in my time machine and return to the current day.
But now, no time machine is necessary, because we have Rainbow History class for that.
Over on their TikTok page, which has, depressingly, over half a million followers, they just posted a video not entirely unrelated to time travel.
One of their teachers is instructing the class on the subject of queer temporality and the LGBT, quote, experience of time.
Take a listen.
Did you know that queer and trans people actually experience time completely differently to cishet people?
It's a concept called queer temporality, and it basically has to do with the fact that historically, as queer and trans people, our lives have started much later, and for a whole bunch of reasons, ended earlier than our cishet counterparts.
So as a result, our experience of time is compressed.
It also has to do with the fact that those milestones that we've been socialized to use to mark the passage of time, so things like marriage or having children or, you know, working, retiring, inheritance, things like that, haven't been accessible to us.
And that linear timeline has a name.
Heterochronology.
And she's Australian, of course.
Of course she's Australian.
I think.
Or something like that.
From New Zealand, maybe?
Basically, it's super interesting and I'm going to be unpacking it more this week on
the podcast.
So listen in wherever you like to do that.
And she's Australian, of course, of course, she's Australian, I think, or something like
that from New Zealand, maybe one of those.
Anyway, let's unpack it.
Yes, there's so much nonsense here to unpack that we cannot focus on each individual morsel of nonsense.
For instance, we'll have to just skip over the claim that LGBT people haven't been able to access things like jobs, retirement, and inheritance.
What?
This woman lives not just in a different timeline, but on a different planet entirely, one where LGBT people are banned from having jobs or inheriting wealth.
Of course, with a major like lesbian fashion history, it is likely that most jobs are inaccessible, but that's a rather self-inflicted challenge.
Anyway, she tells us that linear time is not a common experience for all mortal creatures in the known universe.
In fact, linear time is something that only heterosexuals experience.
That is heterochronology, she tells us.
As a heterosexual man myself, you know, I experience one moment, and then the next, and then the next, And so on and so on until I die.
And I may assume that every other person also travels through life one second at a time on a linear path from present to future, but that's just my cishet privilege talking.
LGBT people, she says, experience queer temporality.
Their experience of time is compressed, largely because their lives start later.
How is it possible for a life to start later?
What does that even mean?
Like, later than what?
When someone's life starts and you say, well, this life should have started earlier.
What?
What do you mean it should have started earlier?
It doesn't mean anything, of course.
It's totally incoherent nonsense.
But it's not nonsense that this woman invented.
Rather, it was invented by academia, like so much other nonsense, sometime in the last several years.
The Oxford Student Newspaper has an article from 2021 titled, The Comfort of Queer Time Theory.
The author explains, "The basic idea is that queer lives do not progress in the same way as non-queer
lives. Experiences of queer people, like coming out or transitioning for trans people, warp time,
which prevents life developing in a linear way. For me as a bisexual, I feel like I experience
two strands of time. The first is the time I spend with my partner, and the second is the
My progression with dating people that don't identify as men has been far behind than my progression with dating men, which has evolved in a fairly normal way.
Queer time has reassured me of my identity.
Sexuality is about attraction, not action.
It is perfectly okay to have different levels of experience with different genders.
My life and the lives of other queer people may not develop the way that they do for non-queer people.
We might reach significant life events later or never at all.
We might be inexperienced for our age, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
Yes, you see that when a queer person comes out of the closet, that earth-shattering announcement is so cosmically significant that it literally warps time.
They then find themselves experiencing multiple strands of time all at once.
Queer people are superhuman.
They're like gods living outside of time itself.
They are timeless, ageless, omnipresent, omniscient beings.
And the only thing more impressive than their mystical ability to transcend the linear progression of time is, of course, their humility.
Now, I don't need to explain why this is all a bunch of gibberish.
There's hopefully no need to debunk the claim that LGBT people experience non-linear time.
I assume that everyone listening to this segment already understands that we are all subject to the progression of time no matter what our sexual preferences are.
All of our lives.
You know, take different courses, we follow different trajectories, we have different milestones, different landmarks along the way, but time moves at the same speed for all of us.
Now, that doesn't mean that time is the same everywhere in the universe.
There are places you can go, theoretically, where time really is warped.
The edge of a black hole, for instance.
And I will say that if anybody in the Rainbow History class wanted to make the trek to the nearest black hole about 1,500 light years away to really experience time dilation, I think that's a great idea.
I'd be very supportive of that project.
I would even donate to a GoFundMe to get it off the ground.
But as long as they're on Earth, time is the same for them as it is for any of us.
If we can just all agree on that point, where does queer time theory really come from?
How could anyone become convinced that they literally exist outside of linear time?
Well, the answer is the same as always.
This is just narcissism.
This is extreme, overwhelming, delusional narcissism.
That is how we end up with people who believe that they can transcend the laws of biology, and then even time itself.
They may try to dress it up in scholarly lingo, or what is supposed to sound like scholarly lingo, but if you peel back the layers, all you find is a giant, insecure, self-obsessed ego trying to convince itself of its own superiority.
Now, if it were possible for an ego to become so vast and so inwardly focused that it really did turn into a black hole that warped space and time, well, then maybe Queer Time Theory might actually have some validity.
But that's not actually how it works, and that is why the Rainbow School and its Queer Time Theory are today cancelled.
