Ep. 1634 - Leftists Come Up With INSANE Solution To Migrant Crime
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Australia imported the third world en masse and now the country is plagued by machete-wielding gangs. They’ve come up with a bold way to deal with these problems: by asking the gang members to please turn in their machetes. Also, new footage from that mob attack in Cincinnati supposedly reveals that one of the white victims may have possibly said the n-word. Does that change anything about this case? Of course not. We’ll talk about it. Also, feminists on the internet are very mad at me today because I dared to suggest that women have an obligation to have children. This is an extremely offensive idea, apparently. It’s also obviously true.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1634
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com
Get new episodes of Answer the Call—every Monday—on The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH
Hillsdale College - Go to https://hillsdale.edu/walsh to start learning from over 40 free online courses today!
Shopify - Sign up for your $1-per-month trial and start selling today at https://Shopify.com/walsh
ARMRA - Go to https://armra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout to receive 30% off your first subscription 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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During Answer the Call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all of this grief, responsibility?
How do you repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Michaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
Thank you.
you you Today, the Matt Wall show, Australia imported the third world en masse, and now the country is plagued by machete-wielding gangs.
They come up with a bold way to deal with these problems by asking the gang members to please turn in their machetes.
Also, new footage from that mob attack in Cincinnati supposedly reveals that one of the white victims may have possibly said the N-word.
Does that change anything about this case?
Of course, it doesn't.
We'll talk about that.
Also, feminists on the internet are very mad at me today because I dare to suggest that women have an obligation to have children.
You can't say that.
It's an extremely offensive idea.
Apparently, it's also obviously true.
Talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The Matt Walsh Show.
How many times have you told someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?
Now, that's great advice for most things, but not so much for a cell phone.
See, over time, the battery life fades, the processor can't keep up, and it's fallen in the toilet one too many times.
Fortunately, thanks to PeerTalk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty at all.
When you switch to PearTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 for free with a $35 qualifying plan, just $35 a month for talk, text, and data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass and a battery that lasts all day, all on America's most dependable 5G network.
It's fast and it's great for work.
Look, supporting companies like PureTalk is a good thing.
You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.
They win by hiring Americans and helping more veterans.
Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
Go to PureTalk.com slash Walsh to get your cell phone today.
Again, that's puretalk.com slash Walsh to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Short Talk.
In the history of the news business, only a handful of anchors have managed to transcend their craft and become true legends in the industry.
I'm talking about the kinds of anchors that people went out of their way to watch or listen to.
Edward Murrow was known for his reporting from London during the Blitz in World War II.
Walter Cronkite moved people to tears with his coverage of the JFK assassination and the moon landing.
Brian Williams made his name by surviving a direct hit from an invisible rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq, which blew his helicopter into a million invisible pieces.
Today, I'm going to predict the next name that will be added to this extremely prestigious list of news anchors, and that name is Peter Hitchener.
Now, you've maybe never heard of Peter Hitchener, especially if you don't live in Australia, but if there's any justice in the world, that's all about the change.
Yes, 79-year-old Peter Hitchener has something like 60 years of news broadcasting experience, but in just the last two months, he's managed to carve out his own unique area of expertise, as all great news anchors do.
He's become must-see TV because of his relentless coverage of a particular issue.
You see, in the 1960s, when Americans wanted to hear the latest news from the Apollo program, they couldn't wait to tune in to Walter Cronkite's broadcast.
And today, in exactly the same way, when Australians want to hear about the latest brutal machete attack by foreigners in their country, they know there's one man they can turn to, Peter Hitchener.
That's right, machete attacks are now so common in Australia that machete attacks now qualify as a distinct beat in Australian journalism.
And it's a very competitive beat, one that Hitchener is frankly dominating, if we're being honest.
No one else even comes remotely close.
So here's just a sampling of Hitchener's coverage in the past few weeks.
Keep in mind as you watch that all these clips are indeed completely separate reports about completely separate incidents in Australia.
Watch.
Shoppers have run for their lives as a wild brawl erupted between gangs with machetes inside Northland.
The incident sent the shopping center into lockdown, terrified customers hiding inside stores until given the all-clear.
Ollie Haig begins our coverage.
Machete terror inside one of Melbourne's busiest shopping centers.
A man with a huge blade facing off with two others inside Northland.
The Sunday afternoon shoppers, some carrying their children, run for their lives.
A shopper whose trip to the pharmacy ended in a shocking machete attack has told of his terrifying ordeal.
Doctors have been battling to save his hand after it is almost severed outside an Altona Meadows shopping center.
He's told Jack Ward, his life will never be the same again.
Sarah Barnard is a broken man.
My hand in my arm was literally hanging by a thread.
He was attacked by a gang armed with a machete and thought he would die.
There was a lot of blood around me.
My clothes were completely true-off blunt.
Good evening.
A Caroline Springs shopping centre has been forced into lockdown after a brawl broke out between machete-wielding teens.
As Julia Passarelli reports, it comes after the Victorian government banned the sale of the weapons.
Inside a suburban shopping centre, violence erupts.
Machete-wielding teens clash in Caroline Springs as workers scramble to shut their doors to protect themselves from harm.
As the search continues for the people who killed a young man in Lyndhurst, the government is being asked why the machete ban will take six months to enforce.
The opposition says the ousted chief commissioner recommended the change a year ago, crime reporter Gillian Lanturus.
Bouquets of flowers marking another victim of Victoria's machete crisis.
A 24-year-old man was stabbed to death in a Lyndhurst car park on Friday night.
The offenders are believed to be linked to a violent armed robbery in Baronia an hour earlier.
There are a lot of news outlets that will auto-generate articles about earthquakes just a few seconds after they're detected.
They automatically plug the magnitude and location information into a pre-written template and then publish it.
At this rate, we're probably going to see the same thing with machete attacks in Australia.
Hitchener won't even have to go to work.
Australians will just get the latest machete attack information along with their daily weather report.
And in any event, before we take a closer look at some of these incidents, it needs to be said that Peter Hitchener, as talented as he is, isn't capable of covering every single machete attack in Australia.
There are simply too many of them.
So here's an Australian machete attack that he missed.
This one took place in a McDonald's back in May.
Watch.
A shocking vision out of Melbourne of another alleged machete attack just days after a landmark ban of the weapon.
Yeah, these pictures taken from inside a bathroom at McDonald's in Tragenina.
One child appearing to have a weapon pressed against his throat.
Police have since arrested and charged one of the accused teenagers, but this morning he is out on bail.
Footage has emerged of a 15-year-old boy being threatened with a machete in a McDonald's toilet.
At one point, the knife is held to his throat as he's ordered to get down.
The vision shows another victim being punched while on the ground.
The offenders appear to be in school uniforms.
One of the fathers of the alleged perpetrators has spoken out, saying he doesn't think his son will face any real consequences over this, labeling the juvenile justice system as ineffective.
And for good measure, here's another machete attack from a patrol station, as they call it in that part of the world, back in June.
A teenager has been ambushed in a terrifying machete attack in Melbourne's northeast.
He arrived at a service station to fill up but was set upon within seconds of getting out of his vehicle.
A late-night fuel stop that turned violent in a matter of seconds.
A passenger inside this Holden ambushed by two armed thugs at Doreen's United Petrol Station just before 10 last night.
The victim was slashed on the arm with a machete almost two weeks after the sale of the weapon was outlawed in Victoria.
The victim fled to this McDonald's, which is just 100 meters from the service station, shocked witnesses called paramedics who took him to the northern hospital in a serious condition.
The offenders fled within minutes of the attack.
Seeing all these reports, a reasonable person might ask, what exactly is the root cause of the problem here?
Who are these teens and males who are wielding machetes?
What are their ethnicities?
Where are the fathers?
No one else in Australia's mainstream media, including even the great Peter Hitchener, is allowed to ask any of these questions.
Instead, they're compelled to report endlessly, day after day, about yet another brutal machete attack that's been committed by nondescript, wayward youths and rowdy teens.
Even after the government banned the act of attacking someone with a machete and then banned the act of possessing a machete at all, somehow the attacks have continued.
So they're hopelessly confused about how to proceed here.
But Australia's government has not remained completely passive in the face of this onslaught of machete violence.
They have formulated a plan, I'm happy to report.
Now, granted, it's the worst plan they could have possibly conceived, but it is a plan nonetheless.
Specifically, Australia's government has decided to politely ask machete attackers to hand over their weapons.
And they can do that by dropping machetes in the nearest machete collection box.
Watch.
Outside the Victoria Police headquarters on Spencer Street, a purpose-built bin for a weapon wreaking havoc.
This is very important.
Those knives, those machetes, create enormous damage.
Come September 1, it will be illegal to own a machete.
And this is where Victorians are being asked to drop them off during an amnesty period that will run until November 30.
We've done this because we want to get these knives off the streets because these knives destroy lives.
On the 1st of September, when the ban on machetes takes place, we are rolling out through Victoria Police at 24-7 police stations the safe disposal bins.
These will be at locations right across the state.
They'll be locations where people can come and lawfully dispose of any machete that they may already have.
So this is the solution that they've arrived upon after a series of machete attacks that have terrorized tens of thousands of people.
They're just going to ask the criminals to surrender their machetes in a giant machete box, as if the only thing causing them to kill people with machetes is the fact that getting rid of the machete hasn't been convenient enough.
The machete attackers have all said to themselves, gee, you know, I'd really like to stop butchering people with machetes, but unfortunately there's no convenient disposal location for my murder weapon.
I guess I'll have to keep macheteing people.
Now, the obvious parallel here is with gun buybacks, which don't work either, by the way.
In 2008, more than a decade after Australia banned most firearms, researchers at the University of Melbourne looked into the country's gun buyback program and they found, quote, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
It turns out that only law-abiding gun owners were handing in their guns.
Who could have possibly predicted that?
And of course, we see the same thing at gun buybacks in the United States.
As of 2020, in the U.S., the firearm homicide rate for young black males was more than 20 times higher than it was for white males of the same age.
But young black males are not handing in their guns.
As the research organization RAND has reported, citing dozens of surveys and studies, quote, the majority of participants in gun buybacks were older white men.
75% of the gun buybacks were small caliber, compared with 24% of guns used in homicides and 32% of those used in suicides.
Additionally, quote, the number of guns turned into buybacks represent a tiny fraction of firearms in any community.
Significant proportions of firearms turned into buyback programs were not in working condition or were older than guns typically used in crimes.
Nearly one quarter of survey respondents in Sacramento, California reported that the firearm they turned in during a gun buyback event was not in working order, with an additional 24% reporting that they were unsure whether the firearm was operational.
Now, most of these people handed in their guns, which many of them were broken anyway, so they could receive a gift card or some other form of compensation from the state.
But in Australia, they're not even offering any incentive for these machetes.
Not even a coupon to McDonald's or anything.
They're just asking the criminals to hand over their weapons.
And that's raising concern that if anyone does actually drop off a machete for some reason, well, criminals will just take the machetes from the giant machete bin that they're now leaving in the middle of cities.
Watch.
Dozens of police stations in prominent crime hotspots will soon be home to new machete amnesty bins.
It's part of a plan to get the deadly blades off our streets, but critics say it's unlikely to work and may even backfire.
We need to give them some kind of carrot rather than just focusing on the stick.
Having them out the front, you're not actually sending any message that it's okay to drop them off.
The Les Twentyman Foundation ran its own successful knife buyback program in 2006.
We did that through having an engagement with a young person and they exchanged a knife for some kind of incentive, so a movie ticket or ticket to the footy.
The state government is hoping its program will be as successful as Australia's gun amnesty in 1996.
There are also concerns that the bins themselves will be targeted by criminals.
But youth foundations say it's more likely they'll sit empty for the full three months.
Well the remains, the program remains the same at the moment.
I don't think they're going to have many blades in them, unfortunately.
Notice in that report that they said Australia's gun amnesty had been successful, but that's not true.
Banning guns has not solved Australia's violent crime problem, as we can clearly see.
In fact, it didn't even solve the problem with firearms.
Quoting again from the University of Melbourne, the 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement in Australia introduced strict gun laws, but using a battery of structural brake tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
Close quote.
To the extent that the rate of firearm use has declined in Australia, the researchers found that it was already declining well before the gun ban went into effect.
And on top of that, as we can see clearly, criminals have not stopped committing violent crimes in Australia because of the firearms ban.
They're happy to use machetes instead of guns.
And now, thanks to the firearm ban, the victims are completely helpless.
No one in those malls can shoot the attacker.
I guess they'd have to have their own machete, get into like a swashbuckling sword fight with the attacker in the middle of the shopping mall.
But they don't do that, so they have to wait for the police who take roughly 30 minutes to arrive in one of these attacks.
Yes, people spend a full half hour in panic as gangs attack people with machetes.
Of course, even if you somehow manage to ban machetes, which is practically impossible, just like a gun ban, then they'll move on to some other instrument of violence.
I mean, you can't stop violence by reactively banning the objects people use to commit it.
Primitive societies, despite what you may have been told, were far more violent, far more violent than our own.
And all they had were sticks and stones.
Are we going to ban those next?
What's left unsaid in all these news reports is that Australians have had legal access to machetes for centuries without any issue whatsoever.
It was only when Australia began importing the third world en masse that machetes suddenly became weapons of mass terror.
So let's go back to one of those 500 news reports that I played at the beginning of the segment and see if you notice anything about the coverage of mall attack number two.
I feel so scared.
I just quickly go and shut the cafe and tell my other staff don't believe.
They just pull down from their back their backpack and then long knife like musty and then they just fighting Can't believe it did happen.
Shoppers also caught up in the chaos just after 6.30 last night.
We're going into lockdown because someone has a missed.
Now we are handed out.
Up to six boys were involved in the brawl.
They all fled before police arrived.
They were in and they were out very, very promptly.
I was extremely terrified.
They all were like with the same attire black and covering the fees.
Can't recognize who they are.
This comes less than two weeks after rival gangs fought inside Northland shopping center.
Seven people have been charged over that incident.
It's pretty remarkable.
I was shocked watching this as jaded as I am.
You think I can't be shocked by this anymore.
But when you watch it, if not for the accent of the news reporter, you would never know that it's a news report from Australia.
Almost every person interviewed or even just seen on camera is an immigrant.
Even the voice over the intercom telling the store owners to get to go into lockdown is clearly foreign.
If you had to guess without any context, if I showed you that video, it gave you no context.
You couldn't hear the reporter.
And I were to ask you to guess, what country is this from?
You would think it was from India or some other South Asian country.
Now, this is a transformation that's been underway for a very long time, but it's accelerated recently.
Jordan Knight with the Claremont Institute has outlined the deliberate process that's led to the breakdown of law and order in Australia.
In September 2022, some of the most prominent academics and political leaders in Australia, including the prime minister and the immigration minister, gathered for a meeting to address what they called a skills crisis in the country post-COVID.
The agenda for the meeting was to assess, quote, the role of skilled migration in resolving the current skills and labor shortage crisis.
And ultimately, the group concluded that the migration ceiling should be increased to nearly 200,000 and visa and work restrictions should be relaxed across the board.
In other words, they encourage fraud and very quickly a visa backlog of more than 3 million have been reduced by nearly 500,000 applicants.
The number of foreign nationals on student visas exploded.
Now, you can see the surge there in terms of net student visa arrivals.
Those are levels that Australia hasn't seen in decades.
Meanwhile, as hundreds of thousands of foreigners streamed in, look what happened to housing costs.
Predictably, rents are increasingly at historic levels.
Millions of Australians can't afford a place to live.
And of course, along with rent, the cost of basic essentials like groceries increased as well.
That's generally what happens when there's a sudden surge of demand.
In Australia, a country of around 27 million people, net overseas migration for 23 to 24 was estimated at roughly 550,000, far exceeding the government's own estimates by more than 100,000 people.
Again, nothing like this has happened in generations.
You can see the massive swing right at the end of this chart.
It's an unsustainable trend.
One that the government in Australia deliberately enacted instead of getting skilled labor, they've lowered the quality of life for everyone living in the country.
For Australians, in practical terms, that means a lot more news coverage of teens and youths terrorizing the local mall.
It also means more scenes like this one.
That's from last month when thousands of Muslims surrounded St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne.
And when this footage went viral, the response was, well, it was peaceful and it's part of some Islamic tradition.
So what's the big deal?
Any intimidation was purely accidental, in other words.
Well, the big deal is that as controversial as this apparently is to say, Australia should not look like Pakistan.
Okay, it was once a functioning Western nation.
And in a very short period of time, Australia's leaders have effectively erased its national sovereignty.
Just the other day, there was yet another rally that, if you didn't know any better, looks like a scene out of the Middle East.
Now, only a nation in complete denial would look at these images, these news reports, these statistics, and conclude that the machetes are the problem.
Australia is refusing to acknowledge what everyone can clearly see.
It is pathological, almost comical.
Like Canada and the UK, Australia has deliberately transformed into a colony of the third world to the point that the next time someone tries to make the case that we don't really need to enforce immigration laws as rigorously as possible here or that the Second Amendment isn't vital for our country's survival, you don't really need to say anything in response.
You just tell them to tune into Australia's nightly newscast for a couple of weeks.
See if they can count the number of machete attacks.
And that should settle the debate.
And if it doesn't, then you know you're talking to someone who, like the leaders of Australia, desperately want the West to fail.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This is unconstitutional.
Sound familiar?
Well, of course it does.
Every pundit podcaster and YouTube expert throws this phrase around like confetti at a New Year's party.
But here's a wild thought.
Instead of just nodding along with whatever hot take crossed your feed this morning, have you ever actually cracked open the Constitution yourself?
You know, that dusty old document everyone claims to be defending, but apparently nobody has time to read.
That's why I'm thrilled that Hillsdale College is offering a brand new, free online course called the Federalists.
The Federalist papers were written primarily By Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to explain how our Constitution creates a government strong enough to protect your rights, but safe enough not to trample them.
The founders knew we'd need to stay vigilant to preserve Republican self-government, and that responsibility falls on us today.
I personally love that Hillsdale's course breaks it all down in 10 digestible 30-minute lectures that you can take at your own pace, which comes in handy for those of us with busy schedules.
It's completely free, definitely worth your time.
Plus, they've got over 40 other free courses covering everything from C.S. Lewis to Roman history to ancient Christianity.
Not bad for the price of, well, absolutely nothing.
Go right now to hillsdale.edu/slash Walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll for free.
Hillsdale.edu/slash Walsh.
What started as an idea is now the podcast and business blasting through your earbuds.
Launching your own business is pretty much on everybody's bucket list, but most people let it collect dust right next to learn a language and get abs.
Stop hiding behind lame excuses like, I don't have the skills.
I can't do it alone.
No, turn those what-ifs into bold why-nots with Shopify backing your ideas.
They've got the tools.
You just need to take the chance.
Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. We even use it for our own Daily Wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently so you can all get the goods.
You might be asking, what if I can't design a website where I'm worried people haven't heard of my brand?
Not a problem.
Shopify has got you covered from the start with beautiful, ready-to-go templates that match your brand style and help you find your customers through easy-to-run email and social media campaigns.
And if you need a hand with everyday tasks, their AI tools created specifically for commerce can help enhance product images, write descriptions, and much more.
Plus, their award-winning customer support is available 24-7 to share advice if you ever get stuck.
Turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success with Shopify.
Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com/slash Walsh.
Go to shopify.com/slash Walsh, Shopify.com/slash Walsh.
We've been following this story in Cincinnati very closely, the story of the anti-white mob attack.
There's been a number of attempts to find some way to blame this on the white victims.
Over the weekend, there were some videos going viral of what happened leading up to the vicious assaults that we all saw.
The people sharing the videos claim that they proved that the one white guy hit first and really this was all his faith.
But if you watch the video with your eyes actually open, you see the opposite.
And we don't need to play very much of this because you see in the first, just we'll play it.
What do you see in the first three seconds of this video?
watch.
Okay, so we gave you the first 10 seconds of the video, which is more than enough because in the first three seconds, you see the black guy swing on the white guy.
So, I mean, it's right there.
And yet, race hustlers and social media are just flat out lying.
These people lie like they, like they, you know, they don't even know they're lying anymore.
They lie like they breathe, trying to convince us somehow the video I just played proves that the white guy started it.
Now, there's obviously stuff that happened before even that video started, but all the videos that we see, you know, it all stacks up a certain way, which by the way, even if he did start it, that would not just, and this should not need to be said, but apparently it does need to be said, that that would not justify jumping multiple, like multiple people, jumping one person and attacking him and pummeling him while he's on the ground.
Not to mention inflicting severe brain damage on the woman who was also assaulted and didn't hit anybody.
You know, there is such a thing as fighting honorably.
There's such a thing as honor in general, like to be an honorable person that matters.
And we've moved away from that in society to a large extent.
And now you have a lot of people that the concept is like foreign to them.
But you can't have a functioning society when there's no concept of honor, being an honorable person.
This is not some right academic concept or some just sentimental nonsense.
You cannot have a functioning society without honor, without a sense of honor.
And even, and that used to be widely understood, even in a fight.
You know, because I'm not one of these people that says, oh, well, violence is never the answer.
You should never get into a fight.
Violence can be an answer sometimes.
Unless you're a radical peace snake and you think that war is always wrong and there's never self-defense even is wrong.
Unless you're one of those people, then you know that sometimes violence is the answer.
It's maybe not an ideal answer, but it's the only answer available.
That's true.
And violence can be justified.
And I wouldn't even say that violence can only be justified morally if someone hits you first.
If you're walking down the street with your wife or something and someone comes up and accosts your wife in some way, then as a man, you're perfectly morally justified in responding in a violent way to that, I believe.
But in terms of self-preservation, these days, it probably will come back to bite you, but is it morally justified?
Yeah.
But in a fight, when a fight happens, and this whole thing is being called a fight, local officials have called it a fight.
The media has called a fight.
This is not a fight.
Okay.
If somebody smacks you in the face and you feel the need to respond physically, the honorable thing is to face him man-to-man one-on-one.
And when he's on the ground, you've won the fight.
Stomping on his head is not only attempted murder, but also it's dishonorable, cowardly behavior.
Stomping a guy when he's on the ground is despicable, dishonorable, cowardly behavior.
Ganging up on someone should be like an embarrassing thing to do.
You got a problem with this guy.
You got a problem with just him.
You're the one with a problem with him.
Well, then square, if you feel like you need to square up with him and settle it like men, swarm him with multiple people.
But really, all that is academic anyway, because this guy did not start it.
He was not the first to throw a punch, as you can see.
And then came an even more desperate attempt to justify this assault.
Claims began circulating, which, you know, I predicted this, and I'm not the only one.
A lot of people predicted this, that what's going to happen is they're going to start telling you, oh, someone said a racial slur.
And that's always just assumed.
The same thing was assumed.
You hear this claim about Austin Metcalf.
There's still people who just make that claim flat out as if it's a fact on social media.
Well, he said a racial slur.
No, he didn't.
There's no evidence of that.
No one's even claimed that.
You're just making that up.
And so the claims began circulating that someone shouted the N-word during this whole incident.
And the defense attorneys for one of the assailants has made this claim as if it's a defense.
this is the defense they're going to go with very predictably over the weekend fox news posted this new video the n-word was shouted during the violent cincinnati beatdown new footage shows it's unclear who said it and to whom it was directed Now I'm not going to bother playing the video because the word is bleeped and the person who says it, whoever says it, is not clearly visible on camera.
So I mean, it would be useless to play it.
You can't tell anything from the video.
Really nothing to learn from the video.
It's not clear who says it.
It's not clear if the person who said it is even white or who it was said to.
And also, it was said by whoever said it after the assault had already taken place.
So using it as a justification for the assault is clearly nonsensical.
Unless the assailants were like time jumpers, they skipped ahead in time and knew that they would be called the N-word.
So they attacked preemptively.
But of course, the reason they were called the N-word, if they were called it, is because they attacked.
So this becomes sort of a self-fulfilling process.
It's like it's a paradise, one of those paradoxes of time travel.
The N-word paradox of time travel, as maybe we'll call it.
But let's leave the timeline entirely aside for the moment.
Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we knew one of the white people said the word and let's pretend that it happened before the assault.
Would that change anything?
No, obviously it would not change anything.
You are not justified or excused in physically assaulting someone just because they said a word you don't like.
And I say that as someone who just said a few minutes ago, that it's not my view that there could never be a thing someone could say to you or say in your presence that would justify a violent response.
Someone accosts your wife, your children, is harassing them or something, then I think, again, perfectly morally justified.
Not that I'm recommending it on legal grounds, but morally justified.
Someone just saying a word you don't like, no, that doesn't justify it.
But we've let this idea, especially when it's a word that we hear 10 million times a day, especially when it's a word that's been utterly, totally normalized.
You know, especially in that case.
So we've let this idea fester for decades that this one particular word, this magical word, belongs in some kind of category unto itself.
And if the word is uttered, uttered by somebody with the wrong skin tone, specifically, then all the laws of human decency and basic common sense, the actual laws also against assault and murder, should all be suspended.
This is the dynamic that's existed in our culture for a very long time, and it's rooted in a broader idea, which we find all throughout the culture, which is that a person's subjective emotional experience is more true, is more real than reality itself.
What matters is not what actually happened, but what a person, a person in a protected group rather, feels happens or how they feel about what happened.
And with this word, the idea is that a black person's subjective emotional experience of hearing the word is so distressing and so painful that the word itself is effectively no longer just a word.
It's morally equivalent to physically assaulting somebody or trying to kill them.
And so there could be a violent response to the word and it's sort of like effectively self-defense because he's defending himself against the emotional annihilation that the word might cause.
This is the idea.
But it's completely ridiculous.
Your emotional reaction to something does not get to define what the thing is.
The word is just a word.
Doesn't matter if you feel that it's more than a word.
It isn't.
It's a word.
And that's all.
Let's see.
The Democrat, this is from Postmilando.
Democratic Socialists of America recently published a panel discussion from its annual socialism conference that featured open calls for the abolition of the nuclear family and traditional family structure in the U.S. The panel titled The Left and the Family, a Roundtable, took place on July 4th and was part of the Socialism Conference in Chicago.
The video was uploaded to YouTube on Friday and DSA wrote in the caption that the nuclear family is an inherently repressive, racist, and heterosexist institution that functionally reinforces and reproduces capitalism.
Well, rather than reading about it, I'll play some of the highlights that Postmilando provided in their article.
So here are some of the highlights from this socialism event.
Here it is.
And on that revolutionary horizon, want to perform abortions at a church, you know, vote before it's all said and done.
That the only real difference between marriage and prostitution is the price and the duration of the contract.
We can fight for family abolition.
We can imagine family abolition because we have seen black women do it, because we have seen these indigenous communities do it.
But, you know, it is, to me, it is the institution of marriage can only exist alongside the criminalization of sex workers.
Children whose parents are unable to provide either housing, food, or safety are treated as if they have committed a crime.
So the kids themselves are treated as if they have committed a crime if they're not born into a family.
I can support them.
In addition to abolition of family policing, you argue for abolition of the family in general and say that the institution of the family acts as part of the parcel system in the way that it reinforces children as property.
I think the left is constantly surprised at how few people are, you know, ready for revolt, despite, you know, the extremely dire conditions that we're in that keep becoming more and more dire every day.
Women and children are the most harmed by capitalism, but also women and children are the architects of their fate.
So when we talk about family abolition, that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about the abolition of that economic unit.
For me, that liberatory horizon is to say it is a horizon in which kinship and care are like in which all of our material needs are taken care of by the collective.
The sex work, the criminalization of sex work is like the dark underbelly of the sanctified, reified, and legally enforced institution of exchanging your bodily autonomy and your sexuality for economic security.
I don't think one can exist without the other.
Okay, so that's a whole lot of insane nonsense, but this is what so-called democratic socialists are all about.
And remember, the guy who's about to be the next mayor of our largest city in New York, Zoran Mamdani, is a democratic socialist.
This is his ideology.
This is his belief system.
So we can't just write it off as this fringe radical thing, some sort of aberration.
It's not that.
This is what they believe.
And it really highlights a point that I want to make, which is that, you know, what are all these socialists railing against?
What are they always railing against?
What do they hate the most?
The family, the nuclear family, mom, dad, children.
That's what they hate.
That's their enemy.
That's the thing that they have been working to destroy.
And this, to me, is the dividing line.
This is the pivotal point, the centerpiece of everything is the family.
And the dividing line in our culture war, our political battles and our cultural battles, the dividing line is the family.
On one side, you have those who defend the family and seek to preserve it and promote it and celebrate it.
And on the other, you have those who want to destroy it or abandon it or subvert it or give up on it or surrender it.
Those are the two sides, really.
And if you're on the side of subversion and abandonment, then you are the enemy.
You're my enemy.
You're the enemy.
I want nothing to do with you.
We're not on the same side.
I don't care what else we agree on.
I don't care.
We could agree on every other issue.
But if you are not a defender of the family, then we're not on the same side.
I want absolutely nothing to do with you.
And I want to make that point because the fact is, you know, there are some people on the right, supposedly on the right, who are, and this is an increasing problem, I think, these people who are basically anti-family.
They're against marriage.
They're against family life.
They have nothing but negative things to say about it.
They despise men who get married.
They think that getting married is like selling out, simping or whatever.
And those people are just like the people we saw in the video.
I mean, they're no better.
In fact, they're worse.
They're worse because they should know better.
They're certainly no better.
Either you stand with the family, you defend it, or you don't.
And if you don't, then you're an agent of despair and moral chaos.
You're the enemy.
You're a demonic force.
We're not allies.
We can never be allies.
I want your whole worldview and everything you stand for to be destroyed if you stand against the family.
Like you cannot possibly be an agent for good in the culture if you stand against the family.
You cannot possibly be.
It's impossible.
You're pro-family or anti-family.
That's it.
That's all that that's what matters to me.
Now, if we can agree that we're pro-family, then we could go on and we could talk about a lot of other really important issues.
But the first litmus test for me is pro-family or anti-family.
And if you're anti-family, I don't care how you arrived at that conclusion.
I don't care what your reason is.
I don't care what kind of language you use when describing it.
Doesn't matter.
You're anti-family.
You're an enemy of this country.
You're an enemy of civilization.
There is no version of conservatism that is anti-family or apathetic to the family or not actively promoting the family.
Because if we're not trying to conserve the family, then there is nothing else worth conserving.
If we are not conserving the family, there's not a single other possible thing that could be worth, Everything you care about is destroyed if we are not conserving and promoting and defending the family.
If we don't have the family, nothing else matters.
You go ahead and tell me what other issue.
Oh, that doesn't matter because of this issue.
That issue means nothing.
That issue is if we don't have the family, okay?
You can't be America first if you're not rabidly pro-family and promoting the family, encouraging people to start families.
Because America can't exist without families.
No country can exist.
America first.
What's America then?
But you want to have America, but no families?
How's that work?
What's that going to look like?
Well, I'll tell you what America with no families looks like.
It looks like any inner city.
It looks like extinction.
It looks like moral chaos.
It looks like total dysfunction and destruction is what it looks like.
And if that's what you want for America, then there's no America first.
It's not conservatism.
Civilization cannot exist without the family.
The family is the bedrock of human civilization.
Everything, everything, everything is grounded in the family.
Everything starts with the family.
So why do I obsess about it all the time?
Why do I talk about it all the time?
Why do I refuse to give in to this black pill, you know, despairing, cowardly nonsense?
Oh, it's too late, okay?
Yeah, we can't, we got to give up on it.
It's broken.
Why do I refuse?
Well, because if I do that, then there's nothing else worth talking about.
Just pack it in.
Give up, really.
At that point, just give up.
If you're giving up on the family, just give up in general.
There's no point.
What are you doing with your life?
Why try?
Why try to do anything?
What are you fighting for?
What are you doing anyway?
Voting?
Who cares?
Immigration, the border?
What does any of that matter?
You've given up on the family.
It doesn't matter.
Nothing matters at that point.
So just give up, you know, stay at your house, play on your phone, and bide your time until you die.
I mean, you might as well just do that.
So I defend and fight for the family because nothing else matters if I don't, if we all don't, right?
And this is the, it's, it's so fundamental and so basic that, you know, for a long time, for most of human history, really, there was no reason to identify yourself as like a defender of the family or you're pro-family for much of human history, particularly much of Western civilization, that was a stance that did not ever need to be said.
It would be, you'd be looked at as strange if you went around saying, you know, go around in the 1600s, right, and say, I'm pro-family.
People look at you like you got five heads.
Not because they're against the family, but just because, yeah, well, obviously, right?
That's the most basic thing.
Of course, you're, what are you going to be?
Against the family?
Well, now we actually have that stance exists now.
That's a real thing.
That's a, not just real, but that is a position that people have that is growing in power and prominence.
And it's not just on the left.
Left and right, you find this.
And there's, you know, we just, we have no use for it, which doesn't mean that, look, everyone, I'll be the first to say this, that when it comes to conservatives who are sort of in the movement, whether they're, you know, talking heads or activists or whatever, people have different issues that they focus on.
They have different aptitudes, different things that they, you know, that they have special insight into.
And so it's not that every conservative needs to only ever talk about defending the family, but if you're out there actively degrading it, demonizing it, mocking it, belittling it, all that sort of thing, then yeah, you're just, you're like those socialists in the, I mean, you're, there's no difference.
There's no, there's no meaningful distinction anymore.
You're an enemy of civilization.
All right.
Some entertainment news, always important.
Sorry, we talk about the important things here.
So let's go to From Variety.
Marvel's First Family might not save the day after all.
The Fantastic Four is quickly losing steam in the second weekend, signaling the comic book adventure isn't connecting the box office after a healthy $117.6 million debut, suffered a hefty 66% drop.
And so, yeah, that's it.
Okay, I'll give you all.
I don't need to give you all the numbers.
66% drop at the second weekend.
It dropped 80% from Friday to Friday, which is pretty devastating.
I mean, devastating if you work for Disney.
I mean, not devastating for me, but and now a lot of people are offering their analysis on this.
They're trying to figure out why the Fantastic Four is sort of losing steam so quickly.
Try to figure out why superhero films in general for the past five years or so, or probably longer, haven't been the surefire massive successes that they've been in the past.
They still make a lot of money.
They still make hundreds of millions of dollars, but that's really not impressive.
You know, I think Fantastic Four at this point has made $100, whatever, $80 million or something.
Not impressive because you've got, first of all, you've got like double that in marketing that goes into these.
These are big name IPs, you know, spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in production, hundreds more in marketing.
So when you're spending that kind of money, it's like, it's not impressive to make 100 million, 200 million.
It's not impressive.
You're not making any money on it.
That's like baseline stuff.
So these movies are losing steam.
And why is that?
Well, it's because it's because these movies are bad.
Okay.
I've been saying this forever.
People always get upset.
I think there's more people coming around to it.
And these are just bad films.
Superhero films for the most part, they're just bad films.
They're just not good.
Like, that's all it is.
And they haven't changed, by the way.
Like, if you say, oh, the superhero films don't do well anymore because they're so, you know, they're bad now.
No, they're kind of what they've always been.
You go back and watch a superhero film from 2005.
It's not that.
It's not like, oh, yeah, well, this was a masterpiece.
It's basically the same thing.
That's the problem.
Now, it's true of Fantastic Four in particular.
And I've made my point about Fantastic.
I can't remember why, but I do recall talking about Fantastic Four one other time.
I have no idea why.
Now this is my second time revisiting it.
But I think I made this point, which is that Fantastic Four is particularly lame.
Like these are especially lame superheroes.
The whole squad is run by a guy whose only superpower is that he's really stretchy.
I don't know why.
I don't know what his origin story is.
I don't remember.
I think I saw, I mean, I don't know.
Was there a Fantastic Four show back in the 90s?
I've seen, I've been around it a little bit, but I don't remember the origin story.
Did he fall into a vat of rubber bands?
Was he in some sort of like thing where his DNA was accidentally melded with a pair of spanks?
I don't know, but it's lame.
It's a really lame power to have.
It's only made worse by the fact that Marvel wants all these characters to exist in the same cinematic universe, but that just makes them even more redundant and useless.
Like there's no reason why you would ever call the stretchy guy to come help you in a world where, you know, Thor exists or Ironman or Captain America.
And why do you need the big rock guy when you have the Hulk?
These people, like they're neighbors, right?
They exist in the same world.
They're not far apart.
They have supersonic jets they get around in.
I mean, the Hulk could be here in five seconds.
Why would you ever want the rock guy?
And the Avengers have this problem on their own squad because they've got the, who's the guy with the arrows?
Hawkeye.
I was just talking to my son about this the other day, and because I didn't know this, I'd always thought, well, this guy's pretty useless, isn't he?
He just has his arrows.
Why do you need a guy with arrows?
Why would you ever need that?
But I assume that, well, they must be special arrows, magical arrows.
He must be some kind of magical, you know, archer guy.
But my son was telling me he's not, he has no superpowers at all.
He's just a normal guy with arrows.
Now, why in God's name would you ever need him, practically speaking?
You have a superhuman alien god, right, who can fly.
And then you've got a strong guy who could throw a tank across the stratosphere.
You've got a magical super soldier.
You've got Iron Man with his magic suit.
In what scenario would you ever have those dudes, but and they're facing something where they go, we need a guy with arrows for this.
We need a guy who can shoot an arrow 150 yards.
We need a guy that was really, that got a, you know, got a, got a, was in Boy Scouts and got the archery badge.
So it doesn't make any sense.
What was my point?
Fantastic four is lame.
That's my point.
And superhero movies in general are just not good films.
And that's why the genre is dying because these movies are shallow.
They're repetitive.
They're dull.
It's, you know, it's the same thing over and over again.
There's no soul.
There's no heart.
That's really what it is.
There's no soul or heart to this.
If there was anything beneath the surface, if the genre had, if there was anything really there, you know, if there was any real art to it, then the genre would last more than 15 or 20 years, but it hasn't.
Okay, think about, you know, think about Westerns, right?
Westerns were a really popular genre for like 40 or 50 years, and they fell off only because Hollywood stopped making them, not because people lost interest, not because the genre ran out of gas.
It's just because Hollywood decided they didn't want to make them anymore.
Or they decided that if they do make them, they have to make them super politically correct and you need to have a boss babe hero and you need the Indians to all be good guys.
And people weren't interested in that.
So Hollywood gave up on it.
But these are, this is a genre that has stood the test of time.
And it's interesting because the superhero movies are very redundant.
It's the same thing over and over and over again.
It's the same plot beats over and over and over again.
Sometimes literally the same story.
How many times are they going to show the origin story of these guys?
Like how many times do you need to see that?
How many times, how many versions of that do you need?
It's the same story over and over again.
But then you think about something like Westerns and you could point out that, well, I'm a big Western fan and Westerns can be, can be, they follow a formula too.
They're pretty formulaic, or they can be.
Very similar beats.
A lot of Westerns feature the brooding loner guy, right?
A lot of them end with the big shootout at the end.
Often you've got a bad guy who's trying to kick somebody off of their land.
I mean, this was the formula way back with Shane in the 1950s.
And now here we are 70 years later, 70 plus years later.
And when a Western is made, it's the same basic formula.
And I love the formula.
I've seen 100 Westerns that all have that same formula.
I love every single one.
I've seen them all multiple times.
And why is that?
It's because they have heart.
They have a soul.
Like they're actual films.
These are works of art.
There's humanity to it, right?
And that's why it stands the test of time.
It feels like something real, right?
It feels like art.
It feels like cinema.
And these superhero movies are just not.
It's like Scorsese said, they're theme park rides.
Scorsese, who I think knows a thing or two about making great films, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
And it doesn't mean he's right about everything, but he was right about this.
And when you've got a guy like that who's, you know, and that should, filmmakers aren't, it's not often that you'll hear them just writing off entire genres.
They don't typically do that.
Usually filmmakers love films.
They love all genres.
But one thing you'll hear from the really great film, and he's not the only one, but the really great directors, you'll often, if you, if there's candid moments when you kind of reveal like they're not really into this and why it's just because it's not a film.
It's a theme park ride.
It's an amusement park ride, basically.
And that's all they're made to be.
They're not even made to be films.
They're not made to tell a story.
They're made to sell merchandise.
They're made to cash in on an IP, right?
That's the only reason they exist.
And yes, every movie exists ultimately to make money.
Somebody wants to make money off of it.
But with the superhero movies, it's purely that.
This is a corporate boardroom.
They sat around and said, okay, here's this IP.
How are we going to cash in on it this time?
That's the beginning of the film, right?
That's where the film starts.
And you can never have a good film that starts that way.
If it's going to be a great, if any chance of a great film, it has to start with an artist in their own head and their own heart.
And they have a story that they want to tell.
And then, yeah, they got to bring in the money people.
They got to bring in the producers.
They got to bring in all this.
They got to get funding.
Sometimes the story gets watered down.
Sometimes it's ruined in that process, but it's got to start with someone saying, this story means something to me, and I want to tell it.
And if it doesn't start with that, you're going to end up with a movie.
And that's why most of these franchise films are terrible.
It's why they're crap, because they don't start in the heart and soul of an artist.
They start in a corporate boardroom.
They start with a freaking chart and a whiteboard and bar graphs.
And that's where they start.
Okay.
And AI.
Now that too.
Really, now they start with AI.
And that's what they're going to be made with also.
So not a fan.
Have you ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using Armra colostrum?
It's because Armra Colostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular level to build muscle, speed recovery, and boost performance.
No artificial stuff, just pure fuel for whatever you're tackling.
Think of it as your body's natural defense system upgrade.
Strengthens your immune system throughout your entire body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion, less bloating.
Plus, helps your body absorb nutrients more effectively and keeps your metabolism running smoothly.
You'll also notice the difference in your skin's radiance thanks to natural antiotic oxidants and collagen boosting compounds.
Plus, there's a reason elite athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance and speeds up recovery so you can bounce back faster.
Bottom line, Armor Colostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to armra.com slash Walsh or enter code Walsh for 30% off your first subscription order.
That's A-R-M-R-A.com slash Walsh.
You've asked for years in thousands of comments, and yes, we actually read them.
Well, I don't, but some people do.
What is Jordan going to answer our questions again?
That's the comment.
Not celebrities, not headlines, just real people with real problems looking for real answers.
Well, now he is.
Jordan B. Peterson's new series, Answer the Call, is going back to where this all started to speak directly to the people who need it most, you.
This is your chance to ask Jordan questions that keep you up at night, the ones you don't know who else to ask.
Give new episodes of Answer the Call every Monday on the Jordan B. Peterson podcast.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
We'll be right back.
This will come as a shock to you, but people are mad at me on the internet again.
This is a fascinating change of pace from yesterday and the day before, the day before that, and every day for the past 10 years when people have also been mad at me on the internet.
This latest outrage began with a post from some random account on X who shared a screenshot that contained a disturbing fact, which said this.
By 2030, an estimated 45% of women aged 25 to 44 will be single and child-free.
And the account comments correctly that this is, quote, the real pandemic.
Now, a woman by the name of Rudaparna Chatterjee, who is the deputy Asia director at The Independent, responded saying, women don't owe children to a world that hates them and is actively curbing their body autonomy rights.
That post, by the way, has over 200,000 likes.
Now, I responded to Miss Rudiparna Chatterjee with my own take.
I posted, quote, women do, in fact, owe children to the world.
Your ancestors suffered and sacrificed and died to bring you into existence and build the civilization you now take for granted.
You stand on the shoulders of thousands of years of untold hardship, giving up, throwing it all away, extinguishing your own bloodline, all so that you can live a pathetic and pointless life dedicated solely to your own material gain is an act of generational betrayal and suicide.
In my typical understated way.
Well, as you probably imagine, the feminists did not like that very much.
Thousands of very outraged comments followed, some of them like this one threatening to extinguish their own bloodline in an act of revenge against me.
Quote, I would never bring children into a world of Matt Walsh and his fellow right-wing media internet grifters.
Some of them like this one were wishing death on me, predictably, quote, please do us all a favor and blow your brains out.
Some of them like this one very hilariously accused me of being a hypocrite because I have no children of my own.
Quote, says the guy with zero kids and two failed marriages, not even your wives want to F you.
When she screenshots an AI search result, it says, Matt Walsh does not have any children.
According to Wikipedia, he's been married twice, but those marriages did not produce any children.
Now, of course, as you know, I actually have six kids and I've been married for 14 years to one woman.
I'm not sure which Matt Walsh, if any, this answer refers to.
But I do know that this other Matt Walsh didn't deserve to get caught in the crossfire, poor guy.
But most of the responses simply accuse me of being an oppressive, patriarchal, sexist, misogynistic tyrant who hates women and wants to control them.
Hundreds of feminists declared that they don't owe the world or anyone in it anything at all.
There are also a number of comments saying that the world is too populated as it is.
So the best thing we could do for the world is embrace our own extinction.
It was a pretty grim array of responses, all told.
And if ratios tell us anything, which they probably don't, I must admit that the original post claiming that women don't owe children to the world because the world hates them has over 200,000 likes.
Mine has just over 30,000, which isn't too shabby, but hers would seem to be the more popular sentiment.
At least in the social media fever swamps, it is.
Which is why I think it's worth fleshing out my point in some greater detail.
So yes, women owe children.
The vast majority of women, with the exception of those who are called to a celibate religious vocation, I'm not including them, are meant to have children.
It is their vocation.
Their responsibility to God, to civilization, to their families, to their ancestors.
Now, I'm sure that some of you right now are boiling with rage and screaming into the air, what about men?
Why would you say this about men?
Why is it just women?
Well, as it turns out, I do say this about men.
I have made this exact point about men probably hundreds of times.
I've said it on my show.
I've said it in interviews.
I've said it on X. I've said it in my writing.
I've said it in every form available to me for 10 years, if not longer, that the vast majority of men are called to be fathers.
It is their obligation.
It is their responsibility.
Now, the point about our duty to our ancestors and our bloodline is one that I have made about men and to men countless times.
So yes, this does apply to men.
I have applied it to men repeatedly ad nauseum for over a decade.
If you listen to the show, you know that.
Of course I have.
It takes two to make a baby.
Every child has and therefore also should have a mother and a father, a point that I have also made literally thousands of times in my career.
It is the worst kind of selfishness to stand at the end of millennia of hardship and sacrifice and declare that it was all for nothing, that the story is coming to an end because you'd rather have more time to sit on your couch and scroll TikTok, which is how almost everyone uses the extra time they gain from not having kids.
These people are not out creating beautiful works of art or making scientific discoveries or even spending time on interesting hobbies.
Almost all of them are just sitting around staring at their phones.
They're blowing up their family lineage and sending their bloodline careening off a cliff so they can do literally nothing of consequence whatsoever.
It is all being sacrificed for the sake of ease and comfort and greater luxury, even though you could have kids and still have immense ease, comfort, and luxury in comparison to what your ancestors enjoyed and what most people on earth today enjoy.
So this is pure nihilism.
It is pure despair and not nihilism and despair bred from some kind of tragic experience.
It's nihilism and despair bred from a life of intense single-minded self-interest.
It is the kind of nihilism and despair that comes from never looking or thinking about anything except your reflection in the mirror and whatever slop you stare at on your phone.
So yes, again, I apply this to men and women equally obviously.
And yet, when I do focus this message on men, which I do all the time, nobody ever responds by wishing death on me.
Okay.
On none of those occasions has there even been a fraction of the blowback.
The red pill and manisphere side of the internet might get annoyed, but that's about it.
It's nothing like this.
And that's because it has long been verbodin in our culture to tell women that they have any obligations at all.
And now we have generations of women who have never heard it suggested that they might have any responsibilities to anyone or anything outside of themselves.
Now, that's not to say that there are no women who acknowledge responsibilities.
Plenty of women do.
My wife does.
I know plenty of good conservative Christian women who are aware that they have obligations and work every day to meet those obligations.
But the point is that this is not a message they will hear from the culture.
If you grow up in modern America, you go to public school, consume mainstream media entertainment, and you're a female, you will rarely hear anyone even hint at the idea that you have responsibilities as a woman.
The sentence, the phrase, as a woman, you have the responsibility to blank is almost never said ever.
And if you think I'm making that up or exaggerating, just think in your own mind.
When's the last time you ever heard anyone say that?
Besides me.
When's the last time you ever heard anyone say in any context, anywhere, at church, on TV, politicians, anyone?
When have you ever heard anyone say?
As a woman, you have a responsibility to blank.
Now, when have you heard it this said about men?
All the time.
As a man, you have a responsibility to blank.
As a man, you have an obligation to do this.
As a man, you should do this.
As a man, you should do that.
This is said constantly.
I mean, all the time it's said.
But it is almost never said about women.
Instead, if you're a woman, you will be told everywhere by everyone that a woman is meant to be an autonomous creature, free and unburdened by any expectation.
Her only vocation in life is to do exactly what she wants to do for no greater purpose than fulfilling her desires, whatever those desires may be.
Anything that stands in the way of that pursuit, she is told, can and should be disregarded and if necessary, violently and bloodily killed, even and especially if that obstacle is her own child in the womb.
This is the kind of conditioning that women receive.
And it's why a tweet like mine talking about a woman's obligations is so shocking.
Not because there's anything outrageous about it, but because it suggests the forbidden word, responsibility.
And yet, in spite of this relentless campaign to drive responsibility away and pretend it doesn't exist, it does still exist.
As a woman, as a woman, you are not a self-created deity who spawned out of the ether.
You are a created being.
You are a human person who is the product of thousands of years of sacrifice and toil.
You are not autonomous.
You are a member of a family and a community and a country, and you are dependent on that membership.
You benefit from it.
If you were truly left to your autonomous self out alone in the wilderness somewhere, unencumbered by association or obligation, you'd be dead in three days.
You don't want that.
You want and do enjoy the benefits of civilization, of your ancestors' sacrifice, of being a part of your family, a citizen of a country, a product of Western society.
Those are all privileges that you did not earn and did nothing to contribute to.
And they come with responsibilities.
You can choose to reject those responsibilities.
You can fold your arm.
You can stomp your feet like a child, but the responsibilities remain.
And the most basic responsibility of all, though certainly not the only one, is to continue on, to continue the great project that your forebears began, to pass on the baton that they have handed to you.
If this sort of talk seems offensive to you or alien or strange, that's only because you are an incredibly shallow and ridiculous person who has never paused to contemplate where you stand in life and how you got there and what it all means and what sort of legacy you want to leave behind.
Now, I can't save you from being shallow and ridiculous.
That will probably never change, though it could if you wanted it to, but you probably don't want it to, so it won't.
What I am saying, though, is still true.
Your life was not given to you so that you could live it only for yourself.
You have obligations, whether you want to admit it or not.
And that's why those who don't or won't admit it are today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
BuzzFeed reveals Sidney Sweeney's political party.
The New York Times wants to harvest your organs, and a black half-lesbian plays the Messiah in Jesus Christ Superstar.
