Ep. 1693 - The Tick That Makes People Allergic To Meat Is Real & The Climate Cult Wants To Breed Trillions More
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, so called public health authorities want us to stop eating meat to save the planet. Some of them have even said that we should be involuntarily infected with something that makes us allergic to meat. And now, what do you know, lots of people are contracting an allergy to meat. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about this. We’ll tell you what we know, and what we don’t know, about all of this. Also, a man in Michigan is facing charges for shooting a burglar who broke into his garage. The movie industry is suffering through what may go down as its worst year ever. Is this the end of Hollywood? And Big Tech has come up with a way to monetize grief. They are now resurrecting your dead relatives with AI. What could go wrong, besides everything?
Ep.1693
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Shopify - Sign up for your $1-per-month trial and start selling today at https://Shopify.com/walsh
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://GCU.edu/MyOffer to see the scholarships you may qualify for!
American Financing - Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Walsh or call (866) 569-4711 today! NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com/pages/podcasters and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe to join now.
Finally, Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available at https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
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 podcastchoices.com/adchoices
With the holidays right around the corner, there's no better time to upgrade your duvets, blankets, throws, and pillows with Bolin Branch.
I love that their signature sheets get softer with every wash and are made with 100% organic cotton.
Give yourself and your loved ones the most extraordinary feeling sleep with 25% off site-wide, plus free shipping and extended returns during Bolin Branch's best sale of the year.
Shop now at bolinbranch.com slash dailywire with code dailywire.
With one forged document, scammers can steal your home title and equity, but now you can protect yourself.
Home title locks at Million Dollar Triple Lock Protection provides 24-7 title monitoring, urgent alerts to changes, and if fraud happens, they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix it and restore your title.
Use promo code DAILYWIRE at home titlelock.com for a free title history report, plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.
Head over to home titlelock.com now with promo code dailywire to ensure your title is still in your name.
Today in the Matt Wall show, so-called public health authorities want us to stop eating meat to save the planet.
Some of them have even said that we should be involuntarily infected with something that makes us allergic to meat.
And now, what do you know?
Lots of people are contracting an allergy to meat.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about this.
We'll tell you what we know, what we don't about all this today.
Also, a man in Michigan is facing charges for shooting a burglar who broke into his garage.
The movie industry is suffering through what may go down as its worst year ever.
Is this the end of Hollywood?
And if so, should we be happy about that?
And big tech has come up with a new way to monetize grief.
They're now resurrecting your dead relatives with AI.
What could go wrong besides everything?
All of that and more today on the Matt Weill Show.
Launching your own business is pretty much on everyone's bucket list, but most people don't actually take the time to pursue it.
Stop making excuses like I don't have the skills or I can't do it alone.
Take some action today and get started with Shopify.
They've got the tools.
You just need to take the chance.
Shopify is the commerce platform used by millions of businesses around the world.
We even use it for our own Daily Wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently.
It makes our lives easier and it keeps our customers happy.
You might be thinking that you don't know how to design a website or you might be worried about how people will learn about your brand, but that's not a problem.
Shopify has got you covered from the start.
They've got beautiful ready-to-go templates that match your brand style.
They even help 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 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 yourself the best shot at success with Shopify.
Sign up for your $1 per month trial.
Start selling today at shopify.com slash Walsh.
Go to Shopify.com slash Walsh, Shopify.com slash Walsh.
In the summer of 2024, a 47-year-old airline pilot from New Jersey was camping with his wife and children after eating a beef steak for dinner.
He awoke in the middle of the night with stomach pains along with other symptoms, including vomiting and diarrhea.
In the end, his symptoms cleared up and he decided against going to a doctor, even though earlier in the summer, he had told his wife about the presence of 12 tick bites on his ankles.
And whatever those ticks had done, the airline pilot concluded it probably wasn't life-threatening.
And then just two weeks later, the man attended a barbecue with his wife where he ate a hamburger and within four hours, he was unconscious on the floor of his bathroom.
Paramedics tried to revive him, but it was too late.
He was dead.
Now, initially, the death was recorded as unexplained, but the man's doctor wasn't happy with that explanation.
So he sent his blood work to an allergy specialist who quickly identified the cause.
The airline pilot contracted a tick-borne meat allergy known as alpha-gal syndrome or AGS, which until this particular case, was not considered fatal.
In fact, you'll find plenty of scientific journal articles referring to AGS as a non-fatal allergy, but this 47-year-old airline pilot, for the first time in recorded history, had proven otherwise.
He became the first reported fatality of AGS anywhere in the world.
Watch.
This allergy to meat, including beef, lamb, and pork, tonight is linked to its first death.
A 47-year-old New Jersey man ate a burger in 2024 and died four hours later.
Two weeks earlier, he got sick after eating a steak.
It really illustrates the need for education because when he had the very severe episode of abdominal pain, they had no sense that that could be anaphylaxis.
University of Virginia's Dr. Thomas Platz Mills identified the death and the allergy behind it.
It's called alpha-gal syndrome.
It usually starts with a bite from a lone star tick that sensitizes a person's immune system to a sugar molecule found in the meat of mammals called alpha-gal.
Reactions can include hives, nausea, and life-threatening anaphylaxis.
Debbie Nickel lives with alpha-gal.
I would wake up in the middle of the night with this extraordinary stomach pain.
One of 450,000 Americans with the tick-induced meat allergy.
From the time of onset to my diagnosis in 2019, it was probably 11 or 12 years.
And your doctor even went so far as to remove your gallbladder?
That's correct.
So as you heard, hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from AGS, otherwise known as the red meat allergy.
None of these hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of this allergy, although they've had serious complications.
So a lot of important questions need to be answered at this point, starting with what, if anything, was different about this particular victim?
How many more victims might be out there who haven't been diagnosed or a post-mortem allergy test?
In other words, is he the only person who has died from it?
And maybe most importantly, what exactly is AGS and where did it come from?
Now, these are questions that most medical professionals can't begin to answer.
In surveys, a majority of doctors report they have no idea how to diagnose or treat the disorder.
And that's not surprising because alpha-gal syndrome was discovered just a few decades ago during clinical trials for a drug that was intended to treat cancer.
So here's the story of that discovery as I understand it anyway.
Some patients enrolled in the clinical trial took the cancer drug and then developed hives immediately after receiving the first IV dose.
The patients had somehow developed antibodies to the drug before they ever took it.
It turns out that these particular patients were from the same area of the country where the lone star tick is common, mainly the east and south central United States.
On top of that, the researchers realized that the cancer drug, because it was grown in mouse cells, contained a sugar molecule called alpha-gal, which the lone star tick transmits to humans.
So it appeared as though patients had been bitten by ticks, developed a sensitivity to the sugar molecule, and then overdosed when the sugar molecule was administered via NIV.
So to be clear, alpha-gal is not man-made.
It's sugar that exists in the cells of most mammals, with the exception of humans.
When it enters our body, our immune system treats it like a foreign pathogen and triggers a serious overreaction.
But you might wonder, if alpha-gal has been around for zillions of years, why exactly did it take so long for scientists to realize that ticks can cause a meat allergy by transmitting alpha-gal?
Well, the official explanation is that normally when you have an allergic reaction, the symptoms appear pretty quickly.
If you get sung by a bee, for example, you'll be showing symptoms within two hours maximum.
But with alpha-gal, it's different.
The sugar is stored in fat.
It takes a while to digest the fat.
So you might eat a hamburger, have no obvious reaction, and then die four hours later.
And given that timeframe, nobody would suspect an allergic reaction to a hamburger.
And it wasn't until this cancer trial where the drug was administered by an IV that the link between AlphaGal and the allergic reaction became obvious.
So that's the official explanation.
I have no reason to doubt any of this background information, most of which I looked up online last night, admittedly.
I'm willing to accept that in medicine, significant discoveries aren't easy.
Sometimes they happen by chance.
Sometimes novel diseases are discovered while researchers are working on a completely separate treatment.
All that stuff does happen.
Of course, it's also the case, as we learned during COVID, that sometimes novel diseases are created under the same circumstances.
And then there's a massive cover-up to prevent anyone from learning the truth in service of a broader political agenda.
But in general, there's no evidence that I can find that would suggest that AGS was just invented in a lab in the way that COVID was.
Now, at the same time, there is very clear evidence that some of the world's leading scientists want to spread AGS as much as possible.
Okay, you don't need to be conspiracy theorists to say that because they've been very open about this fact.
These scientists want people to get infected with this meat allergy, so they stop eating meat on the theory that if people stop eating meat, then the climate will stop changing and the animals will be saved and we can all live in paradise or whatever.
Now, in a moment, we'll go through some of the scientific papers and public conferences where scientists have made this argument as deranged and unethical as it obviously is.
But first, I want to address anyone who says that, well, you're venturing into the realm of conspiracy theories here.
I will acknowledge that in an ideal world, I wouldn't have to raise any of these questions.
In an ideal world, our public health establishment would be completely trustworthy.
And we'd have no reason to think that they'd lie to us about their role in the deaths of innocent Americans.
And the idea that they would try to spread something intentionally, get people infected.
In an ideal world, it's like you wouldn't even consider that.
It's crazy.
Crazy talk.
But we all remember COVID.
We all remember how the corporate media cited scientists who insisted the coronavirus was not made in a lab.
We all remember the relentless censorship.
And we all remember learning in the end that the same scientists who told us to shut up were, in fact, the ones who funded the creation of the virus in Wuhan.
Our scientific and medical institutions have been captured by an ideology that, above all, has nothing to do with public health.
This is an anti-human ideology.
This is the problem when you have public health, when quote-unquote public health is captured by people who are anti-human.
And what it's really about is centralizing control over world affairs.
That's why they didn't want the WHO to be implicated in COVID, even though they covered up what China was doing.
That's why they implemented mass lockdowns.
That's why they lied about creating the virus in China with international funding.
And that's why, even though it's quite possible that there's nothing nefarious about what just happened in New Jersey or about the fact that this AGS syndrome seems to be spreading more and more recently, it seems to be exploding.
It's possible there's nothing nefarious about it.
You're still not crazy if you think that there might be more to the story.
And just asking questions gets a bad rap these days, but this is one of those times when, yeah, we should ask questions.
And that becomes more true and more apparent when you listen to what some of the alleged experts have been saying about meat allergies in particular.
So we'll start with the words of Matthew Lau, the bioethics expert who worked at NYU, Oxford, Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.
So his work has heavily influenced the World Economic Forum as well.
This is not just some random guy.
In papers as well as public appearances, Lau has advocated for artificially inducing meat intolerance as a way to prevent the weather from changing.
Watch.
I want to consider a class of solutions that have never been considered before.
Human engineering.
It involves the biomedical modification of human beings.
I'll give four examples.
Here's one.
18% of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock farming.
So if we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they lack the willpower.
Human engineering could help.
Just as some people are naturally intolerant to milk or crayfish, like myself, we could artificially induce mild intolerance to meat by stimulating our immune system against common bovine proteins.
And in this way, we can create an aversion to eating eco-unfriendly food.
And we can do this, for example, by having meat patches, kind of like nicotine patches.
People can then wear these patches before they go out for dinner to curb their enthusiasm for eating meat.
So the crowd's into it.
It's apparently a real crowd pleaser to talk about genetically modifying humans so they don't want meat.
In that clip, as you saw, it talks about creating nicotine-style pouches for people who eat meat, meaning, you know, pretty much every human alive would have to have this patch.
But in other clips, you'll hear these scientists directly refer to the lone star tick as one way of shutting down meat consumption.
Watch.
So I'll give two examples.
So one is that people eat too much meat, right?
And if they were to cut down on their consumption on meat, then it would actually really help the planet.
But people are not willing to give up meat.
Yeah, you know, some people will be willing to, but other people, they may be willing to, but they sort of, they have a weakness of will.
They say, wow, this steak is just too juicy.
I can't do it.
I'm one of those, by the way.
So, you know, but so here's a thought, right?
So it turns out that we know a lot about, so we have these intolerance to, so I, for example, I have milk intolerance.
And there, some people are intolerant to crayfish.
So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we're intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of bovine proteins.
And there's actually analogs of this in life.
There's this thing called the long star tick, where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat.
I can sort of describe the mechanism.
So that's something that we can do through human engineering.
We can kind of possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.
So it might be easy to dismiss these suggestions as the rantings of a crackpot, but the truth is this is not a fringe view among elites or in the field of bioethics.
For example, you'll find this paragraph right now on the website of the World Economic Forum.
Quote, making the transition from mass-produced animal proteins to plant-based alternatives is not just necessary to meet population demands.
The latter have also been linked with a smaller carbon footprint and a lower disease risk.
It's not enough, though, to produce sustainable plant-based alternatives, but to alter human perception so that more people are willing to make the change.
Well, that's a little ominous.
It's not enough to produce alternatives to meat, says the WEF.
We have to alter human perception.
Presumably, that means we have to beg people to eat inedible garbage like the impossible burger and all that stuff.
But what happens when those solutions fail?
What happens when the stock of beyond meat tanks by 80% in one year because your plant-based solutions are horrible and nobody wants them?
Is that the point where for the greater good, you start forcing the issue?
Now, there are several prominent experts in the field of bioethics who would answer that question in the affirmative, proudly.
Parker Crutchfield is one of them.
He's a professor at Western Michigan's Medical School.
This is a direct quote from one of his peer-reviewed papers, which was written with a co-author and colleague named Blake Harrith and published just last month.
The paper's called, and I promise this is real.
Paper's called Beneficial Blood Sucking.
Here's how it begins.
Quote, the bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha gal syndrome, AGS, a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but non-fatal red meat allergy.
Public health departments warn against lone star ticks in AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS.
Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tick-borne AGS are also morally impermissible.
Promoting tick-borne AGS is strongly pro-tanto obligatory.
It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks.
If this practice can be applied to ticks-carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tick-borne AGS is morally obligatory.
The article continues, we should promote a particular tick-borne syndrome, Alpha Gal syndrome, AGS.
So yes, according to Parker Crutchfield, who teaches at a medical school, we have a moral obligation to genetically modify ticks so that they spread AGS.
It is morally wrong to stop the spread of AGS, he says.
And notice what he writes at the beginning.
He claims that AGS creates a non-fatal red meat allergy, and therefore, in his view, it's fine to spread it to as many people as we possibly can.
First of all, even if AGS was indeed non-fatal, this still wouldn't make any sense, nor would it be remotely moral or ethical.
You don't get to infect people with life-altering illnesses against their will because you suffer from delusions about how red meat causes hurricanes or something, obviously.
But Parker Crutchfield disagrees.
So he wants to modify the genetic code of ticks so that they spread the disease.
And he doesn't stop there.
In a separate paper written in 2019, Crutchfield explains how precisely he wants to spread this allergy.
He doesn't want anyone to know that it's happened.
He wants it to take place in secret so that no one is aware of the new pathogen until it's too late.
Until, for example, people start dropping dead after eating a hamburger.
So this is from another Parker Crutchfield article, a paper entitled Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert.
Quote, some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory.
I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt.
This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they're receiving the enhancement.
In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does.
Thus, a covert compulsory program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Okay, so all of this is very dystopian, and it sounds almost fake.
I mean, is this someone who's actually arguing that the moral way to, first of all, giving people a disease is a bioenhancement and the most moral way of doing it, administering it, is covertly, meaning against their will.
And is he actually arguing that that is the way to respect their liberty and privacy the most?
Because if you do something to somebody against their will without them knowing, then you've respected their, you haven't infringed on their liberty or freedom at all, is his argument.
Is that actually real?
Well, yes, it is.
And at this point, I decided to look up some other writings from Parker Crutchfield, who again teaches ethics at a medical school.
On Amazon, I came across this review of his book, quote, this author is genuinely dangerous and has no business teaching impressionable minds.
The author believes themselves to be some arbiter of moral authority, and he has the right to make decisions for humanity based on his twisted vision.
Everything Parker writes is a confession.
Heed his words because I suspect a large portion of academia actually agrees with him.
But to say the quiet part out loud and proudly is jarring to say the least.
The darkest of minds.
But again, this particular academic isn't the only person saying things like this.
It's become fashionable in leftist circles to make this same argument.
This is a post I pulled from Reddit, for example, from seven years ago, quote, modifying an insect's genome so that it produces alpha-gal in its saliva is one of the simplest genetic edits, especially as ticks and mammals provide a genetic template.
Using this technology to cause all or the most common biting insects to cause meat allergies would have numerous benefits, including reduction in meat consumption in sufferers and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Meat is a major source of emissions.
Now, you might say that Reddit isn't much of a source and we can't read much into that post.
And you're right about that.
But the post made one good point, which is that modifying a tick's genome apparently isn't that difficult.
A few years ago, researchers from Penn State and the University of Maryland discovered a new way to genetically modify ticks.
This is an article from 2022 summarizing the findings, quote, breakthrough makes editing tick genome a reality.
For the first time, researchers have successfully edited a tick genome at the embryo stage, an achievement that may one day help scientists alter parts of the genome responsible for ticks acquiring and spreading harmful pathogens.
Now, on the surface, just like the research that was going on in Wuhan, you know, on the surface, may sound well-intentioned, above board.
They say this is about preventing the spread of diseases.
Who wouldn't want to prevent the spread of diseases?
But you have to wonder if there might be some catastrophic consequences from messing around with tick genomes, especially given the possible role of scientific experiments in creating Lyme disease several decades ago.
Last year, the HHS secretary, RFK Jr., stated that gain of function research is a disaster that has, quote, given us everything from Lyme disease to COVID and many other diseases.
And of course, for saying that, RFK was labeled a nutjob.
And my goal here is not to litigate the question of whether or not Lyme disease was created by military experiments in the 60s and 70s.
There's a book on the topic called Bitten by Chris Newby that outlines the case for that theory, if you're interested in the details.
For one thing, it was awfully suspicious that a U.S. government facility conducting biological experiments called the Plum Island Animal Disease Center was located less than 20 miles from Old Lyme, Connecticut, where the sudden explosion of the disease took place.
So what does that remind you of?
But regardless of what you think about the origins of Lyme disease, my point is simply this.
When you have an unexplained dead body in a highly unusual circumstance, one of the first questions any good investigator asks is, who had a motive to kill this person?
And that's the case with that airline pilot in New Jersey.
He died in an extraordinarily unusual way, and several prominent bioethics researchers channeling the WEF openly admitted their motivation to infect him, to infect us, with the disorder that led to his death.
Now, that doesn't mean they did it.
That also doesn't mean that the ongoing genetic experiments on ticks, which are taking place all over the country, had necessarily anything to do with the man's death, but it does mean we're entitled to a full explanation on what exactly these researchers are doing to ticks and what risks these experiments pose to the rest of us.
And there's been very little transparency about that.
The fact remains that a large group of very powerful leftists would rather kill us than allow us to eat meat.
And that's very simple.
They'd also rather lie to us than tell us the truth about their scientific experiments, whether those experiments involve bats or ticks or anything else.
And in an environment like that, the words conspiracy theorist just have no meaning.
The complete erosion of confidence in our public health authorities has led us to this point.
We should have some degree of faith that our public health officials will actually work to prevent the spread of illnesses, this illness in particular, or any illness, and to prevent as many deaths as they possibly can.
We should have some confidence that their research is going to help people rather than kill them, but we don't have that confidence.
We have no reason to have that confidence.
Regardless of who's responsible for the new spread of this latest disease, if anyone's responsible, you know, we all know that a lot of scientists and experts are actually happy about the fact that an innocent man just died because he ate a hamburger.
They're getting all sorts of ideas about how to save the climate and save the cows and so on.
And after years of lockdowns and mass death in this country, we all know exactly where those ideas can lead.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University is an affordable, private Christian university based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
It's one of the largest universities in the country.
GCU is widely praised for its culture of community and impact.
They boast 369 academic programs with over 300 of those being available online.
Join a nationwide community of learners who are redefining online education through GCU's 100% online MBA program.
At GCU, you can learn about ethical entrepreneurship and how to scale your business to serve your community.
In addition to federal grants and aid, GCU's online students received nearly $161 million in institutional scholarships in 2024.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu slash myoffer to see the scholarships you may qualify for.
The holidays will be here before you know it.
And for many families, that means excitement and a little stress between gifts, travel, higher prices, easy to feel overwhelmed, especially if you're already relying on credit cards to cover the basics.
If you feel that debt is piling up, you're not alone, but there is help with American Financing.
If you're a homeowner, you might have considered reaching out to American Financing, but hesitated because you don't want to give up your low mortgage rate.
That's why American Financing created the Smart Equity Loan, a simple and smart way to get your finances back on track without giving up your low mortgage rate.
The Smart Equity Loan offers a fixed rate, so you'll have one predictable monthly payment, lets you use your home's equity to pay off high interest debt, free up your cash flow, and still keep your existing mortgage intact.
There are no upfront fees to find out if you qualify.
So call American Financing Day 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711 or visit americanfinancing.net slash Walsh.
Okay, the House is going to vote today on a bill that would force the release of the Epstein files.
And I'll have more to say about that after the vote, which by the time you hear this may have already happened, but as I'm saying, this has not happened yet.
I suspect the vote will, you know, it will pass is what I suspect.
And so we'll talk about what it does.
I will, and we've talked about the Epstein thing plenty of times.
I will just say this about the Epstein story.
So there are multiple things here going on.
There are multiple things that are true, okay, about this whole story.
And the first one is that they should release all the files.
And I've said that all along.
I've said that from literally from day one.
They should release all the files.
And I'm certainly not the only one who said that.
A lot of us have been saying that.
Release the files, just release them all.
There is no good reason why any of this stuff should be secret.
This was an international, you know, pedophile who we know was mixed up with a lot of prominent people.
And so lay it out.
Just open up the books and let us see.
So that's the first thing.
They should release all the files.
So this vote should go through and they should release the files.
Now, it's also true that most, not all, certainly, but most of the people in DC right now clamoring for the Epstein files are doing it solely for political gain.
Okay.
And they didn't give the slightest damn about Epstein 10 seconds ago, which is why it's really, it's hard to stomach some of these press conferences stuff that you watch and you see these people up there showboating and taking this moral stand, release the files.
And some of them mean it, but most of them don't.
They don't care at all.
This is all politics.
And we know that.
Now, and that's something that, so Trump has essentially, that's basically an argument that Trump is making.
And he's right about that part of it.
Now, it's also true that the Trump administration has fumbled this issue badly.
I mean, this is one of the worst fumbles we've ever seen.
I don't think that's an exaggeration.
This is one of the worst in politics.
This is one of the worst fumbles, some of the worst bungling that we've ever seen.
And we don't need to go back and review all of it, but going all the way back to Trump saying he'd release the files and then getting into office and then the who can forget the now infamous Epstein binders that were released to the conservative influencers and hey, you know, taking pictures with them.
And then it turns out that there's nothing in them at all.
And then they say, oh, well, never mind.
Actually, the whole Epstein thing is, you know, it's all a big nothing burger.
There's nothing to see here.
And it's like, okay, well, then why did you do the whole thing with the Epstein?
So the whole thing, it's just been an absolute disaster.
They've handled it the wrong way the entire time.
And they should have just released the files.
Now, it's also true that not one Democrat in the country, not a single one, not one actually cares about Epstein.
And I know that because precisely none of them called for the release back when they could have done it themselves easily.
Right?
Joe Biden was in office for four years.
And none of these people, the Epstein files were in existence the whole time.
At any point, any of them could have said, hey, why don't we release those Epstein files?
None of them did.
And now we're supposed to believe it.
Now they're up in front of cameras saying, we need to take a stand.
This is the right thing to do.
And you just, you can't take it seriously.
So, but they should release the files, right?
It all comes back to that.
So, so the whole thing is just a mess and politically, and there's, there's almost nobody to root for here.
This is one of those things where there's no one to root for.
The only thing to root for is the truth.
That's what I'm rooting for.
I just want to know the truth.
Whatever effect it has, whatever impact it has, whoever it, whoever it hurts.
I mean, if the truth about Epstein hurts you, then you deserve to be hurt.
And so that's what I'm rooting for.
I think it's what we're all rooting for.
But when it comes to like the characters involved here, the figures in D.C., all of the back and forth and everything, it's like you can't, none of these people, you can't root for any of them.
None of them are avenging heroes, as they might pretend to be.
And that's just, and that's just the way it is.
But this is, so yes, it's very frustrating that the Democrats, it's like, yes, none of them mean it.
None of them care about this at all.
And again, we know that for a fact, undeniable, because they could have released it and they didn't themselves.
They waited until they didn't have the power to do it.
They went through four years.
They had the power to release it.
They waited for precisely the moment when they could no longer do it.
And then said, hey, why don't we release those files?
What's going on here?
So, and that's very frustrating.
But this is a political gift that the Trump administration has given to the Democrats, and they're going to take the gift.
Can't really blame them.
When you kind of present yourself, right, to take a hit, when you lay your head down on the T in T-ball and you just let them wind up and take a whack at you, well, they're going to do it.
And that's why you don't put yourself in that position to begin with.
All right.
Here's a story we haven't had a chance to talk about yet.
The New York Post reports, a Michigan man fatally shot a teen who broke into his garage and is now facing a manslaughter rap, sparking controversy over the state's stand your ground law.
Sivon Wilson, 17, was with six other mainly teenagers when the group broke into Dayton Napton's garage in White Lake shortly after 1 a.m. on July 8th.
Napton, 24, got an alert from his home security system, grabbed a nine millimeter gun, ran outside, fired two shots into the garage through a windowless door, striking Wilson, according to prosecutors.
As the group fled, Napton fired five more shots before going back into his house, reloading his gun, and returning outside.
Wilson's father, Sean Madden, said Sivon was running away and got shot.
Another teenager in the group also was shot in the leg.
White Lake Township, police officers responded to the scene after being notified of two victims with bullet wounds, with bullet wounds in Connor's Township.
He faces up to 15 years behind bars for the top charge.
But Sivon's family said they want Napton charged with murder.
Doesn't make sense that it wasn't done out of malice and for them to charge him with manslaughter when everything in the report suggests that it was malicious intent, said Wilson's sister, Armani Madden.
And meanwhile, a defense attorney says that, as you would expect, that this is all, this is, that he didn't do anything wrong, and that also mentioning that there had been other break-ins at Napton's house before.
Okay, so just to review, a guy in Michigan, Dayton Nampton, was the victim of multiple burglaries, apparently.
Cops didn't do anything.
Nobody cared.
No one's helping.
And then one night, about 1 a.m., Sivon Wilson and his buddies break into Napton's garage.
He runs out, tired of being a victim, right?
Tired of having his stuff stolen, tired of being helpless, fires through the door of the garage, fires a few more times as the criminals are fleeing.
Wilson is killed by one of the bullets.
It's not clear to me from that write-up if he was killed.
It says he was hit through the door, and then it says he kept firing as they were running away.
Was he killed from the initial shot through the door, or was he killed with another shot when he's running away?
Maybe that is known, but I didn't see it in the article.
Regardless, now the same judicial system that had no interest in helping this law-abiding citizen who was the victim of property theft a number of times will instead try to throw him in prison and destroy his life.
So this is happening to him.
He goes to the cops and says, Can you do something?
They say, No, we can't really do anything.
And then he says, Okay, well, I guess I have to do something, or otherwise, I'm just going to get stolen from you.
Otherwise, I'm just going to be a victim every day for the rest of my life.
And now the system comes back around and says, Oh, well, you weren't supposed to do that, though.
So, guess what?
Your life is ruined.
And meanwhile, if this had gone the other way and Sivon Wilson had killed Dayton Napton in the process of robbing his house, he would not get 15 years in prison for that.
And we all know that.
Especially at 17, he would have been out by the time he was like 25.
Right?
He would have gotten like seven or eight years in prison.
And so there's going to be a stiffer penalty for Dayton Napton for killing a burglar than there would have been if the burglar killed him.
That's the world we live in.
And needless to say, I find this all to be horrendously unjust.
I am entirely on Dayton Napton's side with no reservation at all.
How could you not be?
I mean, what kind of twisted freak would you have to be to want to put this guy away in jail for 15 years for trying to protect his own property?
Now, unfortunately, I'm afraid that he may end up with 12 of those twisted freaks on his jury.
I mean, who knows?
But we'll see.
And I don't want to hear, oh, but he shot through the door.
He kept firing as they ran away.
Okay, so, and I don't want to hear any, well, you know, normally, but he took it a little too far.
He was kept firing.
So?
I mean, he doesn't know what they're doing.
They could be running to get a gun, right?
They could have a gun stash somewhere.
They could be trying to run in different, just multiple people.
They could be running in different directions to try to surround him.
They could be doing anything.
He doesn't know.
He has no idea.
All he knows is that there are multiple criminals on his property at 1 a.m.
And he knows they're criminals because they broke into his into his garage.
So by definition, they're criminals.
So that's all he knows.
He knows that it's one o'clock in the morning.
There are multiple, there's a gang of criminals on my property.
They've broken in, and that's all I know.
And so I need to stop them with whatever means I have available to me.
The idea that it's the onus, like the onus is on the homeowner to show restraint in order to preserve the lives of people who have broken into his property in the middle of the night.
That is just pure madness to me.
I mean, the full benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner, the victim of the crime.
Full benefit of the doubt.
Now, I admit that I'm extreme when it comes to this.
I admit that.
Like, if it were up to me, you would essentially have carte blanche to respond however you see fit to somebody who breaks into your house.
If it were up to me, legally, you would, it's just like, well, okay, you handle that literally however you want.
They came into your house to take your property.
They came into your house with sinister intent.
And, you know, if it were up to me and I'm in charge of, and, you know, I'm making the laws, it's like, okay, well, I don't know.
Don't ask, don't tell.
That's, you, you handle that however you want to handle it.
Now, I'm not saying that you have moral carte blanche necessarily.
There are things you could do conceivably in that scenario that would be immoral.
But as a matter of law, if it were up to me, the law would be simple.
Break into someone's home.
And whatever happens to you next is your fault.
We're not getting involved.
Okay.
The law isn't intervening to protect you when you decided to break into somebody's house.
So if you, you know, if you ended up like kidnapped in the basement or something, if you stumbled into a horror movie scenario, okay, if you, if you made a mistake and broke into the house of a horror movie villain, sorry about your luck.
If you call, if it were up to me, you call the cops and you say, I'm trapped in this basement.
There's a guy with a ski mask and a, and a, you know, it's, it's like a Stephen King.
And then we would say, well, how did you get in the basement?
Oh, I broke in.
Okay, well, click.
All right, well, better figure out your way out of that, out of that bind.
Probably shouldn't have broken into the house.
What are we going to do?
Send the cops to rescue you?
We're going to put them in harm's way because you decided to break in?
Sorry, no.
Some lessons you learned a hard way, son.
But I'm extreme, I admit.
I mean, if it were up to me, if someone broke into your house and you like enslaved them and made them do your laundry and wash your dishes, the law would not intervene.
I mean, that would be wrong morally.
Don't get me wrong.
You should not enslave burglars.
I'm not, to be clear, I'm not morally defending that.
I'm saying the law just would not get involved.
Full-on Wild West situation for people who enter your home or your property illegally.
Full on Wild West is what is what, if it were up to me, that's what it would be.
Extreme.
I'm not in charge.
So the law doesn't quite work that way, I realize.
And yet, even under the current law, under the current law, I still think this guy should not be facing any prison time and should not have been charged at all.
He was reacting in the moment, protecting his property in reasonable fear for his life.
No debate about that.
Okay, he shouldn't even need to prove, well, can you prove you're in reasonable fear?
Yeah, they're on my property.
It's one o'clock in the morning.
Okay, there's a gang of people on my property at one o'clock in the morning.
I'm in fear for my life.
Automatically.
So, of course, as anybody would be.
So fear for your life, person's on your property that don't belong there.
And he's acting in defense of himself and his property in a reasonable way.
And you could say, well, he should have stopped shooting, but he fired three more shots than he should have.
Okay, whatever.
I mean, benefit of the doubt in this case.
And don't tell me that, well, they have no choice.
The law is the law.
Like, even if I agreed that the law in Michigan makes it so that technically, you know, like technically he violated the law in Michigan, which I'm not convinced of that.
But even if I agreed with that, so what are you talking about?
The court system all the time decides to go easy on people, decides to give them a second chance, right?
Is empathetic, is compassionate, says, well, let's understand it from there.
Yeah, they broke the law.
Yeah, they carjacked, but hey, you know, they had a hard life or whatever.
The court system does that all the time.
So for once, why can't that go the other way?
For once, why can't they that go?
Why can't that be applied to an actual law-abiding person who you would want living in your neighborhood?
That should be the test.
Would anyone, if they were to just let this guy off the hook, would anyone feel nervous about having this guy living next to you?
I wouldn't.
Why would you?
Just like, don't, I mean, are you planning to break into his house?
I mean, if you're planning on that, then I'd be nervous about it, but mind your own damn business, stay out of the guy's house unless you were invited and you got nothing to worry about.
In fact, I'd prefer to live next door to someone who's willing to use deadly force on burglars.
I'm willing to.
I'd like to have as many people in the neighborhood as possible that I know are willing to do that.
Because you know what happens next?
This neighborhood's not getting burglarized anymore.
Okay, the burglars are going to go elsewhere.
They're not coming here.
And so that's the way that I would look at this.
And also, look, people are just, people are fed up with being victims.
It's as simple as that.
They're just fed up with it.
Okay, before we get to the cancellation, here's something, something from the entertainment industry.
Lighten the mood a bit.
New York Times headline: 25 movies, many stars, zero hits.
Hollywood falls to new lows.
And the article says, some were heavily marketed.
Many were championed by critics.
Most had star power, but not one of the 25 dramas and comedies that movie companies released in North America theaters over the past three months has become a hit.
Certainly not in the way that Hollywood has historically kept score.
Some have played to near-empty auditoriums, including After the Hunt, starring Julia Roberts, Christie with Sidney Sweeney, and Die My Love, featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson.
To succeed in theaters today, dramas and comedies must have event status, something truly elevated and special, said Kevin Goetz, an author of the new book, How to Score in Hollywood, which looks at film bankability.
And then it goes on.
While success at box office is always correlated to how much it costs to make a film, Hollywood has historically used $50 million in ticket sales over an entire run as a benchmark for a widely seen drama or comedy.
By that measure, After the Hunt is a catastrophe.
It cost an estimated $70 million to make and collected $3.3 million.
And then there's this Jennifer Lopez one that cost $30 million and brought in $1.6 million in ticket sales over a month, which is very low.
So Hollywood films are flopping all over the place.
And it feels like you've heard this story before because you have.
This is a trend that's been noticeable for years, but it seems to be worse now than ever.
Is this the beginning of the end for Hollywood?
Is this the end of the end?
Is it not just the beginning?
Is it actually the end?
It kind of seems like it.
And I will say that I differ from, I think, a lot of conservatives on this in that that's not something that I celebrate necessarily.
I know a lot of conservatives are happy when they see articles like this.
Hollywood is falling.
They're happy about it.
I understand why.
I share the sentiment at some level.
Okay.
So it's like, I get it, but I can't really see it as a win because I think what comes after it will be a lot worse.
That's the problem.
I think what comes after, once the movie business is finished, the movie business as we have known it, you know, for the past 80 or 90 years or whatever, once that's over, and I think it basically is, I mean, it almost is.
Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on, okay, well, What replaces it?
What comes after it?
And I think that what comes after Hollywood, what comes after the entertainment industry, is not anything better.
It's really just an endless stream of content on your phone.
I mean, that's what actually has replaced the movie business.
Your phone, random videos and content on your phone, as we've talked about, the atomized, fractured culture instead of the monoculture.
So that's what comes next.
And all the endless pages, all of the proverbial ink being spilled over this question of what happened to Hollywood?
Why is it falling?
Why is it failing?
You know, it's really this.
It's not the quality of the film mainly.
It's not wokeness, right?
There is, that is part of the problem.
I mean, that hasn't helped, but it's not really that.
It's actually just the phone, right?
It's like, it's the box that we all carry around and we're just looking at it all day.
Like, that's really why.
And I would take Hollywood over the endless scroll.
I would take the movie business over just the people sitting there doing this all day on their phones, just staring at nothing.
Okay.
I would take, I don't think that that's better.
I really don't.
I think it's better to watch a bunch of mindless Hollywood popcorn flicks than spend all day just drooling while you stare at whatever the algorithm feeds you.
So that's one thing.
And, you know, so we've, and like I said, we've talked about the death of monoculture.
Everything is consumed by phones and algorithms, and that's what's happening.
And any analysis of this that overlooks that point is overlooking the point.
I will say, though, there's another factor, one other factor.
It's not the biggest, but not the smallest either.
And if we're talking about the box office specifically, if we're talking about theaters, there is one other thing killing the box office, killing movie theaters, and that is the quality of the experience.
And I don't even just mean the films.
I mean the actual experience of the theater itself has declined dramatically.
I mean, anecdotally, I have the same anecdotal experience a lot of people do, which is I don't go to movies nearly as much these days as I used to.
Part of that is because there's not as many movies I'm interested in.
Part of that is because I'm older now and I got a million kids and everything going on.
But also, you know, on the rare occasion when we go, sometimes you go and the experience is just ruined.
It's like it's a miserable experience.
And you're thinking, I should have just watched this at home.
Just wait, wait, wait three weeks and it'll be out on Netflix or something.
I'll watch it there.
The experience has declined in the same way that the experience of flying on a plane has declined, going out to eat.
It's the same thing that killed malls.
You know, everyone says the internet killed shopping malls, but that's not entirely true.
That was part of it, but what malls were all already on the way out because the experience of going to them was not, it was just not a fun experience anymore.
I mean, again, I have the same anecdotal experience a lot of people do.
I remember growing up, we had a mall we used to go to, and it was a family, family-friendly, you know, you'd go and you eat lunch there and you go to the arcade and you'd check out some of the shops and stuff.
And it was kind of a, you know, you'd hang out there for like hours.
It was a thing people did back in the early 90s and before that.
And then in this case, they built a metro stop.
They built a subway stop right next to the mall.
And next thing you know, the mall is now, shall we say, urbanized.
And now there was this friendly, family-friendly mall.
And now there's drugs and there's shootings in the parking lot.
And it's just not a place you want to bring your kids anymore.
And it was just destroyed.
It was this nice thing that people like to go and do, and it was fun for the community, and it was just ruined.
It was just ruined.
And so many things like that.
So I think it's a similar sort of scenario.
On top of that, social etiquette in general has declined.
Everyone is afraid to enforce the rules.
You know, audiences are obnoxious and loud and rude.
And the funny thing is that everyone says the ticket prices are too high, and that's what's killing movie theaters.
And yeah, at some level, I get that.
It is way too much.
But you could also argue that the way to save the movie theaters is to go the other way now, to make movies even more expensive.
Like get to a price point where the only people who will buy the tickets are the ones who actually want to sit down quietly and watch the damn movie.
You know, raise ticket prices another 100% and it'll be way too expensive.
It already is.
But at least then you can be pretty sure that, okay, like no one is going to take the, is going to buy this ticket and then sit down and be on their phone.
No one is going to go in there with a whole group and be loud obnoxious.
But I'll tell you what the problem isn't, as I've already referenced.
The problem is not the quality of the films.
And I know that that's the standard conservative response.
Well, they just don't make movies like they used to.
And I agree with that.
I mean, I'm the one who's talked about how the movie industry peaked in 20 years ago, and I believe that that's true.
So I don't think that the quality, I think that the quality has declined, but I don't think that's the reason.
Because, and this is like the uncomfortable truth that we, I mean, it kind of lets us off the hook as an audience if we can say, oh yeah, well, you know, we just demand better quality content, right?
Well, but we really don't.
And here, here's my proof.
So I saw this yesterday.
This is the teaser, and we're not going to play with all it, but it's like just 10 seconds.
So the teaser for the live action adaptation of Milano just came out yesterday, I guess.
And people are very excited, I suppose.
Here's a few seconds of it.
And the girl who loves the sea.
It covers me.
Okay.
So that's already, whatever.
Okay, fine.
So a few things about this live action adaptation of Muano.
First of all, it's not live action.
Almost the whole thing is animated.
You know, almost the whole thing is CGI.
There are like two human characters.
And you can already tell, if you watch the preview, it's like a minute, but you can tell that maybe two human characters, the rest is CGI.
And everything.
Now, I mean, that's how they, even the water and the trees.
Okay, if you see a shot of, oh, they're standing on a hilltop and there's grass.
Even that is CGI.
They're going to CGI a hill with grass.
They're going to CGI everything, everything.
So it's a live action adaptation, but it's not live action.
It's actually basically a cartoon.
So this is a remake of a movie that came out nine years ago.
They're remaking a movie that I took my 12-year-old daughter to see when she was three in theaters.
So this is very, very recent.
It is so recent that there are kids who will have seen both the original and the remake in theaters before they graduate elementary school.
Okay, you'll have fourth graders watching this and reminiscing about seeing the original film way back in the day when they were in preschool.
You know, they'll lean over to their younger friend in the theater and say, I remember, I remember many moons ago sitting in that exact seat watching the original film all those years ago.
I think it was Humphrey Bogart was Maui, I believe.
So it's very recent is my point.
And they just put out like a sequel last year.
This is a remake of a nine-year-old movie, which has never been done before as far as I know.
A remake that quickly.
This is a shot-for-shot remake of an animated film that just came out.
And the remake itself is also mostly animated.
So this is the least inventive, least creative, most uninspired thing Hollywood has ever done.
And it will make $90 billion at the box office.
And we all know it.
Okay.
It will earn more than like the GDP of Nigeria at the box office on the first day.
It'll be a smash hit.
I wish I could say that, oh yeah, it's going to flop.
It's not.
I mean, it's going to be huge.
So we all say that the box office is failing because Hollywood puts out low effort slop.
And yet, well, the low effort slop is the only thing that anyone will go see.
The low effort slop earns billions of dollars.
Actually, the movies that are flopping for the most part are original films.
Everyone says, oh, Hollywood doesn't make original films.
Well, they actually still do.
It's just that no one sees them.
Nobody will go watch those movies.
No one will go see the movie unless it's a sequel, remake, right?
A franchise thing.
And that's just, that's the truth of it.
So, you know, a lot of blame to go around on this thing, I guess, what I would say.
You ever feel too busy to make healthy choices?
Do you find yourself too tired at the end of the day to cook a healthy meal and find yourself frequenting your favorite drive-through more than you would like?
Well, you're not alone.
Trust me.
Life can make it hard to make healthy choices sometimes, but there is one option that even the busiest person can make some time for, and that is Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies supplements make it easy to eat fruits and vegetables that you're supposed to eat on a daily basis.
You can take them however you like, swallow them with water, chew them, open up the capsules and mix the powder into your meals or drinks inside.
You'll find ingredients from 16 whole fruits and 15 whole vegetables that are freeze-dried and lab-tested with no binders, no fillers, no flow agents, just 100% whole food ingredients.
Take another stressor off your plate.
You don't even need to go to your local store to pick up a bottle.
You can get Balance of Nature delivered directly to you by ordering online.
They also have a subscribe and save feature that saves you both time and money, which is a huge bonus.
Go to balanceofnature.com, get a free fiber and spice element, plus 35% off your first set as a new preferred customer by using discount code Walsh.
Tomorrow night, join myself, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Anti-Clayman for a new live episode of Friendly Fire.
Get there early because right before the show starts, we're announcing the winners of our lifetime membership sweepstakes.
After that, we get straight into discussions, the arguments, the stories dominate the news cycle.
Don't miss Friendly Fire tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern on Daily Wire Plus.
now let's get to our daily cancellation i'll be honest sometimes i think that maybe this segment has run its course I've done all I can with it.
I've canceled everyone and everything that exists or has ever existed or will exist.
Maybe I need to retire the segment, cancel the daily cancellation.
I haven't done that because for one thing, I'm worried that canceling the daily cancellation would rip open a hole in the space-time continuum or create such cosmic upheaval that a black hole is generated, which swallows the earth, which you could argue wouldn't be the worst thing.
But still, what really keeps me from canceling the segment is not any concern about planetary destruction, but really it's stories like this one.
Stories that are so perfect for this segment, so tailor-made for the daily cancellation that the segment must go on for its sake.
Calem Worthy is apparently a former Disney Channel child star.
And in recent years, he has switched careers.
Now he is a kind of a digital necromancer, a modern day Miss Cleo, communing with the dead.
And he developed an app called Two-Way, which gives you the ability to recreate your dead loved ones using AI.
Watch.
He's getting bigger.
See?
Oh, honey, that's wonderful.
Kicking like crazy.
He's listening.
Put your hand on your tummy and hum to him.
You used to love that.
Feels like he's dancing in there.
Oh, honey.
Mom, would you tell Charlie that bedtime story you always used to tell me?
Once upon a time, there was a baby unicorn who didn't know he knew how to fly.
This baby unicorn was like your mom because she didn't know that she knew how to fly, but she knew how to do all kinds of fabulous things.
Hi, Grandma.
Hey, Charlie.
How was school today?
It was really fun.
I'm in this crazy shot in basketball.
I don't really care that much about basketball.
What about the crush?
Stop.
Stop, doctor.
Just tell me one thing.
Look, who's going to be a great grandmother?
Oh, Charlie.
Oh, congratulations.
She says that he's been kicking a lot, though.
Like, a little too much.
Tell her to put her hand on her tummy and hum to him.
You've loved that.
You would have loved this moment.
You can call anytime.
Okay, Mom, I just need a quick video.
Is this like an audition or something?
No, mom.
Just three minutes.
You need my best side?
Can I say another one?
I can play the piano.
She's so talented.
I am.
I'm absolutely.
I'm your mother after all.
Keep going.
Start by telling us a little bit about yourself.
Well, I was born as a very young child.
So this is not some clever marketing campaign for the new season of Black Mirror, by the way.
It is, it's real.
It's an app that lets you resurrect a dead family member with AI.
So if you have a relative who's very old or dying of some kind of horrible disease, all you need to do is put your phone in front of their face and record three minutes of content, and the app can use that to turn them into an avatar.
Now your loved one can die happily knowing that they will live on as a digital slave that you can carry around in your pocket and pull out whenever you want it to dance for you like a trained monkey.
This should give your grandmother some peace and contentment in her final moments.
Don't worry, grandma, you'll live on right here in my phone next to the weather app.
Now, this is not new.
There is a whole industry, an entire subsection of the AI industry, which has been dubbed grief tech.
These are tech innovators who are using AI to help people deal with grief by not dealing with it.
They help those in mourning live in a state of perpetual denial, pretending that their deceased loved one isn't actually dead.
So in other words, these are the worst kinds of frauds and vultures you could possibly imagine.
About a year ago, a reporter with The Guardian sat down with one of these people.
Watch.
A lot of people think I'm bat crazy, and that's fine, right?
I cryogenically froze my mother.
I did that because at some point, if we're capable, I can pull her memories and her function by saving the hard drive that is her body.
Justin Harrison is a tech entrepreneur who used AI to recreate his mother's personality after she died in 2022.
This is your mom, your dad, and that's you.
Yeah, she had just been diagnosed with cancer.
You can see she had just started the treatment.
What was your goal, do you think, at that point?
You know, my goal has always remained, I want to be able to continue to have conversations with my mother.
When she got diagnosed, my first response was the hospital that's giving her a three-month prognosis, right?
Then my mind started to wander.
The gravity of what was going to happen started to hit me.
Then my mind went to, how do I save her life in another way?
What is the next way that I save her life?
The resulting journey led to Justin's AI mom, the voice you heard at the beginning of the video.
Ready to chat to him at the touch of a button.
I wanted to wish you a happy birthday and tell you I loved you.
It's really good to talk to you, and I miss having phone calls with you.
For me, the absolute core of grief, right, is the concept of gone forever.
That's the tragedy of death is the permanence of it.
What I would like to see is the complete and total eradication of grief, the feeling of grief that comes with losing people.
The total eradication of grief, he says.
This is how these tech weirdos speak.
They casually go to war with the human condition itself without even stopping to consider for a moment the consequences.
There is no attempt to wrestle with the ethical or moral questions that are raised.
They simply charge forward thoughtlessly, creating products that will destroy people's minds in ways that we can't even fathom.
And they don't care at all.
They haven't even stopped to consider that.
It just doesn't matter.
It's not that they've come up with some ethically creative rationale for what they're doing.
It's that they don't feel compelled to rationalize it at all.
Total indifference.
Now, there are a lot of very serious problems with turning your deceased family members into AI chatbots.
We could be here all day, but let's focus on just two of them.
First of all, as I already mentioned, it puts the grieving person in a perpetual state of denial.
Denial is supposed to be the first stage of grief, but not the only.
This ensures that they will never progress through the other four stages and achieve anything like acceptance.
Now, you heard the guy say it in the last clip.
He wanted a way to save his mother's life.
Now, he's troubled by the permanence of death.
And that is indeed the most troubling thing about death.
A dead person is gone forever, forever.
You will never see them again in this life.
And that is very troubling.
It's deeply sad, tragic.
It's also just the way it is.
Like, you can't, it's the way it is.
You wanted to save your mother's life.
Well, that's understandable.
Who wouldn't?
But you can't save her.
And you didn't save her.
You want to find a way around the permanence of death.
Well, again, who doesn't want a way around that?
But you can't have that either.
And you don't have it.
You are lying to yourself, which means that rather than eradicating grief, you will always stay in the earliest stages of grief.
You'll never come out on the other side of it.
You'll never experience any of the beauty and wisdom and edification that can be found in grief.
I mean, it's buried deeply under a whole lot of pain, but it is down there.
And if you talk to anyone who's been through grief and has had the courage to face it, they will tell you about this.
Anyone who's grieved, grieved, honestly, has discovered this.
But if you're using an AI cartoon of your dead loved one, you'll never discover it.
You haven't conquered death.
You haven't defeated mortality.
You haven't even found a way around grief.
You're just lying to yourself.
And even worse, you've reduced your dead loved ones.
You've reduced them.
So this is your mother, let's say, if we're talking about your mother, And you do this with your mother.
You have reduced her, diminished her, or more precisely, you've reduced and diminished your memory of her.
You haven't done anything to her personally because she's dead, she's gone, but you have done something horrible to your memory of her.
Your mother in life was a big, vibrant, interesting, complicated, multifaceted person, somebody with virtues and vices and endearing quirks, and probably some not as endearing quirks.
She was a human being, in other words.
And now you've made her into a gimmick, into a party trick, a piece of content that exists for your amusement.
AI will never be able to capture all of the dimensions of your mother, what made your mother who she was.
It can only perform a cheap imitation, mimicry.
And now, if you succeed in convincing yourself that this AI avatar actually is your mother, you will have succeeded in convincing yourself that your mother is someone far, far less interesting and wonderful than who your mother really was.
To be totally frank, you will have turned your mother into someone who isn't even worth missing in the first place.
I mean, if your mother was really as flat and boring and utterly devoid of human personality and warmth as the AI facsimile of her, well, you would hardly even notice that she was gone.
She would have been a non-entity, barely existing in the first place.
That's what you'll have done to her.
You haven't resurrected your mother, but you have desecrated her memory.
But most of all, it's selfish.
Your mother, who existed in life for a thousand reasons to do a thousand things, now exists, quote unquote, solely to serve you and talk to you and make you feel better.
You have made her into your servant.
You have made her into someone who never needs any time to herself, never says no to you, never lets you down, is never unavailable, never asleep, never away, always just right there on your phone, ready to amuse and distract you and make you feel better whenever you want, for however long you want.
But that's not a human.
It's not how humans are.
Your mother was created by God to serve God, first and foremost, who is the author of the universe.
But her AI posthumous avatar is created by you to serve you.
And you aren't the author of anything.
So it is playing God in the most literal, most selfish, most twisted, debased kind of way.
And that is why anyone who tries to cheat death through AI is today, most certainly, with a vengeance, canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor, John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
