Ep. 1631 - Gay Sex Offender Buys a Baby Through Surrogacy. How Is This Legal?
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, two gay men obtained a baby through surrogacy. The Left condemned anyone who criticized them. A day later it’s revealed that one of the men is a convicted child sex predator. Why is surrogacy legal for someone like that? Why is it legal at all? We’ll discuss. Also, the controversy over the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad proves that wokeness isn’t quite dead yet. White people are hunted down and assaulted in Cincinnati, but the police chief is more worried about the mean things people are saying on social media. And a WNBA player has her wig fall off during a game. We’ll talk about that because why not.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1631
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Journey to the UFC: Joe Pyfer now—streaming exclusively on DailyWire+.
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Select Quote - Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS, and save more than 50% at https://selectquote.com/walsh
Ammo Squared - Take the work out of buying ammo. Visit https://ammosquared.com today for a special offer.
Boll & Branch - Get 20% off, plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at https://BollAndBranch.com/walsh
Vandy Crisps - Go to https://vandycrisps.com/walsh and use code WALSH for 25% off your first order.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today, Matt Wall Show, two gay men obtained a baby through surrogacy.
The left condemned anyone who criticized them.
A day later, it's revealed that one of the men is a convicted child sex predator.
Why is surrogacy legal for someone like that?
Why is it legal at all?
We'll discuss.
Also, the controversy over the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad proved that wokeness isn't quite dead yet.
White people are hunted down and assaulted in Cincinnati, but the police chief is more worried about the mean things people are saying on social media.
And a WNBA player has her wig fall off during a game.
We'll talk about that because why not?
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Matt Wall Show.
Most of us have gotten used to the chaos, but between shifting global politics and unpredictable markets, it's no wonder we're all looking for ways to protect our futures.
One of the smartest moves you can make is securing proper life insurance.
And let's be honest, probably underinsured and overpaying, especially if you're relying on workplace coverage.
That's where Select Quote comes in.
For over four decades, Select Quote has helped more than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in life insurance coverage by doing what they do best, shopping for you so you save.
Their license agents work entirely for you, comparing policies from top-rated carriers in just 15 minutes to find the perfect fit for your health and budget completely free of charge.
Whether you need same-day coverage, up to $2 million without a medical exam, or you have pre-existing conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease, SelectQuote partners with providers who offer specialized policies designed for your unique situation.
With life insurance rates at today's historic lows, visit selectquote.com and let their license agents find you the right policy for your life and budget.
They shop, you save.
Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at selectquote.com slash walsh.
Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash walsh today to get started.
That's selectquote.com slash walsh.
You can tell a lot about the strength of a particular argument or worldview by how long it lasts before reality ends up discrediting it.
There are some debates that don't need to be settled by consulting with dozens of experts or asking 10 different AI models and then comparing notes.
Instead, certain events take place and they resolve the disagreement right away.
A catastrophic nuclear meltdown ended any discussion about how effective Chernobyl's emergency shutdown mechanism was.
And Iceberg convinced everyone that despite all the marketing hype, the Titanic could in fact sink.
I mean, there are limits to the ability of liars and charlatans to deceive the population, in other words.
Even the most convincing fraudsters face the risk of exposure if their deception is simply too absurd to be compatible with reality.
The more absurd the deception is, the faster it generally falls apart.
By that standard, there are few lies that are more flagrant and obviously, obviously flagrant than the fiction that gay men should be allowed to adopt children or to acquire them by paying for a woman to serve as a quote-unquote surrogate.
As we saw recently, a journalist named Glenn Greenwald personally attacked me for holding the position that children should be raised by a mother and a father, a position that everybody in the world has agreed with, you know, up until 10 seconds ago.
He maintained in a very public and vitriolic fashion that I was a terrible person for suggesting that gay adoption is not an ideal outcome for a child.
He presented himself as infinitely more virtuous than I am because of his decision to acquire young children.
And then within a matter of weeks, Greenwald himself demonstrated through his own conduct on camera why my position was correct.
That was back in June.
And now, just a month later, it has happened again.
Reality has caused yet another major problem for the left's narrative about homosexuals who adopt children.
Only this time, reality reared its head even faster, as in within 24 hours.
And the implications here are somehow even more disturbing and grotesque than they were with Glenn Greenwald's debauchery.
This is a story that makes it very clear that laws need to change and they need to change immediately and people need to go to prison.
Now, it all began on Sunday when an Irish political activist named Derek Bly discovered some videos that had been posted on a gay couple's social media feeds.
The videos show the two gay men, both of whom are overweight, marking monthly anniversaries with a child that they've obtained.
In every video, they blow out a candle on the cupcake and the videos keep going and the men seem to somehow get fatter each time.
I don't know how.
But in response to these videos on Sunday, Derek Bly posted simply, unless a miracle happens, this child has almost no chance at a normal life.
And he was right, of course.
At a visceral level, the footage is repulsive.
Everyone understands that, whether they admit it or not, when a child is deprived of his mother and father deliberately, it is not something to celebrate.
It's a very bad thing.
It's a tragedy that's inflicted on someone who cannot possibly deserve it and who may never recover from it.
And that's especially true when, in lieu of a mother and a father, a child is obtained by two men who belong to a demographic whose behavior in a very disproportionate number of cases, statistically, is completely incompatible with raising children, to put things as mildly as possible.
It's also a demographic that's disproportionately interested in adopting male children.
And again, everyone understands what's going on there, though nobody will say it.
And yet, when Bly made this simple and straightforward observation, hundreds of thousands of left-wing activists pretended to be shocked and horrified by what he had written.
They also claimed that, in fact, it's better for the child to be raised by two gay men than by his own mother and father.
Here's one representative post, which has more than 6 million views and 220,000 likes on X, quote, makes me happy.
The baby is going to be raised not to hate people and will be loved.
Here's another post from someone named Bev Jackson of a group called Alliance LGB.
This came in response to Derek's post expressing disgust at the footage, quote, that is homophobic.
If the child has two loving Male parents, there is no evidence whatsoever that he or she will not prosper.
But Bev Jackson's response didn't last very long.
Just a few hours later, Bev deleted it.
And a lot of other people like Bev deleted their reactions also.
And that's because, in record-breaking time, the narrative took an extremely dark, though certainly not surprising turn.
The journalists at Redux decided to take a closer look at the two gay men in the video with that toddler.
And here's what they found.
Quote, a widely circulated video showcasing a gay couple's surrogacy journey has revealed that a baby boy is currently in the custody of a registered child sex offender.
Brandon Keith Mitchell is a tier one sex offender in the state of Pennsylvania and was arrested in 2016 after attempting to solicit a 16-year-old boy for sexual abuse.
The victim in the case was a student at Downington West High School, where Mitchell had worked as a chemistry teacher.
He was 30 years old at the time.
Now, here's an image of Brandon Mitchell when he was teaching.
And you can see it there.
Now, according to local news reports, Mitchell was, quote, charged with texting obscene images and texts to a student and asking for nude images of the underage student.
Mitchell taught at the school from 2010 to 2015.
And during this period, he reportedly sent more than 12,000 text messages to this student.
He ended up pleading guilty to felony, child pornography, possession, and one count of corruption of minors because police found sexually explicit videos of the child on his personal computer.
And he was sentenced to nearly two years of incarceration, which is not nearly enough, but he didn't serve anywhere near even that light sentence.
Just two months after his conviction, Redux reports, he was granted parole for a crime that should have resulted in life imprisonment at a minimum.
He barely spent any time in prison at all.
The Redux article continues, quote, part of his conditions included that he have no unsupervised contact with minors and that he surrender his teaching license.
He quickly moved on to obtain a job as a chemist at Eurofin's Biopharma Product Testing in Lancaster, where he's worked for the past nine years.
In 2021, Mitchell married Logan Riley, a second grade teacher from Maryland, and moved to Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania.
In 2023, the two launched a GoFundMe to raise money for a surrogate.
So that's a second grade teacher who is married to a quote, quote unquote, married, big air quotes around that, to a male child sex offender.
And that guy is teaching kids.
Now, so they had this GoFundMe.
Of course, the GoFundMe didn't mention the whole convicted sex offender thing.
In any event, the fundraiser has since been taken down, but it reportedly had a goal of $50,000.
It raised just over $2,000.
So it wasn't exactly a huge success.
Nevertheless, Riley, the husband of the convict, quote-unquote, husband of the convicted sex offender, reported that in November 2023, they had found a surrogate.
Quote, our surrogate went through extensive medical and social worker evaluations in order to be approved for surrogacy.
Once approved, the lengthy legal and financial process began.
We're so excited that our amazing surrogate will carry one of our embryos for us, helping to expand our family.
Close quote.
Our embryos.
There's no our here because two men can't create, can't conceive.
So just to be clear about that.
Now, it's hard to miss the irony here.
According to these two gay men, there was an extensive screening process for their surrogate, meaning the woman whose body they were going to rent so that she would bury a child for them so that they could pretend to be parents.
Social workers, doctors, lawyers, all were involved.
All were involved with screening the woman whose body is being rented.
And yet, evidently, there was no screening process whatsoever for these two men, these two gay men.
No one in the federal government or the state of Pennsylvania saw any problem with creating a new human life for the sole purpose of handing that child off to a convicted sexual predator.
And not just any convicted sexual predator.
We're talking about a convicted sexual predator who specifically preyed on a child.
Now, at first, you might think, well, there must have been some massive, very unfortunate, tragic mistake.
Surely you'd assume there must be a thorough vetting process for the parents of children who are born through surrogacy.
And somehow in this particular case, someone must have fallen asleep on the job.
Maybe they ran a criminal background check under the wrong name or something like that.
That's not remotely what happened.
As it turns out, there is no legal bar in the state of Pennsylvania or many other states for convicted sexual predators to obtain children through surrogacy.
It is completely legal in many states.
There are no roadblocks whatsoever.
So you can have someone who is legally barred from being around minors who can yet still obtain a child through surrogacy.
Again, this is from Redux.
Quote, Redux reached out to the Division of Pennsylvania State Police responsible for maintaining Mitchell's registration and was informed that the state does not automatically forbid individuals convicted of sex crimes from having children, gaining custody, or exercising parental rights.
While Pennsylvania's adoption law does prohibit sex offenders from adopting or fostering children, gestational surrogacy circumvents any such laws through pre-birth parentage orders.
So you heard that correctly.
Individuals who are convicted of sex crimes involving, including sex crimes involving children, crimes so severe that the guilty party had to agree to have no unsupervised contact with minors, are allowed to obtain children in Pennsylvania.
The only restriction is that instead of adopting a child, they have to pay a woman to give birth to the child and then hand the child over to them.
I mean, this is a policy that is so incomprehensible, so evil, that it's hard to even talk about.
And it's also a policy that evidently a lot of officials in Pennsylvania aren't even aware of.
One of Redux's writers posted this on social media as she was working on the story, quote, while I was talking to the state police sex offender division, the agent actually stopped for a moment when I mentioned it was a surrogate baby and said, but surely there's a vetting process for this kind of thing.
Well, actually, no, there's no vetting process for this kind of thing, as it turns out.
If someone is a pedophile in the state of Pennsylvania and they've been convicted for corrupting minors And possessing child pornography, they're still completely free to obtain a child through surrogacy.
And not just any child, a newborn with no known relatives, no next of kin to check on him.
And then once they have this defenseless child in their home, he is entirely at their mercy and helpless, and no one can see what they're doing.
And there's no one who actually knows the child or cares for him.
Even his mother isn't allowed to speak to him or know where he is or know anything about him.
It's almost as if the state went out of its way to create a loophole for pedophiles.
And there are no words for how dark this is.
And by the way, this is one of the many fundamental fatal problems with relying on statistics and experts who tell you that gay adoption is completely fine and appropriate.
Every single mainstream expert will tell you that gay men are just as capable as straight couples to raise children, if not more so.
They'll tell you to suspend all of your intuitions and common sense.
They'll call you a bigot if you disagree.
But the truth is, none of these experts actually know what's going on inside these households where men are raising children that aren't theirs.
None of the statistics can capture the reality of what's happening because only the parents who are caught abusing, actually caught abusing their children, will be reflected in the statistics.
That's why we have intuition and basic morality.
And it's why we should always pay close attention whenever activists on the other side in a demonic kind of rage attempt to claim the moral high ground only for it to crumble immediately in a matter of days or hours in this case.
I mean, there are some lies that are simply too evil and unsustainable to survive contact with reality.
The fiction that gay men are appropriate foster parents for other people's children is one of them.
In recent months, we've repeatedly seen glimpses into the horrors that many of those children are enduring behind closed doors.
There was also the recent case of William and Zachary Zillock in Georgia, for example, who were sexually abusing their two adopted children.
And they probably never would have been caught if they hadn't bragged about their behavior to others.
It's only because of that that we know about this and that that can be counted in the statistics.
Now, especially in light of stories like this, it shouldn't be remotely controversial to say that the safety of children is infinitely, the safety and well-being and proper care for children is infinitely more important than any gay man's desire to become a parent.
Nature has already decided that gay couples will be childless by definition.
There's no law that decided that.
That's how the natural world works.
You're in a gay quote-unquote marriage and you want to have kids.
Well, you can't.
It's impossible.
It is literally impossible.
And the law should reflect that.
Reality has made it impossible for two gay men to be parents, and the law should follow suit.
The law should follow and reflect reality.
Starting with the state of Pennsylvania, which should immediately change its law and remove this particular child from this household, this very straightforward principle needs to become law.
Any society that doesn't protect its own children does not deserve to exist.
Under the guise of helping children, a system has been created that allows for children to be abused in the most horrific ways imaginable.
And that system must be dismantled.
The abuser should go to prison for the rest of their life, and no child, no matter the circumstances, should ever be forcibly prevented from having a mother and father ever again in this country.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Do you remember the great ammo shortage of 2020?
Shelves were bare and even online options were wiped out.
Well, there's a company making sure that never happens again.
It's called Ammo Squared, and they've been helping over 100,000 members stockpile ammo automatically since 2015.
Here's how it works.
You sign up, pick your ammo from over 70 different calibers, set an auto-buy budget and choose a shipping frequency or just let it grow.
Over time, your ammo accumulates and is stored for free in Ammo Squared's climate controlled facilities in Texas and Idaho until you're ready to ship.
No minimums, no extra fees.
It's perfect for small budgets or anyone who wants to build up a stockpile without spending thousands or hundreds of dollars up front.
I'm in the process of setting up an account right now, and it's been so simple and straightforward.
Plus, they've got so many different ammunitions to choose from for my needs that it practically negates ever needing to visit a store that may or may not have what I need in stock.
Everything is right there waiting for me when I need it.
It's the easiest way to stay prepared without the hassle.
Head to ammo.com and take the work out of buying ammo.
100,000 members and thousands of five-star reviews.
Can't be wrong.
That's ammo squared.com.
Check them out today for a special offer.
Yesterday, we started the show with the horrifying story out of Cincinnati of the vicious assaults on random white people outside of a music festival in the city.
They were sucker punched, beaten, thrown to the ground, stomped while on the ground.
Very sickening stuff.
There are some updates to this story, a couple of positive updates, as positive as something can be in a situation like this.
And then one that's not so great.
Vice President Vance spoke out about the incident in very strong and clear terms yesterday when he was asked about it while addressing a crowd.
Listen to that.
Here it is.
There was a group of people who attacked a couple folks on the street in Cincinnati.
Senator Bernie Marino and some others have spoken out about it, have been critical of it.
Okay, okay, yes, yes.
So what I saw, and I haven't seen the full context, but what I saw is a mob of lawless thugs beating up on an innocent person, and it's disgusting.
And I hope every single one of those people who engage in violence is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And they will be.
They will be so long as law enforcement in the state of Ohio takes their job seriously.
I know Dave Yost cares a lot about these things.
You're right.
We talked a little bit about it.
I don't know the full context.
I don't know how the fight started.
But the one part that I saw that was really gruesome is you had a grown man who sucker punched a middle-aged woman.
And where I come from the police, we have a grown man who sucker punches a middle-aged woman.
That person ought to go to jail for a very long time.
And frankly, he's lucky there weren't some better people around because they would have handled it themselves.
But They're not going to handle it.
The cops in Cincinnati, the law enforcement, you've got to prosecute people.
We've had way too much lawlessness on the streets of great American cities.
Well, that's well said.
Lawless thugs.
That's a correct characterization.
Meanwhile, we got word yesterday that the FBI and DOJ are getting involved.
At least they're going to investigate, which is good.
Hopefully something comes of it.
That's, of course, something that never would have happened under the Biden administration or any Democrat administration or honestly any Republican administration, including the previous Trump administration.
So this is good.
And hopefully something, again, actually comes from it.
Prosecute these people for hate crimes.
I don't like hate crime laws personally.
I think they should all be abolished.
I don't think they make sense.
I've made that case a million times on the show.
But if you're going to have them, you have to apply them equally.
It's bad to have hate crime laws.
It's much worse to have them and not apply them equally.
And so that has to happen here.
And hopefully it does.
On the other side of the equation, however, we have the performance of the Cincinnati police chief, a woman named Teresa Thetig.
T-H-E-E-T-G-E is the people make fun of me for mispronouncing names, but, you know, on the fly, you're given that spelling, T-H-E-E-T-G-E.
T-G-E?
How am I supposed to pronounce that?
I don't know.
I speak English.
I speak American, damn it.
Tigi?
Anyway, we'll just call her Teresa.
She gave a press conference yesterday where she delivered a lecture about the dangers of social media because that's what she's worried about.
There's mob violence in the streets of the city that she's supposed to be protecting.
And what she's worried about are all the people on social media who are saying mean things and only listening or paying attention to one side of the story is what Police Chief Teresa is very concerned about.
Watch.
Social media and journalism and the role it plays in this incident.
And yes, guys, that's you.
That is you.
Social media, the post that we've seen, does not depict the entire incident.
That is one version of what occurred.
At times, social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are a misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding any given event.
What that does, that causes us some difficulties in thoroughly investigating the activity and enforcing the law.
Because what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it distorts the content of what actually happened.
And it makes our job more difficult.
Go ahead, Reigher.
Thank you.
Two questions.
Where were the nearest officers?
In the central business section.
They were working.
They were both in vehicles.
And like I said, they had to maneuver through the traffic.
Second question is, do you say social media, media media distorted the content of what actually happened?
What exactly was distorted?
I understand that there was multiple views of the video, but exactly what led up to this?
I mean, what was distorted?
Yeah, so I think the irresponsibility with social media is it just shows one side of the equation quite frequently without context, without factual context.
And then people run with that.
So we get that school marm lecture from a woman who looks like the librarian who yelled at me in fifth grade because I didn't return my copies of my Anamorph books.
She's very concerned that social media isn't giving the full story and showing both sides.
Now, you'll notice that we never got any of those sorts of lectures during, say, the George Floyd riots.
Nobody was worried about both sides back then.
In that case, we got a very out-of-context video.
I mean, we've gotten this every BLM martyr, all the so-called police brutality videos, always very out-of-context videos, videos that pick up like in the middle of something.
You're in the middle of it.
It's clear that there's something really relevant that precipitated what's happening.
We never see that.
And you never hear the officials saying, oh, we want both sides of the story.
But here they do.
The problem is that there's no other side of the story that could possibly justify sucker punching a woman or beating a man while he's lying on the ground.
There's nothing that could have happened that would justify that.
There's no indication at all that the victims here initiated any kind of violent incident.
There's no indication of that.
There's no evidence of that that I'm aware of.
But even if they did, which I don't think they did, the response from the mob is obviously still not self-defense.
Coming up behind someone and punching them in the head means by definition that it's not self-defense.
When someone's on the ground in the fetal position, that is very good indication that they are not a threat to you.
They have given up completely.
So when you start stomping on them while they're on the ground, it cannot possibly be self-defense, no matter what happened before.
So there's no context here that could really change the story.
And besides, we all know what these people really mean when they start talking about context and the other side of the story.
They know that this was not, you know, that nothing violent happened.
These white people that are being assaulted here almost certainly did not.
They didn't go up and like smack anyone.
That's almost certainly not what happened.
But what they're hoping and implying is that maybe these white people said something racially insensitive.
Because that's ultimately the context that supposedly justifies most of these kinds of incidents.
And no indication that anything racially insensitive was said.
But even if it was, who cares?
Makes no difference.
It would not begin to justify what happened.
Wouldn't even come close in the slightest.
It wouldn't get you one inch towards a justification.
Okay.
So, no, in this case, we don't really need to wait for the other side of the story.
Especially when it's a story, especially when it's a movie we've all seen a million times.
And so we know.
We know what this is about.
We know what's happening here.
And also, since we're talking about this police chief, can I just ask, are there any male police chiefs left in this country?
I mean, we've covered several stories this year where we play a clip of a law enforcement press conference.
Unfortunately, there are things happening frequently that necessitate police press conferences, law enforcement press conferences.
And maybe you've noticed this pattern too.
It's like it's a female police chief in all of them.
You know, we've had stories down in New Orleans, female police chief.
Washington, D.C., female police chief.
Even right now, right now, there are two major stories happening, and a female police chief or commissioner is in both.
There's a situation in Cincinnati, and there's also the mass shooting in New York City last night.
Female police commissioner there.
Austin, Texas has a female police chief.
So does Memphis.
So does Chattanooga.
In fact, did you know this?
And I looked this up.
There are three, well, this part I already knew.
There are three major cities in Ohio, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.
They're like smaller cities too, but there's the three biggest cities in Ohio.
All of them, all three of them have a female police chief.
And how does that happen?
Does it really happen because it just so happens that in every major city in the state, the most qualified leader of a police force happened to be an old woman?
Really?
Old, out-of-shape women are, yeah, just so happens.
Every major city in this state, just so happens, this is the most qualified person.
Does anyone believe that?
Does anyone believe that?
It's not a coincidence that many of these cities have police departments that have been gutted and destroyed by DEI.
In Cincinnati, this woman who we just played is in the middle of a lawsuit brought by four veterans of her police force, men, alleging that they were discriminated against and passed over for the sake of promoting females and minorities.
And that's not a surprise at all.
Same thing down in New Orleans.
Remember that we talked about this during the prison break story?
We saw that like every major city official involved was female.
They were doing press conferences and it was nothing but female officials.
The whole leadership structure, police department, everything.
And it's all been decimated by DEI policies.
But now in New Orleans, it's like the Keystone cops down there and they can't figure out how to keep their inmates inside their prisons.
It's ridiculous.
And, you know, very few people want to be honest about this and just say the truth out loud, which is that law enforcement is a man's job.
Men should be in charge.
Men should be leading.
Men should be the ones out on patrol.
The feminization of law enforcement has been an absolute disaster for this country, a disaster for every city where it's happened, without exception.
And again, we all know that.
You can have people that are crying about it and pretending to be offended, including so-called conservatives.
There was this guy, who was it?
This guy, Zeke.
It's one of these Zeke, I forget his last name, but he's got a little bit of a following on social media.
He's one of these conservatives, one of these so-called conservatives that calls themselves conservatarian or whatever, got a conservative libertarian.
And these guys who they'll sort of meekly criticize leftism and DEI and all this sort of stuff.
They'll repeat all of the kind of boomer talking points about it.
They'll say all of that.
But the moment that you actually fundamentally disagree with the left-wing worldview and assert something that is contrary to it, that's when guys like Zeke come in and say, oh, shut up.
This is ridiculous.
You're going too far.
And that's what he did.
So he left this comment, gave all these anecdotal examples of men.
I know a bunch of women who are really good cops.
This is what they do, you know.
Really just useless.
Like these are not the kind of, these useless conservatives have no impact on the culture, have not changed anything at all, period, because they're too afraid.
They're too afraid to actually, like, it's one thing to say leftism is bad, DEI.
Okay, well, great.
It's great that you can say all that.
But what's actually happening is that there is a campaign that's been waged now for decades to feminize police forces and put women in charge of them.
That is what's happening.
And if you're not willing to say that is bad, it shouldn't be happening, then you're no better than the left.
You're on their spectrum.
Okay.
If you can't come out and say this is bad, we shouldn't feminize the police.
Police work, men are better suited for it.
Men and women are different.
And so they have different aptitudes.
They have different skills.
They have different things that they're good at.
And police work, law enforcement is a man's job.
If you're not willing to say that, something that would have been totally uncontroversial to everybody in the world up until five minutes ago, if you're not willing to say that, then you're not, you're certainly not conservative.
And if you are, you're a rather useless one.
So here's my challenge.
Challenge anyone listening.
Challenge any leftist or any so-called conservative who inevitably posts this clip somewhere, starts crying about it.
Here it is.
Give me an example.
One example, anywhere, of a police department that was dominated by and led by males historically, that's every police department.
And then started adding females and things improved.
Improved in what way, you ask?
Well, anyway.
Any way at all.
Any measurable improvement to any police department anywhere spurred on by the feminization of the department, by the addition of female officers and female leadership.
Give me one objective, provable way thing that you can point to that shows how adding female cops and female leadership has improved police departments.
One example.
Just give me one.
And if you can't give me one, then I think it's you who should shut up.
How about this?
You have an emergency.
Any kind of emergency.
You get on the phone with 911.
You need to send the cops out.
Let's imagine a scenario where they give you a choice.
They don't give you any other information, just generically.
You can have a female cop or a male cop come.
You get no other information about them.
Who are you choosing?
100 times out of 100, you're saying, yes, send the male cop.
Unless you want to step up and say, no, no, I'd ask for the female cop.
Because if you say that, then you're either lying or you're insane.
So these are things that we all know, and yet you've got people who still insist on denying it.
But fortunately, I think there's an increasing number of people who are just done with that.
Just done with it.
Just done with playing pretend.
Pretending that we don't know what we all know.
Pretending like every person in the country knows you have an emergency, you prefer for male cops to show up.
You see the press conference after something bad is happening.
You see the press conference.
You feel a lot better when you see the male police chief over the female.
You see that woman, this out-of-shape old woman, looks like a librarian standing up there.
That does not inspire confidence in anyone.
And we all know that.
The only difference is that there are some of us who are willing to say, there are those, there's everybody else who's still playing pretend, still playing the game.
And if you're still playing the game, I just got no use for you.
I got no use.
Okay, I think I'm the only podcaster in America who hasn't said anything about the Sidney Sweeney American Eagle ad at this point.
Not avoiding the topic or anything.
It's just that other topics seem more interesting and important to me.
And then by the time I got around to this one, it's like everyone has, everything that can be said about it has already been said.
I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said a million times.
But this is a headline segment, and this is one of the big headlines.
So we'll cover it briefly.
It says, you know, the actress Sidney Sweeney has appeared in some very viral American Eagle ads.
And the biggest news for me is that American Eagle still exists.
Because I honestly didn't know that.
When I was a kid.
Now, when I was a kid, you had the triumvirant of preppy clothing stores in the mall, which was Abercrombie and Fitch.
That was the other one, Hollister, and American Eagle.
And usually they'd be all like near each other.
And then you had Arrow Postal, which was kind of the poor man's preppy option.
And then, and anyway, I assume that all those stores had died when the malls died, but I guess not.
So these ads have gotten a lot of attention.
probably seen them, but let's check out a few of them here.
Sidney Stweeney, Hasbro Keynes.
Sidney Sweeney, Hasbro Keynes.
Sidney Sweeney, Hasbro Keynes.
Now, there wouldn't be anything especially notable here if not for the reaction from the left.
Woke leftists have spent the last several days screaming hysterically about these ads, in some cases, actually breaking down in tears.
Actually crying because of these American Eagle ads that I just played.
They're very upset.
They claim these ads are somehow Nazi propaganda.
So here's a sampling of their unhinged reactions.
Did American Eagle just run an ad for eugenics?
Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.
My genes are blue.
Sidney Sweeney has great canes.
Totally just talking about denim, right?
Just a blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman explaining how her good genes gave her personality and purity.
I mean, are we really going to pretend that this isn't a little fasci-coated?
Look, I'm not saying that Sidney Sweeney personally wrote this ad to revive the Third Reich, but American Eagle absolutely knew what they were doing here.
Should we be surprised that a company whose name is literally American Eagle is making fascist propaganda like this?
Probably not, but it's still really shocking.
Like a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white woman is talking about her good jeans.
Like that is Nazi propaganda.
You guys are complaining about that Sydney Sweeney jeans ad, so I went and saw it.
That's Nazi propaganda.
Wow.
I thought it was gonna be like kind of bad.
If you haven't fully comprehended how bad it is, I need you to open your eyeballs and listen.
This is Nazi.
Pure Nazi f ⁇ .
Saying that a blonde-haired blue-eyed girl has good jeans is Nazi.
Sydney Sweeney's Jeans ad is giving ethnic steak propaganda.
It is giving dystopian.
It is giving 1940s Germany.
And they could have had her said anything.
She could have just said, I'm hot, drink my bathwater, here are my jeans.
But instead, they had her say, jeans are passed down from parents to children.
I have good jeans.
My jeans are blue.
Why?
Yeah, no, that was like the most thinly veiled propaganda I think that I've ever seen.
So that's on TikTok, but by the way, it's not just crazies on TikTok that are saying this.
Good Morning America ran a segment this morning on this topic, and here's what they said about it.
Time to check the post.
We begin with the backlash over a new ad campaign featuring actress Sidney Sweeney.
Yeah, the ads are for American Eagle, and the tagline is, Sidney Sweeney has great genes.
Now, in one ad, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed actress talks about genes as in DNA being passed down from her parents.
The play on words is being compared to Nazi propaganda with racial undertones.
The pun good genes activates a troubling historical associations for this country.
The American eugenics movement in its prime between like 1900 and 1940 weaponized the idea of good genes just to justify white supremacism.
Despite that backlash, American Eagle stock has been sore.
So anyone who tells you that wokeness is dead, show them that.
Show them that American, that rather that Good Morning America segment.
This is 2020 era hyper-radical, insane wokeness that is alive and well.
Maybe not well.
Maybe it's not doing well, but it is alive, at least.
So yes, American Eagle is making Nazi propaganda, we're told.
By the way, just one note about that.
The CEO of American Eagle has a very Nazi sounding name.
I will admit, I was a little skeptical that American Eagle was making Nazi propaganda, but then I saw the guy's name and I went, okay, yeah, it all makes sense.
Because his name is Jay Schottenstein.
He's a member of a very wealthy and influential Schottenstein family based in Ohio.
So very Nazi-like.
It's giving Nazi.
It's giving Nazi, as the kids would say.
You know, all those Nazis named Schottenstein.
I mean, if I had a dime for every Nazi named Schottenstein that I've ever met, I'd be a very rich man.
I'd be so rich that you might confuse me for a Schottenstein myself.
No, the CEO is Jewish, obviously, and American Eagle was not attempting to usher in the Fourth Reich.
They were actually just trying to sell jeans.
So that's all that was about.
And I'm guessing that these ads were very successful in that regard.
Why are these leftists freaking out then?
Well, I do think the number one reason is that, and I'm not the first person to say this, again, it's kind of all been said.
But I do think that it's not that hard to decipher what's really going on here, especially when you look at the people who are the most upset about the ads.
And so I think that almost all the women panicking over the ads are unattractive.
And so this is standard factory grade kind of female envy.
They're jealous because she's more attractive than them.
And they're worried, even more so.
They're worried that, and this is what they're actually crying about, is they're worried that the culture is moving away from this body positivity nonsense where we celebrate ugliness, we celebrate obesity, we celebrate mediocrity.
And they're worried about that because they're looking in the mirror and they're going, okay, well, if we're not celebrating ugly mediocrity anymore, I'm in trouble.
And so that's what they're worried about.
And they should be worried because we are moving away from that at long last.
And that's the real significance of these ads, I think.
And because in a way, it's always kind of weird to have a bunch of Christian conservatives celebrating advertisements that revolve around sexual innuendo.
That's historically, that's not the way that it normally went.
Now, obviously, there's nothing graphic in the ads.
It's not gratuitous, I don't think.
It's not pornographic or anything, but it is sexual innuendo.
And historically, it has not been Christian conservatives championing that kind of content.
The reason why conservatives are doing that now are celebrating it, and I think it's a valid reason, is that this represents a move back to normalcy.
People are tired of having freakish nonsense pushed in their faces every day.
Ads featuring morbidly obese people who are told that we're supposed to see as beautiful or whatever are nonsense.
It's bizarre.
It's nonsensical.
It's not normal.
It's abnormal.
And it's disordered.
And people are sick of it.
This ad uses an attractive woman to appeal to people, especially men.
And that's normal.
I mean, say what you want about using sex to sell merchandise.
It is normal, at least.
And it does represent a rejection of wokeness, a rejection of the leftist project.
It is a rejection of the left's rejection of beauty and normalcy.
So I think that's what's going on here.
And I don't know that a Sidney Sweeney jeans ad really warranted a five-day conversation, but there is a certain cultural significance to it.
And I think that's what it is.
All right, I got to play this.
And I mean, I really have no choice to play it.
I don't even want to necessarily, but I'm compelled by forces outside of my control to do this.
It is my obligation.
I'm duty bound.
I'm called.
So something happened during a WNBA game yesterday.
Perhaps the first entertaining thing to have ever occurred during one of these games.
There's a player on the court lost her wig.
Her wig got knocked off.
And that was just, that was the beginning of the hilarity.
It was the beginning of the kind of comedy of errors that happened as a result of this event.
And so just watch this and see how it all unfolds.
It bounced around a lot, but at the end, it went through the room.
Oh, no.
She's going to go head to the back.
Oh, no.
Timeout called for Popper to deal with the Malfunction.
Okay, so this actually goes on for several more minutes, and we won't bore you with all of it.
But just to summarize what happened here, one of the WNBA players had her wig knocked off.
Why was she wearing a wig while playing basketball?
Who knows?
I mean, of all the places to wear a wig, a basketball court seems like the worst place, or top five at least.
Just a very poor choice.
So then she picks up her wig and she sprints off the court.
So we got two very funny events.
First, the wig comes off.
That's hilarious.
And then the reaction of picking up the wig and sprinting.
Because apparently in the world of female basketball, if your wig falls off, you are automatically excused from participation.
You can just run off the court, go to locker room and cry, presumably.
I mean, I think they saw that the medical staff was rushing in with a pint of ice cream to make her feel better.
And then back on the court, the announcers don't acknowledge what happened.
They practice this kind of solemn, reverent silence.
You could tell one of the announcers almost started laughing and she caught herself.
But a wig just fell off.
I mean, how do you not mention that?
They're trying to talk around it.
They won't say anything about the wig.
They won't give us a replay.
Now, over in men's sports, okay, a guy, a player in men's sports can shatter his leg.
His Achilles tendon is like shooting out of the top of his skull.
And we would get 50 slow motion replays of it.
We would get up close, slow motion, so we can see the moment that the tendon rips off and is shot up through his skull.
And that's what you see with men's sports.
But in women's sports, if a woman loses her wig, they won't show you the replay.
It's too upsetting.
It's too tragic.
You can't, we can't.
We don't want this to be memorialized on camera.
We can't allow it to be seen.
And all of that's hilarious enough.
But then they actually stop play on the court.
They shut everything down.
And there's an emergency meeting with the refs and coaches and officials because some fan somewhere in the stands made fun of the player for losing her wig.
And we could get from the reaction, it was only one fan, apparently.
Now, again, this happens in men's sports.
If someone's wearing a wig and it falls off, the whole stadium would be erupting in laughter.
And it would be, it would be, it would be, there'd be no way.
If you tried to kick everybody out, you'd be kicking out the entire stadium of people.
In this case, one fan makes a joke about it and gets kicked out.
How do they even know that there was one?
Well, it's because there's only five people in the stands.
So, you know, so they 20, they really did.
They kicked out 20% of the audience because there was one person.
And then it's just, but again, you go back to the world of men's sports.
If you've ever been to a game, a basketball game, football game, hockey, whatever, you know that in men's sports, fans shout the absolute most vile and vulgar things all game long.
I mean, I went to a Raven Steelers game a few years back in Baltimore, and it was a great game.
We won.
But the fans were screaming like it.
There were death wishes, profanity, ancient curses, like these almost guttural noises that the fans are making, summoning the ghosts of their ancestors to murder the Steelers in their sleep.
Brutal.
And yet in the WNBA, if you crack a smile when a woman's wig falls off, they stop the game and remove you from the stadium.
So that's all that to say, women and men, kind of the theme that's emerged today in the show, women and men are very different.
Very different.
And this is also why men's sports is just a much, much, much better product.
It is just simply a better product.
And that's why I'm a little troubled by all this WNBA conversation, which I know I'm guilty of it.
I know I'm guilty of it.
Like, I think we should all stop talking about the WNBA.
How do I, I can't not talk about it.
I mean, it's her wig fell off of the, I have to talk about it.
Why do I have this show if I'm not going to talk about that?
And yet at the same time, it's a little bit of an internal crisis for me because I do think that we all should stop talking about the WNBA.
And there's this effort among some people to make the WNBA relevant or to pretend that it's a good product is that's also troubling to me.
So that's what happened there.
Hopefully by now her wig is back on and she'll use some better glue next time and everything will be fine in the world again.
Let's get to the daily cancellation.
We've all heard common myths like we only use 10% of our brains, but here's one that might surprise you.
Thread count is a huge myth that many people believe when shopping for sheets.
Thread count is simply a measure of fabric density and isn't actually a good indicator of quality.
If you want truly great sheets, you need to look at thread quality, not count.
That's why Bowl and Branch focuses on using the highest quality organic cotton threads, creating long-lasting sheets that actually get softer over time rather than relying on inflated thread count numbers to impress customers.
Bowl and branch's sheets are crafted from the finest, 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, and durable weave that delivers quality you can feel from the moment you touch them.
What makes them even more special is that they become softer with every wash improving over time rather than wearing down.
I've had these sheets on our bed for a couple of years now.
One thing I will tell you is that they actually do, they're great right out of the box.
They get better with age, most comfortable sheets I've ever had by a mile.
With their 30-night worry-free guarantee, you can experience this exceptional comfort risk-free, ensuring you'll love how these premium sheets transform your sleep experience.
Get the best savings of the season during Bolin Branch's annual summer event.
Get 20% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlinbranch.com slash walsh.
That's bolinbranch, b-o-l-l-a-n-dbranch.com slash walsh to save 20% and unlock free shipping.
Limited time only, exclusions apply.
A couple of months ago, Vandy Criff started advertising on the show, and this chip was so good, it made me pay closer attention to the seed oil debate, which I haven't, honestly, I've not paid attention to at all.
Our YouTube feeds are full of videos of people telling us how bad seed oils are, and it's in almost all the chips, along with a bunch of other stuff that I can't pronounce, so I can't pronounce anything.
So most of the time, you're not getting a chip.
It's a chip-like substance made from a chemical cocktail.
But Vandy chips, which I hold now in my hand, are just chips.
Real, honest to God, potato chips made the way they used to be made, the way God intended before the food industry got hijacked by scientists feeding us their latest experiment.
Heirloom potatoes, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.
If you look at the ingredients on the back, that's all you see.
That's it.
There's not a long list of unpronounceable, weird things.
It's just that.
That's the whole ingredient list.
And the tallow isn't some gimmick.
It's what chips were cooked in for decades, and there's a reason for that.
Vandy didn't reinvent the wheel.
They just went back to the version that worked before we let corporations turn us into guinea pigs.
Look, you shouldn't have to feel anxious about a snack.
You shouldn't have to cross-check labels like you're scanning for radiation.
What you want is something that tastes amazing, doesn't wreck your body, and is safe to hand to your kids without wondering what it's doing to their hormones or anything else.
That's Vandy.
If you're ready to give Vandy a try, you should be.
They are by far the best potato chip I've ever had in my life.
That's real.
Take that to the bank.
Go to vandycrisps.com slash walsh and use code Walsh for 25% off your first order.
That's vandycrisps.com slash Walsh.
Code Walsh for 25% off your first order.
Oh, and you know what?
I'm building my colony right here.
I'm colonizing this whole board.
Sam!
My God!
Tell me more about your identity as a colonizer.
Are today's games getting you into trouble?
Play Am I Racist, the game about stereotypes that says the uncomfortable part out loud.
FBI hate crime statistics in 2015 show that 78.4% of all hate crimes were committed by white people.
That's right.
Right.
That's racist.
You come on.
It's fun for everyone and lays out the facts.
Nine out of 10 Native Americans are offended by the NFL team name Redskins.
Oh, that's right.
That's racist.
Nine out of ten are not offended.
Visit amiracistgame.com and get yours today so we can all be canceled together.
Every so often you hear a story about an extremely rich person who's decided to disinherit his own children.
Now, there are various articles about how Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Simon Cowell, George Lucas, Mark Zuckerberg, Jackie Chan, et cetera, have all decided that their children won't receive any kind of significant inheritance.
And of course, it's easy for rich people to set up various trusts and LLCs that funnel large sums of money to their children, even if their children technically don't get any direct inheritance.
And there's obviously no way to verify any of these pledges and whether they're carried out or not, since all these rich people are still alive.
That said, there's a clear trend here that's impossible to ignore.
At a minimum, it's now highly fashionable for prominent people to say that they are disinheriting their own children.
The latest example comes from someone named Tony Hawkes, who is apparently not the skateboarding legend Tony Hawk.
Instead, Tony Hawkes is described as a British comedian.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
It's unverifiable because anytime you search for this guy's name online, Google assumes you're using the possessive form of Tony Hawk.
So search for Tony Hawk's stand-up will return videos of Tony Hawk doing skateboarding tricks while standing up.
But in any event, Tony Hawkes evidently still has a large amount of money.
And he recently gave an interview with the BBC where he talked about his estate planning.
And here's what he said.
My interest in this may have come from the fact that for some reason, my father had one brother.
He said to both of us, I'm not going to leave you anything.
And I thought that was rather interesting.
It didn't seem to bother me at all.
My brother, he wasn't so keen on the idea, but he told us and we knew.
And so we had to go out in the world knowing that's what was going to happen.
A lot of people say, well, look, it's so hard.
It's so hard.
You've got to help your children.
I can't get it out of my head.
What about all the children that won't get anything at all?
It just seems very unfair on them that through an accident of birth, that some people get a leg up, some people get a massive leg up, some people get a little leg up, but they're not going to get anything.
And I don't know why I think that way.
I just think it isn't fair because my son hasn't done anything other than be born to me to earn that money.
So I think we need to think again, myself.
I know I'm pretty much on my own on this, but I'm not sure whether just an automatic leaving things to family is relevant anymore.
It used to be, but I'm not so sure anymore.
What are you going to do with this money if you don't leave it to your son?
Are you going to spend, spend something like Viv Nicholson?
No, what I'm actually doing is I'm setting up a charitable trust, leaving Arlo a job if he wants to take it, working for that charity, helping to give money away to good causes.
As you can tell, he's a really funny guy.
Tony Hawks oozes charisma and brings mirth wherever he goes.
But in this instance, Tony Hawkes wasn't just bringing down the house with some high-quality British humor.
He also declared with a straight face that, quote, it seemed very unfair for children to gain access to a large amount of money by an accident of birth.
Now, put aside the godless, nihilistic line of thinking here and just assume that his premise is accurate.
Let's assume that every human birth is some kind of cosmic accident, whatever that means, and therefore people don't deserve money from their parents because their whole life and their circumstances of their birth are accidental.
If that's the case, why do these random unnamed charities deserve the money?
Aren't those charities composed of people who are also born by accident?
And isn't a gigantic accident that they're getting a bunch of money just because Tony Hawks happened to look them up and send them some cash before he died?
There's really no way to make sense of anything you just said, but it's a common line of argument you see all the time on the left.
Same kind of thinking that yields brilliant insights like: billionaires don't deserve their money, so therefore we should steal their money and give it to barely sentient government bureaucrats instead.
Except in this case, the argument's even worse because he's depriving his own bloodline in the process.
I mean, let's assume for a second that Tony Hawkes means every word he says and that his planned charitable organization isn't some kind of tax avoidance scheme, which it could very well be.
The truth is, increasingly, a lot of people are doing the same thing that he's doing.
I mean, it's why you hear this kind of, we talked about it on the show before, I think, this is becoming a very popular thing for parents.
Parents are increasingly cutting children out of their wills or reducing the amount of money that some of their children receive if they're leaving a will at all.
Recently, the business school at Washington University in St. Louis posted a summary of research into inheritances and wills that was conducted by researchers in the European Economic Review.
And they looked at U.S. data from the Health and Retirement Study from 1995 to 2014.
And here's what they found, quote, more than one-third of parents with wills plan to divide their estates unequally among their children.
The research also discovered that a staggering number of older Americans don't have a will.
30% of people 70 and older don't.
Plans for unequal inheritances are concentrated in weak relationships.
Those are defined as families with stepchildren and families with genetic children with little or no contact with their parents.
Robert Polak, an economics professor who worked on this research, said this is a trend that's becoming much more common, quote, we've shown that bequests are much more unequal now than in the recent past and much more unequal than generally recognized.
According to the paper, quote, the proportion of parents ages 50 and over with more than one child who report having wills in which they treat their children unequally increased steadily between 1995 and 2014.
It's now nearly 40%, up double digits from just a couple of decades ago.
In other words, relationships between parents and their children, or at least some of their children, are on the decline, and parents are leaving less money to their children as a result.
And in many cases, they aren't leaving wills at all, leaving children to fight over the money in court, which is just an extremely irresponsible thing.
I just don't understand, especially older parents who you haven't bothered to make a will.
You're just leaving your family to deal with this.
Incredibly selfish.
They're finding other uses for the money that they've saved from spending it on themselves or donating it to charity, as Tony Hawkes claims he's doing.
What this means is that we're living in the first generation in American history and world history that is just disregarding the concepts of legacy and birthright on a large scale.
This is not the only evidence of that.
We see many other cases, but this is one symptom of this problem.
For millions of Americans, it's becoming an appealing prospect to make their children's lives more difficult, all for the benefit of complete strangers.
That's the fair outcome, says Tony Hawks.
Better to give random nonprofits a leg up or help other people's children than your own children, because your child didn't earn it.
Even though, again, the people that you're giving the charity to, the people that the charity is giving the money to, they didn't earn it either.
And this is the kind of madness that you hear almost exclusively among boomers.
I mean, these are people who grew up in a very different economy, one where young Americans weren't competing against millions of foreign nationals for entry-level jobs, and where the government wasn't constantly printing money and devaluing every dollar they earned.
To use Tony Hawks' term, boomers benefited from an actual, an actual accident of birth, which is that they spent their working years in a country that's now unrecognizable.
And now, as we've seen so often, they're pulling up the ladder, which is indefensible.
And to be clear, it would be indefensible even if the economy hadn't changed in the ways that I just outlined.
Leaving your fortune for other people's kids, but not your own, it's the weirdest kind of selfishness.
It amounts to spite and resentment towards your own bloodline.
And I will just never understand this kind of thing.
I'm not even 40 yet, and despite appearances, and already one of the main things that drives me in life is the desire to leave a legacy for my children.
And that desire seems to be less and less common.
I made this point on X the other day, and one of the top replies, a comment with over 200 likes, is from a boomer woman who said, no, boomer here, I plan to spend every dime.
Exclamation point.
This is a popular attitude these days.
It's like insanely gratuitously selfish, but it's a very popular attitude.
It would have been totally alien to your grandparents, this attitude.
I'm going to spend every dime so you don't get it.
Your grandparents did not have, and you as a boomer, you benefited from the fact that your parents and grandparents didn't have that attitude, but you do.
And their grandparents didn't have that attitude, and their grandparents didn't, on down through the ages.
Leaving a legacy, making sure that your children are wealthier and more prosperous than you.
This should be one of your main focuses in life, and especially as you get towards the end of your life.
This should be one of the only things that matters to you is making sure that your children.
So this ridiculous attitude that you hear from some parents and older parents when they say, well, I didn't have this.
I didn't have it.
So you shouldn't have it.
You should want your children to have the things that you didn't have.
What the hell is wrong with you?
You know, protecting your child's birthright.
These are the things that motivated our ancestors, drove them to achieve incredible things and build the civilization that we all now live in.
If our ancestors had the attitude that you had, you don't get this because you didn't work for it.
I want you to have to work.
If our ancestors had that attitude, we would not have the civilization.
We would not have any civilization.
And now you have people like Tony Hawks and the boomer woman in my comments just tossing all that to the side.
It's insane.
Totally insane.
So I will make right now the opposite pledge.
Okay.
And I don't have, I'll make the opposite pledge from the one that I hear from Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and all the rest of them.
I don't have anywhere close to the kind of money they do.
But I will say, when I die, not one penny of my wealth will go to some charitable organization.
Not a dime.
I want to make sure that's very clear in the will.
Do not give a penny of this to charity.
I don't want to give, not a penny.
Because it will all go to my family.
Not your family, not your kids, my family.
Only them.
Every dime, only my blood.
I will leave it all to them and no one else.
Now, I donate to charity while I'm alive, but when I die, all that is mine belongs to my children.
It is their birthright.
I'm doing all of this for them.
I want, I want, I'm willing to say, I want my children to be rich and privileged.
It's crazy that that's now some sort of mind-blowing statement for someone to make.
I want my children to be rich and privileged.
That's what I want for them.
Privilege is not a bad thing.
I want my kids to have privilege.
I want them to have more privileges than I did.
I want them to have a lot more privileges than I did.
I want them to reap the benefits of my work.
I want to plant a tree so that they enjoy its fruits and sit in its shade.
I want that for them much more than I want it for myself.
And I can't understand any parent who lives any other way.
And that is why anyone who is pledging to disinherit his own children in a depraved act of narcissism masked as altruism, which is often how narcissism is repackaged, is today canceled.
