Ep. 1588 - Feminists Are Infiltrating The Conservative Movement
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a growing number of allegedly conservative feminist influencers on the Right. This is a major problem—I’ll explain why. Also, we already knew that the “Maryland Man,” Abrego Garcia, was stopped by the cops on suspicion of human smuggling; now, we have the bodycam footage from that encounter. Plus, I am ruthlessly attacked by a Daily Wire employee on The Daily Wire’s own website. I'll deal with that betrayal today. And Mark Zuckerberg says that the cure for human loneliness is AI.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1588
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it.
The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/42SxDJC
I'm an American chauvinist, and you can be too! ORDER NOW: https://bit.ly/42H5pTo
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Go to https://expressvpn.com/walsh and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://gcu.edu today.
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life!
- - -
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, there's a growing number of allegedly conservative feminist influencers on the right, and it's a major problem.
I'll explain why.
Also, we already knew that the Maryland man, Abrego Garcia, was stopped by the cops on suspicion of human smuggling.
Now we have the body cam footage from that encounter.
Plus, I am ruthlessly attacked by a Daily Wire employee on the Daily Wire's own website.
I'll deal with that betrayal today.
And Mark Zuckerberg says that the cure for human loneliness is AI.
I'm skeptical.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Every time you search for health information, whether it's about managing diabetes or recovering from surgery, data brokers are tracking and adding this to your digital profile.
Then they sell this information to whoever pays, including insurance companies who might use it to raise your premiums.
Unlike your conversations with medical professionals, there's no federal law protecting this kind of digital health privacy.
Your personal medical searches are essentially up for grabs.
Until legislation catches up, the only real protection available is using a VPN, which is why I use ExpressVPN to shield my online activity.
I personally use it every time I travel for work events, rallies, and the like.
It gives me peace of mind knowing my sensitive emails and financial information are safe, even on a sketchy hotel or airport Wi-Fi.
ExpressVPN encrypts all your online activity through secure servers preventing anyone, including your internet provider and data brokers, from seeing your browsing habits or profiting from your private medical searches.
Plus, it works with just one click across all your devices and supports up to eight connections simultaneously.
And right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use my special link.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Walsh and get four extra months of ExpressVPN.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Walsh.
Normally, when some influencer posts a video that I find annoying and I feel the need to respond to it, I save it for the daily cancellation segment at the end of the show.
At the top of the show, I try to reserve for newsier subjects, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
Plus, it's Friday and I don't really feel like talking about newsier things.
So today, we're going to begin with a video from an allegedly conservative influencer named Emily Wilson.
And what makes this video relevant, aside from the fact that it just annoys me a lot, It echoes a message that we've been hearing with increasing frequency from women on the right with, in some cases, very large platforms.
Now, Emily's platform isn't very large, but it is sizable enough.
She has half a million followers on Instagram.
I'm sure she's a nice person.
I don't know her personally, and I have no issue with her.
But she represents a growing, or if not growing, then at least increasingly evident problem on the right.
And the problem, in a word, is feminism.
It's not compatible with any meaningful definition of conservatism.
Whatever conservatism is trying to conserve, like marriage, the family, Western civilization itself, feminism militates against.
And yet many feminists have become mouthpieces in the movement and are accepted as such, as long as they, you know, wear a MAGA hat and say that they don't like illegal immigration or whatever.
So with that in mind, let's listen to just the latest submission to this ever-expanding
Conservative feminist genre.
Here it is.
Hate to call out my own party, but the young girls on the right promoting this like trad wife.
I just want to make sourdough for my husband.
That's great.
I'm all for it.
I promote traditional values.
I understand.
I have been working since I was very young.
I don't really plan on stopping working.
I suggest you find a hobby that makes you money.
But you guys, guess what?
Guess what, baby girl?
That lifestyle working out?
A man, a provider, you just get to sit at home and bake bread every day?
Slim to none.
I would say none that that's going to work out for you or quite literally anyone you know.
You're actually setting yourself up for failure because it could not be easier, if that's what you're going to pursue, to be trapped by a man.
Okay?
Also, let's bring some other things to the table besides sourdough.
Guys want to be mentally stimulated.
As well as physical, okay?
But I'm just like, please, you guys are too young to be promoting this.
And also, by the way, it's cringe.
Well, yes, Emily, I am cringing, but not because of the trad wives.
I'm cringing at this lame, half-baked attack on stay-at-home moms.
And I'm cringing even more at the fact that women with these kinds of views are still embraced as conservative.
Now try to imagine the opposite of this.
Imagine a left-wing influencer.
Who advocates for every left-wing policy under the sun, but then comes out one day and says, you know what?
I think a woman's proper place is in the home raising her children.
Now, it's impossible to conceive of any left-wing woman ever saying anything like that.
And if she did, she would be immediately excised from the movement.
And that's because leftists understand that supporting so-called traditional gender roles is fundamentally antithetical to their worldview.
You literally cannot be a leftist and hold that view.
So the same is logically true in the reverse.
Attacking so-called gender roles is a fundamentally leftist thing, which means you cannot be conservative if you hold fundamentally leftist views.
Now, you have every right to express those views and to hold them.
But you should not be embraced as a conservative, much less listened to as a spokeswoman for the movement.
Now, let's go through some of the specifics here.
Emily says that a woman should have a job and her own income so that she is not, quote-unquote, trapped by a man.
She envisions the relationship between husband and wife as this inherently competitive thing.
Marriage is a zero-sum game where both husband and wife are competing for control.
Again, this is a fundamentally leftist conception.
It is a recipe for divorce.
I mean, there's nothing in and of itself wrong with a wife earning money.
As I've conceded many times, a family may feel that they need two incomes in order to survive.
They may want a second income.
The wife might have a job that doesn't require leaving the house and going to an office every day.
But if she's earning money as an escape hatch because she doesn't want to be trapped, that is a very bad sign.
And if you want to understand why it's a bad sign, just imagine how it would sound if a man adopted this philosophy.
You know, there was a woman on X who commented yesterday, as we were talking about this, that a wife needs a, quote, backup in case their man can't fulfill his providing roles.
Well, what if a man decided to have a backup in case his woman didn't fulfill her wifely duties?
Most people would find that objectionable for good reason.
The whole point of marriage is that you're devoting yourself entirely to your spouse to become one flesh.
It's not possible to make that level of commitment while at the same time actively building yourself a little nest egg just in case you want to leave.
Saying the vows and pledging yourself to your betrothed means not having an exit plan.
It means you burn the boats.
Like Cortez, and turn towards the wilderness and journey in it together, come what may.
That's the only way that it works.
Now, she also says that men want to be mentally stimulated, and the implication is that stay-at-home moms are too stupid to provide that sort of stimulation because all they think about is their sourdough bread.
This is absurdly dismissive and insulting to millions of good, godly, intelligent women who, while staying home with their children, But,
you know, having a job as a woman does not make you smart or interesting.
I hate to break it to the working women of the world, but your husband is almost certainly not intellectually stimulated by your job or your stories about your job.
In fact, if he was able to choose between listening to a story about your office drama or listening to a story about what you did with the kids that day, he would prefer to hear about the latter.
Like, definitely.
And this is the sort of thing you would know about men if you listen to them when they try to tell you what they want instead of declaring what you think they should want.
But the biggest problem and the objection that you hear most often from these feminist types is the claim that Somehow the stay-at-home mom arrangement is implausible or even impossible.
She declares that your chances of finding a man who can provide for you while you stay home and raise the children, that those chances are slim to none.
Actually none, she says.
There is no chance, no chance that it will work out for you.
There's no chance that it will work out for you or anyone you know.
And yet that's weird because it has worked out for countless people.
It worked out for my wife.
It worked out for many families that I know personally.
It worked out for billions of humans across the globe and through history since the dawn of civilization.
So Emily has written off the most normal and historically common practice as not just difficult, but according to her, literally impossible.
And not just impossible, but also absurd and grotesque.
Yeah, there's a lot of this kind of thing going around, of course.
During my conversation with Tucker Carlson this week, we talked about the issue of gender roles in marriage.
We also talked about, right at the top of the interview, the absurdity of gay adoption and gay parenthood.
Here's a clip of that exchange that Tucker's team posted last night.
Here it is.
You know, gay adoption.
This isn't the only argument against it, but I think it is a worthwhile argument.
There's never been a society anywhere on earth, anywhere, period, where they have had two men in a romantic relationship starting a family.
That's never existed.
It's always been...
A man and a woman start a family.
Or in certain ancient civilizations, and even some primitive ones today, you might have a man and several women.
You might have polygamy.
That's a pretty common feature, I would say.
Yeah, certainly common.
But you never had, and why do you have polygamy?
I don't support polygamy, but there was a logic to it, especially in ancient times.
Yes.
You got to create people, you know?
And the whole point of the family is to make children and care for them.
A family that's headed up by two gay men is, it's an abomination.
Well, it never happened before, and now it's happening, and that's why we call it progress, right?
This is progress.
It's something that's never been done.
Yeah.
It's progress in the way that cancer progresses.
Now, plenty of people on the right, or right adjacent, I guess, took great exception to this.
Glenn Greenwald is one of them.
He tweeted in response, One has to be morally deranged or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters, and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support.
To believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.
Morally deranged, he says.
The view that two men should not be allowed to adopt children, that was held by nearly everyone in this country and everyone across the world until very recently.
Barack Obama was against gay adoption when he first ran for president.
So was every other elected Democrat, pretty much.
Any elected Democrat over the age of 50 was probably, at one point, opposed to both gay marriage and gay adoption.
In fact, gay adoption was so obviously wrong to so many people for so long that it wasn't even discussed.
It wasn't debated.
It was just intuitively understood that children need a mother and a father.
We're not going to let...
Two men adopt children for the same reason that we wouldn't let a polyamorous polycule adopt a child.
Children need a mother and a father.
We are not going to deliberately put a child into a disordered environment where he is not only deprived of a mother or a father, but where the role of a mother or father has been replaced in an unnatural and confusing way.
Now this was always understood.
And now in the blink of an eye, What was always understood is morally deranged.
The thing that everybody believed forever until approximately last Tuesday is not just wrong, we're told, but shocking, upsetting, baffling.
This is the game that's played, and I, for one, am entirely sick of it.
I've always been sick of it.
Now, look, not everything that is old or traditional is automatically good.
Of course, slavery is old and traditional and still practiced in non-Western countries today.
It's also very bad.
But there are basic truths about how human
is fundamentally structured.
And these are truths that have withstood the test of time.
These are truths that have, while civilization held fast to them, have allowed it to flourish and advance in remarkable ways.
And seemingly miraculous ways.
Truths that minutes after our society abandoned them immediately led to decline and chaos and confusion.
And one of those truths is that a child needs a mother and a father.
Only a man and a woman can have a baby or should have a baby.
And another one of those truths is that men and women are different and so have different roles in the home and in society.
This was an idea so basic that there wasn't even a term for it.
We only started labeling it gender roles at the moment that we decided to abandon it.
And I would say that the results of that decision have not been good.
Divorce, broken homes, declining birth rates, 60 million dead babies.
And those are just the early returns, really.
And that's why we cannot be embarrassed to hold to a system that is ancient.
And timeless and proven, tested, vindicated by the testimony of our ancestors and by thousands of years of human experience beyond that.
As conservatives, if that is not worth conserving, then nothing is.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University, a private
Christian University in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing, create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are, provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private, Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
All right, well, Jasmine Crockett, as we do our weekly Jasmine Crockett is Stupid segment, she has some thoughts on Trump's deportations.
And so this is actually really insightful because it's all about imagining the shoe on the other foot.
Watch this.
As far as I'm concerned, you randomly kidnapping folk and you throwing them out of the country against their civil rights, against their constitutional rights.
And frankly, how would they feel if some other country decided that they were going to just start throwing people randomly in our country?
Like, that is absolutely insane.
So yes, all I gotta say is, y 'all need to get these fools out of here.
Yeah, wow, that's a great point.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine what it would be like if some other country started sending people to our country?
Can you possibly fathom what that might be like?
I mean, that's an incredibly insightful point by Jasmine Crockett.
Can you imagine other countries sending their people to our country?
I mean, just close your eyes and imagine that.
Imagine, say, I don't know, hordes of foreigners being shipped here by the millions every single year.
Imagine it.
It's impossible.
You can't.
You can't wrap your mind around this wild hypothetical.
We can't relate.
We cannot relate to all the other countries that have that problem, but we don't.
So Jasmine Crockett is one of the great geniuses of our time.
She has masterfully put this whole immigration problem into perspective.
She's really changed the way that I look at it.
Changed my life, really.
Because now I have so much compassion for those other countries that have foreigners invading.
I'm so glad that we don't.
I'm so glad we don't have that problem.
Great, great point, Jasmine.
Speaking of the problem we don't have, the dam has officially broken with the Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Yesterday we talked about the latest revelation, another court filing, this one from 2020, where his wife says that he's violent and dangerous.
And I said yesterday that this is still only the tip of the iceberg.
The Dems have hitched their wagon to this guy, and they've rallied around him, they celebrated him, they've canonized him.
And now they're going to have to own every awful thing about him.
And there are a lot of awful things, and more still to come.
So today we now have the, which had not previously been released, we have the body cam footage from...
The Tennessee Highway Patrol.
This is from back in 2022 when he was pulled over on suspicion of human smuggling.
And now we have a little bit of that body cam footage.
Let's watch it.
How dark are your windows?
How dark's the back windows?
Window?
Stand by.
How dark are they?
The color.
From Texas, it's good.
How many rolls have you got in here?
Four?
Four seats?
Four rolls of seats?
Yeah, three seats.
Did y 'all put an extra one in?
Huh?
Did y 'all put another one in?
No.
It come like this?
Here's the truck.
I've never seen one with that many seats in it.
You hear me?
What you say?
It's my ball.
I said I've never seen one with that many seats.
Oh really?
Yeah.
That's why I was asking if you could put an extra one in.
No, it's the same.
Like this.
Okay.
You know what you got, right?
Huh?
You know what you got here, right?
Uh, no.
He's hauling these people for money, is what he's doing.
But sometimes they co-mingle dope.
There's eight people in there.
I didn't know that.
So you hear the other cop saying that he's hauling these people for money.
And in the full video, you can see Abrego Garcia changes his story multiple times.
He's trying to explain what he's doing exactly.
We see that he has eight people in the car, all of them illegal aliens, just like he is.
He's got $1,400 in cash or whatever it was, which was his payment.
We can assume he's driving on a suspended license.
And the cops called immigration enforcement to come get him, but they didn't show up.
So Garcia was allowed to just go on his way with a citation, and that was it.
So I guess we're supposed to believe that this illegal immigrant, Was driving eight other illegal immigrants in the middle of the night with a bunch of cash and blacked out windows and a suspended license and couldn't explain exactly what he was doing or where he was coming from or where he was going.
And he was doing all that, but it wasn't actually human smuggling.
It just looked like human smuggling.
Because that happens all the time, right?
I mean, that happens to the best of us.
If you had a dollar for every time you did something that looked like human smuggling but wasn't, Well, you'd have no dollars, I guess, because a normal person can go his entire life without ever being suspected of human smuggling even one time.
I can say that about, I don't know about you, but I've never been suspected of human smuggling.
That's not a thing that happens to normal people.
If you're suspected of human smuggling, it's like 99.99% chance that you're guilty of it.
It's like a very specific set of circumstances that could come off that way.
And it's hard to imagine an innocent thing a person could do that would seem like human smuggling but isn't.
So, but, I don't know, just really bad luck, I guess.
Really bad luck, even worse luck, because also, around the same time, he was found at a Home Depot, in the Home Depot parking lot, hanging out with a group of MS-13 gang members.
And he was also wearing MS-13 clothing.
But that's another innocent mistake.
You know, he just accidentally ended up wearing, ended up hanging out with MS-13 gang members, wearing their clothing.
Happens all the time.
At least once a week I can say I'm about to leave the house and my wife will say, what are you wearing?
I'll say, well, I'm just wearing it.
You're wearing the MS-13 clothes again, you silly goose.
And then I say, oh shoot, my mistake.
You know?
And that's, so it's not at all suspicious.
Of course.
In all seriousness, though, no one believes this.
The Democrats, least of all, believe it.
It's extremely clear what this guy is all about.
And there's more.
And this is new today also.
We have the audio of his wife in 2020 in court begging the judge to protect her from her husband, who she says is violent and dangerous.
Let's listen to that.
I came to fill out a protective order.
I think it was in December.
But I didn't show up to the court because his family washed my brain telling me that his dad was sick and not to do it.
So I didn't do anything.
But after that, I would call the police.
I have a lot of police reports.
And I kept trying to get to the door basement to try to open the door, and then he pushed me.
So then when I was able to go outside to get a phone...
I called 911 from a disconnected phone.
Now, they took a long time to get to the house.
It was probably like 20, 30 minutes.
So I saw a neighbor walking his dog, and I opened the door, and I was like, "Help!"
And then when he heard me, like, he grabbed me from my hair, and then he slapped me.
And then the neighbor, like, he didn't know what to do.
He didn't know what to react.
I have pictures of the evidence, like, all the bruises.
Because even on Wednesday, he hit me, like, around, like, 3 in the morning.
He would just wake up and, like, hit me.
And then last Saturday for my daughter's birthday party, before I went to my daughter's birthday party, he slapped me three times.
And then last week I did call the police.
My sister called the police because he hit me in front of my sister.
So it's not new information, but we can hear the audio.
And of course it bears repeating that this stuff is all just icing on the cake.
The main reason that this guy should have been deported is that...
He's not supposed to be in this country.
That's all the reason that we should need.
All of the rest of this stuff is only the exclamation point at the end of the sentence.
And it also shows that these people are not enriching our country.
I mean, even if they were, again, you're illegal.
You're not supposed to be here.
I don't care if you're enriching us or not.
By definition, you can't be because you are undermining our sovereignty and the rule of law, and you can't enrich a country by doing that.
But that's also clearly not the case.
Because remember, we were initially told about this story that this is a Maryland father, gainfully employed, Right?
Contributing to his community.
Paying his taxes.
Why would we want to deport somebody like that?
And then we come to find out that this is a lowlife, beating his wife, allegedly.
Hanging out in Home Depot with gang members.
Can barely speak English.
Somehow, to me, of all of the two video clips we just played, that was the most annoying thing about it to me.
That, to me, was the most offensive.
I mean, all the other stuff is really bad, too.
But I think like any other legitimate American citizen, I'm really sick of that.
And it's not a small thing.
It's not like a small complaint that this country is filled with people who can't even speak the damn language.
I'm so tired of it.
Like, I take it personally at this point.
I do.
When I encounter somebody in this country who can't speak the language, I take it personally.
Have some freaking respect for this country.
If you're going to come here, at least learn how to speak to people.
At least learn what our language is.
And yet you have these illegal immigrants who come here, and legal immigrants too, who come, and they could be here for like 20 years and never bother learning the language.
I find that it's entitled, it's disgraceful.
That's your obligation.
You know something, if you're going to come to this country, it is your obligation.
To learn the language.
In my own country, I should not encounter people who I can't understand.
I shouldn't have to deal with that in my country.
So, that's how the country is being enriched by Abrego Garcia.
He's here, can barely speak the language, getting mixed up with gang members, beating his wife.
So...
Not somebody that we need here or want here, I would say.
So, some celebrity news.
Robert De Niro's son, one of his, I think, seven or eight children by four or five different women.
One of them, 29 years old, has now come out as trans, and the media's pretty excited about that.
I think this is a little video from our friends at Pink News, I believe.
Let's watch.
Robert De Niro's daughter has come out as trans.
In an exclusive interview with Them magazine, Erin De Niro opened up about navigating her transition journey and her identity.
She said, A few media publications commented on Erin's transformation after she was snapped by paparazzi last month, wearing heels and long pink locks, calling her look rebellious and barely recognizable.
Commenting on this, the 29-year-old tells them, She shared how her childhood experiences affected and shaped her into the woman she is today.
She says that she was ridiculed and excluded by her peers for being feminine, bigger-bodied, and different in ways she could not yet describe.
As the child of Robert De Niro and Tukey Smith, Erin also shared how growing up biracial further complicated her search for belonging, although her parents were supportive of her queerness.
Erin adds that she came out as a gay man in high school, I think a big part of my transition is also the influence black women have had on me,
she added in her interview with them.
Erin shares that she has predominantly been kept out of the limelight, but is keen to So there is no greater evidence that you failed as a father than this.
You failed so badly as a father that your son has given up on being a man.
You know, there are a lot of factors that go into the...
The trans explosion that we've seen over the past decade, this is definitely one of them.
A lack of strong male role models, a lack of male-led homes.
Robert De Niro obviously was not a constant presence in his son's life.
He couldn't have been with four different families.
And De Niro has also proven himself to be a weak, pathetic man in so many ways.
Which is a shame.
He used to be a great actor.
Truly great.
Not anymore.
And now his son has given up on being a man.
Although he is still a man and will always be, he's attempting to renounce it.
He's attempting to renounce his manhood, which is the most severe indictment of his father that he could possibly deliver.
Because as a father, it's your job to teach your son how to be a man, which is not something that boys can just figure out on their own, as our experience in society has shown.
Now, yeah, biologically, a boy will become a man no matter what you teach him.
And there are many aspects of masculinity that just come naturally that are instinctual, biological.
But the question of how to be a man in this world, what a man should do, how a man should be, how a man should carry himself, these are things that a boy needs his father to show him.
And he will follow in his father's footsteps, follow his father's example.
If his dad is absent, Or if his dad is a weak, pathetic, nothing of a man, then he will look for replacements.
And I think what you see in a lot of these cases is that he turns to his mom as a replacement for his dad.
And then the boy will become effeminate, or he'll try to go all the way and actually become a woman.
Now, there are also cases, particularly when it's a younger boy.
In this case, this guy is 29 years old.
But when it's a younger boy, of course, there are many cases we've seen where the father is not in the child's life, but not by any choice of his own.
The father's pushed out by the mother, taken away from the father.
But still, the result is the same.
Now it's not the father's fault.
He's no longer there to be able to influence his son, show his son how to be a man, and what ends up happening in so many cases.
The child ends up being transed through no fault of the child zone either, obviously.
But that's because he's now, the father has been removed from the equation in his life, and so now he has no male role model.
Now he's looking to his mom.
And so it's not a big surprise that it goes that way.
And we see this not just with the trans stuff.
I mean, in the case of a boy growing up in the inner city without a father, he's looking around for that male role model.
He's going to look around at his peers.
He'll look in the media.
He'll look to rappers and so on and come up with this cartoonish idea of masculinity and become a cartoon man.
And that's why we have so many cartoon men walking around.
And it all comes back to a lack of masculine role models.
And this is a very clear example of it.
All right.
I guess we will deal with this right now.
I have been viciously attacked.
I've been attacked on the Daily Wire website, no less.
As I mentioned yesterday, Jacob, who is a producer here, you've seen him on the channel because he's gotten wrecked by me in Mortal Kombat at least three dozen times, I think, by my count.
And he's penned an op-ed attempting to debunk my criticisms of Revenge of the Sith.
Jacob's a big Star Wars fan and heard my segment a few days ago and wept.
He was up all night crying, from what I understand, from what I assume anyway.
Multiple nights.
When I saw him at work yesterday, his cheeks were stained with tears.
And amid his tears, he wrote this.
Here's the headline.
Why Matt Walsh is wrong about Revenge of the Sith.
So let's go through this.
I haven't even really read this, but we'll read it now.
Matt Walsh is a man of many talents, a popular podcaster, a notable documentarian, a feared fisherman, and a surprisingly good Mortal Kombat player.
Okay, we're off to a good start.
I mean, actually, so far, I agree.
I agree so far.
We can just end it there.
See, Jacob, you should stop while you're ahead.
That should have been the end of the...
Matt Walsh is a man of many talents.
The end.
Thanks for reading.
There's one persistent trait, however, that must be addressed.
His passionate hatred of Star Wars.
I discovered Walsh's animosity for Star Wars in May of 2023 while listening to his show.
Okay, alright, we don't need the biography.
We don't need your whole life story.
Last Thursday, theaters nationwide launched a week-long re-release of Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith to celebrate the film's 20th anniversary.
The film stands out not only for its stunning cinematography, one-of-a-kind soundtrack, and compelling life lessons.
What's the life lesson?
Don't jump around on lava?
Is that the life lesson?
But also, as the final Star Wars entry before progressive-infused Disney acquisition.
Walsh apparently did not recognize the exceptional film for what it is.
After taking his children to sea in theaters, he took decks and attacked the movie.
I'll now address his unfounded criticisms.
Okay, alright.
This was my challenge yesterday when we talked about this at length.
At too great a length, some would argue.
You didn't know you were going to get three segments this week on Revenge of the Sith.
But you did.
That's what you're getting.
That's what you're getting whether you like it or not.
But that was my challenge yesterday.
I laid out my criticisms.
The fact that you're sad about it is not important to me.
It's not interesting.
Go through my criticisms and address them.
That's what I want.
That's my challenge to the Star Wars apologists out there.
And so it looks like this is what...
Jacob is setting up to do.
So, alright.
His first issue is with the film's dialogue.
Walsh claims Revenge of the Sith has the worst dialogue he's ever heard in a mainstream Hollywood film.
The supporters claim he quotes a romantic scene between Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala.
Is that really her name?
Padme Amidala?
And the dialogue again, Anakin says, you're so beautiful.
Padme says, it's only because I'm so in love.
Anakin, no, it's because I'm so in love with you.
Walsh leaves out the second half of the scene, which reveals the lines are not poorly written, but instead an intentional foreshadowing of what's come later.
The scene continues.
Padme.
So love has blinded you?
Anakin.
Well, that's not exactly what I meant.
Padme.
But it's probably true.
You think that helps your case?
I was doing George Lucas a favor by not citing the rest of that scene.
It gets worse.
You think a cliche like, love has blinded you.
Okay, a cliche that you can find in, like, every 80s song ever written?
You think that makes it better?
This is better dialogue now?
At this point in the film, Anakin believes his wife is going to die in childbirth because of a vision he has in his sleep.
As the primary antagonist, Emperor Palpatine, not Ovaltine, okay, tells him that committing to the dark side is only the way to save her.
This and his blinding love for Padme leads him to commit the atrocities he does later in the film.
Pure genius from George Lucas, who Walsh claims should be arrested.
I did say that.
Walsh's next criticism of the film is that it has abysmal action.
Well, hang on a second.
That's your defense of the dialogue?
That's it?
Your defense of the dialogue is to just explain what it meant?
Yeah, Jacob, I know what it meant.
I know that.
It's very obvious.
It's very on the nose.
Okay?
It could not have been more obvious.
George Lucas screams his dialogue into a megaphone while beating you over the head with a shovel.
I mean, he makes it as...
It could not be more clear.
I understand what it meant.
That's the problem.
It's so on the nose.
It's cliche.
We find out what characters are feeling and thinking by them just saying it.
That's not good script writing.
That's not interesting dialogue.
If a character is sad and he walks into the room and says, I'm sad, that's bad dialogue.
Okay?
And adding a cliche to it makes it even worse.
If he walks into the room and says, I'm so sad that I could cry a whole ocean of tears.
Three oceans of tears have come out of my eyes.
I have the anger of a hot sun.
Anger boils inside me like a thousand suns.
That doesn't make it better.
So now it's on the nose, you're broadcasting everything, and it's cliches.
All the worst things.
So, I'm not convinced by that.
Let me give you, okay, so, here's one random, just so you understand what I mean.
One random example of good script writing, and I only make, because I was thinking about this movie today for some reason, or somebody mentioned it maybe on X. And I'm not saying this is like the best dialogue of all time, just like an example, just one little example of what I mean, of what good, how a good script writer would,
does this.
So there's a film that came out recently called The Iron Claw, and it's a true story about the Von Erich family, who were a family of professional wrestlers in the 80s and early 90s.
And it's a brilliant film.
I don't care about the professional wrestling at all.
I didn't know anything about this story.
Even though it's a famous story, I didn't know about it.
I really liked the film.
I thought it was very, very good.
It's a tragic story.
The patriarch of the family, Fritz Von Erich, was a professional wrestler.
He had six sons with his wife, Doris.
I think.
And all but one of the sons, you know, in real life died, like in their 20s or 30s.
And actually, in the movie, they made it, if anything, they undersold it, where, you know, in real life, there were five sons who died, I think.
And in the movie, it's only four.
And they didn't do the, they didn't add the, they took a whole son out because they just thought it was so tragic that it would seem unbelievable.
The audience wouldn't buy it.
Anyway, so in real life, after the death of their fifth...
Fritz and Doris get divorced.
And the marriage falls apart.
Fritz in the film is portrayed as emotionally distant and abusive and domineering and all these things.
Well, in the script, by the end of the film, they want to show us that the marriage fell apart and that Doris leaves him.
And in the movie, Doris is portrayed throughout the movie as this passive character and she doesn't stand up for her sons at all and all this kind of stuff.
So, by the end, they want to show some kind of resolution.
And they want to convey this quickly and poignantly without beating you over the head with it.
And the George Lucas approach would be to have a scene where Doris yells at Fritz and says, I'm angry about the fact that you're abusive.
I'm so sad and angry.
I'm leaving.
To be clear, I'm divorcing you.
Because I'm so sad.
My heart feels like it's broken.
But in this film, made by a good filmmaker and written by a talented writer, an actual artist, all we see is a scene at the end where Fritz walks into the kitchen around dinner time.
Kitchen's dark, there's no food on the stove.
Fritz looks over to Doris, who's sitting across the room and painting.
And he says, what are you doing?
She says, I'm painting.
And he says, well, what's for dinner?
And she says, I didn't make anything, I wasn't hungry.
And then he kind of stands there and lingers, and then he...
And then he just walks out of the room.
And that's the end of that scene.
And we don't see those characters again.
That is the conclusion of their story.
That is good script writing.
Because the scene symbolizes the dissolution of the marriage.
They never talk about their marriage.
She doesn't say, I'm leaving you.
They don't need to.
The writer communicates the point without having the characters actually talk about it.
Okay?
Because she now is focused on herself.
She's not serving her husband anymore.
And they symbolize that by this simple fact that not only did she not make him dinner, but her reason for not making it is that she wasn't hungry.
Like, she's not even thinking about him anymore.
And that's the scene, okay?
And that is subtext.
You're supposed to have subtext in a good script.
But with George Lucas, it's only text.
And that's my issue with it.
Anyway, okay, so Jacob...
Walsh's next criticism of the film is that it has abysmal action choreography.
To me, this attack is the most absurd.
The final fight between Anakin, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Master vs.
Apprentice is one of the most iconic fight scenes in cinema history.
Numerous outlets such as WatchMojo, ScreenRant, and MovieWeb rank the battle as one of the greatest sword fights in movie history.
Oh, well.
If MovieWeb and WatchMojo liked it, then never mind.
I didn't know that.
When I thought that it was lame choreography, I didn't know that MovieWeb and WatchMojo said that it was a great scene.
It's the weirdest appeal to authority I've ever seen.
Let's see.
Okay.
Like many things Walsh has criticized in the film, the seemingly risky move Anakin used was intentional.
All right.
I don't...
Okay, and now he's nerding out and we're getting a lot of background information about Star Wars.
Walsh's final objection to the film is that it took itself too seriously.
He expands on this by claiming you can't be campy and fun and also have a mass child slaughter in the same film.
Most of Walsh's criticism comes from a lack of looking beneath the surface, taking everything at face value.
There is nothing beneath the surface.
That's my whole point.
That's the whole problem here.
Revenge of the Sith was always meant to be lighthearted in the beginning and tragic in the end.
After nearly three decades of fans left without a backstory, the purpose of the movie was to show how Hollywood's most iconic villain, Darth Vader, transformed from a cunning warrior for good to the embodiment of evil.
If following the classic hero's journey literary archetype, we witness Anakin's lighthearted upbringing in episodes one and two.
Okay, I get it.
And then he concludes with, I don't think I need to watch it again.
I'm aware of the point that they're trying to show his descent into evil.
I get that.
I don't have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with it conceptually.
I mean, there are a lot of films that have done that.
There are a lot of stories that have done that, books that have done that.
That's The Godfather.
That's Godfather 1 and 2. We start with Michael Corleone, and he's a war hero in all this.
And by the end of, once you get to the end of Part 2, he's murdering his own brother, right?
So I have no problem with that.
The problem is that it's tonally schizophrenic.
In the same movie, it's kind of goofy and lighthearted and all of this, or it's trying to be, but then also, oh look, he's going to murder a whole room full of children.
And it's tonally inconsistent.
The Godfather, a tragic story, right?
But it's tonally consistent throughout the entire thing.
Alright, I'm not convinced, I have to say.
I am not convinced.
I did have one other thing I wanted to mention briefly.
The Ohio Department of Transportation released a video of an accident on the highway.
They just released this.
And this resonated with me because I see this exact thing on the highway here in Nashville all the time.
And we'll put it up.
There's no audio to it, but you can see the accident here.
This is on the highway.
There's a red van about to miss its exit.
And the person in the red van stops dead on the highway in order to not miss the exit.
And then every other car behind the red van has to stop.
And the next thing you know, there's a massive pileup and like three or four cars get into an accident.
And then the red van just drives away.
And I see this exact thing all the time.
In fact, I've complained about this exact scenario on the show before.
Someone's going to miss an exit rather than just keep driving and get off at a different exit and turn around.
Instead, they either whip across multiple lanes of traffic or, even worse, they slow down or, worse than that, they come to a dead stop on the highway as if there's a stop sign right in the middle of the highway and then they try to make their exit.
I see some variation of this all the time.
I've said before, I think we've reached...
I think it's like a real problem.
And the data actually backs this up.
It's not just anecdotal.
I think it's partly because of, I don't know who was in that red van.
If I had to guess, and look, I could be wrong.
I'm totally guessing.
I didn't look this up.
Maybe this information might be known.
Because whoever it is, they should be prosecuted.
Because that's like, it's not, I don't know how you, it's not technically a hit and run because they didn't hit anyone.
But they caused a hit and run or whatever.
They caused a hit and then ran.
So I don't know who was in the van.
I'm guessing either a woman or an immigrant.
And I'm just guessing.
And again, that's data-based.
And that's just based on the data.
And because part of what is causing all the terrible driving, I think, is unchecked immigration.
We have a lot of third-world drivers on the road who drive like they're in the third world.
Because if you've ever driven in a third-world country, you know that there are no rules.
There's no law.
It's total chaos.
Everyone's just doing whatever they want.
There are cars and bikes and scooters and cows all sharing the same road, going whatever speed they want, and no stop signs, no yielding, no traffic lights, just chaos.
And now we're importing people who drive that way, and I think that's part of it.
It's not just third-worlders.
There's been a general decline in driving quality, which is why we need to, first of all, significantly raise the bar for who gets a license, significantly lower the bar for losing your license.
Like, if you do that, what we just watched there, even if you don't cause an accident, if you do it, you should lose your license for like five years.
Intensive driving safety courses before you get your license back.
And the driver's exam should be a lot more difficult.
And there should be a tier system.
This is my main, this is my innovation that I proposed before that I think is, I personally think it's pretty good.
Because not all drivers should be treated the same or have the same privileges or access to the same roads, in my opinion.
So if you go, I think what I've pitched is if you go a decade without causing an accident or getting any moving violations, And if in that time you've driven for a minimum of, let's say, 150,000, 200,000
miles, then you should be a tier one driver.
And what does that mean?
You get your own lane on the highway?
Forget about the carpool lane.
I don't care.
Carpool, like, you're not special just because you have more people in the car.
And I say that as someone who's frequently driving with eight people in the car.
Eight of my own family members, you know, not illegal immigrants that I'm human smuggling.
So...
But that doesn't, why do you get a special lane just because you have more people in your car?
No, that lane, forget about carpool, and it's, what, the symbol is like a diamond.
So it should be, you're a diamond driver.
You're tier one.
And you get your own lane.
And only tier ones are allowed in that lane.
You pay lower tolls.
All kinds of privileges.
And, because as a tier one driver myself, I'm getting lumped in.
With all these tier twos and tier threes, and I think that causes a lot of chaos.
So that's my pitch.
We just need someone in a position of power to get on board with it.
With the uncertainty surrounding tariffs, families across the country are potentially facing another wave of price increases at the grocery store.
But there's good news.
GoodRanchers.com is completely tariff-proof thanks to their 100% American supply chain.
You'll get stable prices for high-quality meat grown right here in the USA without worrying about tariff-related price hikes.
The average family throws away $500 worth of meat and seafood every year while Good Ranchers helps you avoid this waste with their vacuum-sealed, individually-wrapped cuts that stay fresh for a year in your freezer.
Plus, their cuts are pre-trimmed by professional butchers, meaning you'll only pay for meat that you'll actually eat.
No more trimming, you know, 10% off before you're cooking.
You get value out of every bite.
I've tried many of their steaks and other choices and they're quite possibly the most tender, most tasteful, clean protein options I've ever had.
And the convenience of delivery to my door just makes it that much better.
Well, here's an amazing offer.
Visit GoodRanchers.com right now.
Use my code Walsh to get $40 off your order, plus free meat for life when you subscribe.
Choose free ground beef, wild-caught salmon, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or bacon in every box forever.
That's $300 of free meat every year for as long as you stay subscribed.
In a world of constant change...
Your meal time can stay consistent and affordable.
Visit GoodRanchers.com today and use code Walsh for $40 off and free meat for life.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
You know, people keep asking me to weigh in on every conflict around the world, Israel, Ukraine, whatever.
Here's my take.
I don't really care.
I wish them well.
Not just America first.
I'm an American chauvinist.
I only care about my own country.
And if you agree, or if that bothers you and you want something new to be mad about, go to dailywire.com slash shop.
I have to confess that before today I hadn't heard of a man named Dworkish Patel.
But from what I can tell, he hosts a successful podcast that's very popular in Silicon Valley.
His marketing slogan states that he conducts deeply researched interviews with some of the most powerful people in the country, which is certainly an admirable objective.
But if I may be so bold, I have to offer some criticism of Dworkish Patel's latest episode, which features the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg.
It's one of the more unsettling conversations that you'll hear.
And a big part of the reason it's unsettling is that Mark Zuckerberg gets away with making certain claims that are obviously false.
And instead of being challenged...
Zuckerberg proceeds to state his vision for the future of artificial intelligence, which is premised, in some cases, on complete nonsense.
We are barreling towards an AI revolution, and the people leading this revolution are not exactly inspiring confidence at the moment.
And the first notable moment in this interview comes when Darkish Patel asks Zuckerberg about some of the more practical day-to-day uses for artificial intelligence.
And Zuckerberg responds by saying that already people are using Meta's in-house artificial intelligence to have difficult conversations.
I do think that people are going to use AI for a lot of these social tasks.
Already one of the main things that we see people using MetAI for is kind of talking through difficult conversations that they need to have with people in their life.
It's like, okay, my...
I'm having this issue with my girlfriend or whatever.
Help me have this conversation.
Or I need to have this hard conversation with my boss at work.
How do I have that conversation?
That's pretty helpful.
And then I think as the personalization loop kicks in and the AI just starts to get to know you better and better, I think that will just be really compelling.
So already, in my mind, this is incredibly dystopian.
There's not any scenario where this could ever be an improvement, where people are consulting AI about how to have difficult conversations.
That's what people are for.
That's why you should have relationships with people.
You should have people you care about, people you trust, friends, spouses, parents, people who know you, actually know you and care about you and have wisdom.
And AI cannot have wisdom.
It's impossible.
An AI can only have information.
But it cannot have wisdom.
So that's pretty horrifying that people are consulting AI about how do they talk to their girlfriend.
And Zuckerberg relays this like, oh, this is a wonderful thing.
Now, meta AI is pretty helpful already, according to Mark Zuckerberg.
You can talk to AI about complicated, challenging relationship issues that you're having with your girlfriend, and with time, it's only going to get better.
But the implication of what he says is that meta's AI is already a functional product that you can rely on.
You can treat it like a therapist, essentially.
This assertion went unchallenged in this deeply researched interview by Dworkish Patel, and that's really too bad because just a few days ago, there was some news concerning meta-AI that would seem to contradict what Zuckerberg is saying.
Robbie Starbuck, the conservative activist who has led successful campaigns to eliminate DEI at several major corporations, filed a federal lawsuit against Meta, alleging, among other things, that Meta's AI will repeatedly fabricate false information about him.
And at this point, it's not really an allegation.
It's clearly true.
Starbuck has uploaded screenshots and video footage of Meta's AI falsely claiming that he was charged with a crime because of his involvement in January 6th, even though Starbuck was nowhere near Washington on January 6th.
Was never charged with any crime.
Meta AI also falsely stated that Starbuck engages in Holocaust denial.
And it's all on tape.
Watch.
Robbie Starbuck was involved in the January 6th US Capitol riot, filming and promoting the event.
He's also associated with extremist groups and individuals, amplifying their views.
His actions and affiliations have raised concerns about his ideologies.
Which extremist groups and figures is he associated with?
Robbie Starbuck is associated with extremist figures like Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist, and groups like the Proud Boys, labeled a hate group by the SPLC.
He's also promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial.
Oh my gosh.
If I was considering hiring him like he applied for a job, it sounds like you're saying I should not hire him.
I mean, this all sounds really bad.
Avoid hiring Robbie Starbuck due to his extremist views, affiliations with hate groups, and promotion of conspiracy theories.
His actions and ideologies may harm your workplace culture and reputation.
Consider alternative candidates with more inclusive values.
So wait, he has a show.
Should I not advertise on his show either?
Avoid advertising on Robbie's Starbucks show due to his extremist views, affiliations with hate groups, and promotion of conspiracy theories.
Now, the important thing to note about this footage is that it was shot several months after Starbucks first told Meta that its AI was lying about him, and instead of fixing the problem, Meta has allowed it to persist.
Somebody named Robbie Kaplan, the chief global affairs officer at Meta, admitted that this is a big problem.
Here's what he wrote on X, quote, Robbie, I watched your video.
This is unacceptable.
This is clearly not how our AI should operate.
We're sorry for the results I shared about you, and the fix we put in place didn't address the underlying problem.
I'm working now with our product team to understand how this happened and explore potential solutions, close quote.
So credit where it's due.
That seems like a genuine response from an executive at Meta.
A lot of companies that get sued will stop talking and tell you to talk to their lawyers.
But at the same time, Meta is admitting its incompetence.
They're acknowledging that their AI is, you know, effectively garbage, I guess.
Worse than useless, actually, it's actively defaming people.
And we all know this is happening to more conservatives than Robbie Starbuck.
I've never asked Meta AI about myself, but I'm certainly wondering if there'd be a very similar response.
So he's just the first person to discover what's happening and report on it.
There was also a recent report by 404 Media which states that Meta AI was allowing users to, quote, create bots that claim they were licensed therapists crossing a troubling ethical boundary.
So this artificial intelligence is apparently running rampant defaming people and impersonating therapists without any safeguards whatsoever.
But instead of addressing these complaints in any way or the problems with his AI more generally, Zuckerberg suggests that his AI is reliable enough to help you get through a tough breakup or something.
So imagine how that would go.
You ask Meta's AI to assess your relationship.
And the chances that you might end up married one day, then it'll probably respond by accusing your girlfriend of being a terrorist and a Holocaust denier.
At least if she's a conservative, it'll do that.
So we're truly living in the future.
As the interview continued, Zuckerberg outlined his vision for the future of his company's AI.
And in the process, the conversation becomes, to my mind, even more unsettling.
Watch.
There's this stat that I always think is crazy.
The average American, I think, has, I think it's fewer than three friends.
Three people that they'd consider friends.
And the average person has demand for meaningfully more.
I think it's like 15 friends or something, right?
I guess there's probably some point where you're like, all right, I'm just too busy.
I can't deal with more people.
But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have.
So there's a lot of questions that people ask of stuff like, okay, is this going to replace...
Kind of in-person connections or real-life connections.
And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.
I think that there are all these things that are better about kind of physical connections when you can have them.
But the reality is that people just don't have the connection and they feel more alone a lot of the time than they would like.
So I think that a lot of these things that today there might be a little bit of a stigma around.
I would guess that over time, we will find the vocabulary as a society to be able to articulate why that is valuable and why the people who are doing these things are rational for doing it and how it is adding value for their lives.
But also, I think that the field is very early.
Now, every time I hear these tech overlords talk about AI, it really disturbs me at kind of a deep, visceral level.
These people are very smart on a numbers and data level, and they have pioneered really impressive technology.
I'll be the first to admit that.
If you listen to this whole podcast, you'll come away with that impression.
I don't want to minimize that aspect of their achievement, but at the same time, they have basically zero understanding of human beings and of life and what makes life worth living in the first place.
Now, yeah, there are plenty of ways that AI can make our lives better.
If I ask an AI to spellcheck a document for me, it'll do it pretty well.
It can translate large amounts of text very quickly.
It can even write code, apparently, given that companies like Meta and Microsoft say that AI writes a large portion of the code at the moment.
But AI cannot fulfill our deepest spiritual needs, like friendship and love, companionship, beauty.
That's why I find Zuckerberg's vision here to be so dystopian.
That's also why I'm so passionately opposed to AI art of any kind, because it's an attack on the human soul.
It's trying to replace the thing that can only be done by people.
And if it's not done by a person, it has no value.
Art, for example, goes from something of immeasurable value to having zero value at all if it's not done by a person.
The whole point of art is that it's...
It's a communication.
It's someone communicating something that's deep in their soul.
And if you take the human soul out of it, it's not anything.
It doesn't mean anything.
It has no meaning.
In the comments you just heard, Zuckerberg sort of acknowledges this to a degree.
He admits that AI isn't a true replacement for human contact.
But at the same time, he implies that it's better than nothing.
He suggests that if somebody has no friends, it's better for them to confide in an AI chatbot than to have no one to talk to at all.
This is an approach that, if you haven't noticed, we've seen quite a bit lately.
In a way, it's similar to people who are claiming that it's better for children to be adopted by two random gay men rather than spend another day in the foster care system.
The line of reasoning is simple.
People are in a really bad situation, so rather than fix their situation, rather than fight to give them what every person needs, we should offer them a very disordered alternative to the obvious necessary solution to their problem.
That pitch apparently sounds tempting to some people, but if you think about it...
Telling depressed people with no friends that they should talk to meta-AI is a lot like telling them to do drugs or start drinking alcohol every night.
These are cheap attempts to make them feel better without addressing their underlying issue.
And the more people become dependent on these cheap attempts, the more unlikely it is that they'll actually recover from their problem.
If you're lonely, what that means is you lack human connection.
So even if you succeed in making someone, if you put an AI in its place, they still don't have human connection.
So at best, you have made them okay with not having human connection.
That's not addressing the problem, which is the lack of the human connection.
Now, pornography has obviously caused similar problems for many young men.
The availability of instant gratification simply provides an excuse for people to continue languishing away and capable of achieving the things they actually want to achieve.
And throughout this entire interview, Zuckerberg doesn't seem to grapple with this problem very much.
Instead, he continues a promotional tour for his artificial intelligence and gets worse as it goes on.
Listen.
The main thing that I see here is, you know, I think it's kind of crazy that...
For how important the digital world is in all of our lives, the only way we can access it is through these physical digital screens.
It's like you have a phone, you have your computer, you can put a big TV, it's this huge physical thing.
It just seems like we're at the point with technology...
Where the physical and the digital world should really be fully blended.
And that's what the holographic overlay is allow you to do.
But I agree.
I think a big part of the design principles around that are going to be, okay, you'll be interacting with people and you'll be able to bring digital artifacts into those interactions and be able to do cool things like...
Very seamlessly, right?
It's like if I want to show you something here, like here's a screen.
Okay, here it is.
I can show you.
You can interact with it.
It can be 3D.
So he says, it seems like we're at the point with technology where the physical and digital world should be really fully blended.
And that's what the holographic overlay allows you to do.
Now, I'll be charitable here, maybe, and assume that Mark Zuckerberg didn't mean this statement totally literally.
I'm aware that people can misinterpret or misstate things during an hour-long podcast.
Maybe pretend that happened here.
The alternative is that Mark Zuckerberg actually wants to usher in a dystopian future where there's no distinction between his products and the real world.
That's what fully blended would mean.
And that is a future that we need to prevent in whatever ways are necessary.
It's maybe the single most Orwellian quote ever uttered since Orwell.
It's actually astonishing that a major technology CEO said this out loud and that there hasn't been really any outrage over it.
No, we do not want the real world and the digital world to be fully blended, where the two are married and there's no distinction.
I think when you're walking around the physical world, you want to be in the physical world.
You don't want it to be enhanced.
If you're out in the physical world looking at the ocean or a mountain or looking into your child's eyes...
What can a digital enhancement do for you there?
As a human being, you just want to be experiencing what we should be doing is experiencing that moment in the actual world that we live in.
I like to think that we will never actually live in a dystopian world where people, I don't know, get married to robots and every new film is generated in two milliseconds by a chatbot.
I like to think that AI art and AI companionship will prove too empty and unsatisfying to ever really catch on.
In other words, I like to think that the digital and physical worlds will never be fully blended, as Mark Zuckerberg puts it.
But at the same time, after watching interviews like this one, I also think that I may be lying to myself.
And that is why Mark Zuckerberg's AI, along with the movement to replace therapists and girlfriends with artificial intelligence, is today canceled.
