Ep. 1707 - The Massacre In Australia Is Proof That Diversity Is Not Our Strength
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a massacre by Islamic migrants in Australia proves that diversity is not our strength. A horrendous animated adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm subverts and desecrates the original story in all of the ways you expect, only worse. And James O’Keefe does another sting operation. This one provides us with the funniest sitcom moment of the year, except it’s real.
Ep.1707
- - -
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
Homeserve - Help protect your home systems – and your wallet – with HomeServe against covered repairs. Plans start at just $4.99 a month. Go to https://HomeServe.com to find the plan that’s right for you.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://GCU.edu/MyOffer to see the scholarships you may qualify for!
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion at https://preborn.com/WALSH
Everyday Dose - Get 61% off your first Coffee+ Starter Kit, a free A2 Probiotic Creamer, with over $100 in free gifts by going to https://everydaydose.com/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout.
- - -
DailyWire+:
🎄✨ LET’S KICK OFF THE CHRISTMAS SALE! ✨🎄
Campaign Dates: 12/10/2025 – 1/5/2026
Bring out the cocoa, cue the carols, and crank up the cheer — because the DailyWire+ Christmas Sale is officially here!
https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe
🎁 Santa came early:
⭐️ 40% Off DailyWire+ New Annual Memberships
⭐️ 50% Off DailyWire+ Annual Upgrade Memberships
⭐️ 50% Off DailyWire+ Annual Gift Memberships
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
Today, the Matt Wall Show, a massacre by Islamic migrants in Australia, proves that diversity is not our strength.
A horrendous animated adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm subverts and desecrates the original story in all the ways you expect, only worse.
And James O'Keefe does another sting operation.
This one provides us with the funniest sitcom moment of the year, except it's real.
of that and more today the matt walsh show this episode is sponsored by pure talk
As a consumer, you carry the success or failure of business in the palm of your hand.
Their success depends on your decision to support them or their competitor.
Well, my friends at PureTalk would like to say thank you from the bottom of their hearts for choosing PureTalk for your wireless needs.
Because of you, they've had a record-breaking year.
Because of your generosity through their Roundup for Charity Program, they've been able to donate over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, who stands on the front lines of preventing veteran suicide.
Your patronage has allowed PureTalk to donate 1,000 hand-sewn Made in America flags to your fellow veterans.
And when you choose PureTalk as your wireless provider, you choose to support American jobs.
Like I said, as a consumer, you have the power to make or break companies.
And with the money the big wireless guys throw around on advertising, you are inundated with offers everywhere you look.
So from everyone at Pure Talk, a big thank you and happy holidays.
In 1955, Robert Menzies, the longest-serving prime minister in the history of Australia, sat for an interview with a radio station about the so-called White Australia policy.
And this was a policy that, as the name implies, prohibited most people of non-European ancestry from entering Australia.
The White Australia policy was not implemented with a law that explicitly banned any particular ethnicity.
Australia's parliament couldn't have gotten away with that because the British government, which still held authority over Australia and which ruled over a vast empire of many different ethnicities, probably would have vetoed it.
So instead, Australia's parliament implemented the White Australia policy beginning in 1901 with a dictation test that was administered to new arrivals to the country.
The test looks something like this, which you can see.
Immigration officers would demand that migrants write down one of these passages in their presence after it was read to them in a European language, not necessarily English.
And if the migrant couldn't do it, they would not be allowed into the country.
Because the immigration officer could arbitrarily pick a European language for the test, it was an extremely easy test to rig, which of course was the whole point.
Even a foreigner was capable of speaking good English, immigration officers could still give him a test in French or Greek or something.
There was a well-known case where the Australian government wanted to turn away a communist named Egon Kish.
But because he was fluent in many different European languages, they decided to administer his dictation test in Scottish Gaelic.
And as predicted, he failed.
But for the most part, the policy was effective in the sense that it accomplished its goals.
Australia remained a mostly white nation without apology.
And when he was asked about the policy in 1955, the Prime Minister Robert Menzies forcefully defended it.
Here's what he said at the time.
Listen.
Do you believe that the so-called white Australia policy will always be a stumbling block?
I don't think it's such a stumbling block as people pretend, but that it's important for us, I haven't the slightest doubt, that we should maintain it the way it is.
As long as we possibly can, we ought to aim at having a homogeneous population.
I don't want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa or in America or increasingly in Great Britain.
I think it's been a very good policy and it's been of great value to us.
And most of the criticism of it that I've ever heard doesn't come from these Oriental countries.
It comes from wandering Australians.
For these years, of course, in the past, Sir Robert, you've been described as a racist.
Have I?
I have read this yesterday.
Well, if I were not described as a racist, I'd be the only public man who hasn't been.
That's one of these jargons, isn't it?
One of these mod words.
You call a man a racist.
So this was in the 1950s, and they were already tired of being called racist.
So it's quite a piece of footage.
What's interesting is that even as he defended the white Australia policy, Menzies effectively gutted it.
Just a couple of years after this interview, the dictation test was abolished while Menzies was still in power.
It was replaced with a system that, in theory, would still allow for the arbitrary exclusion of potential migrants, but in practice, it didn't work out that way.
Increasingly, non-Europeans were encouraged to migrate to Australia, particularly if they were so-called high-skilled immigrants.
Or have you heard that before?
There were strategic reasons for the change.
The Cold War was underway, and Australia didn't want to alienate Asian countries in particular or push them into the orbit of the Soviets.
There was also a fear of brain drain.
So the government of Australia began to compromise on its hardline anti-immigrant stance.
They insisted that in general, they'd preserve Australia's identity, even as they opened the floodgates.
Well, that didn't last long.
By the end of the 20th century, Australia was rapidly becoming unrecognizable.
In 1981, there were roughly 75,000 Muslims in Australia.
In 1986, that number had increased to 109,000.
Over the next five years, that number grew even further to 147,000.
By 96, there was a similar jump up to 200,000.
The pace continued to the point that by 2011, there were 479,000 Muslims in the country.
And now, as of the most recent census, more than 815,000 live in Australia.
That's an increase of nearly 1,000% from the 1980s.
And it's almost certainly a vast undercount of the true figure of Muslims in Australia, since that data is now several years old and it relies on self-reported numbers from mostly legal migrants.
So it could be a severe undercount.
What happens to a nation that within a half century stops caring about homogeneity and embraces foreigners from Pakistan and Lebanon and Turkey and so on?
Well, as Menzies predicted, you get dysfunction.
You get South Africa.
You get Dearborn, Michigan, or Minneapolis.
You get Great Britain.
And as we saw yesterday, you get mass shootings targeting innocent men, women, and children because of their faith, which is what took place yesterday, as you've seen in Sydney.
Watch.
Now, you've probably seen the videos all over social media.
That goes on for several minutes, several more minutes from what you saw there, with no police in sight.
It was a few months ago that we explored the sudden rise of machete attacks in Australia, as you may remember, which really seemed to confound officials in Australia.
They couldn't figure out why these attacks were so common, given that it was illegal to possess a machete, much less use one to stab a random white guy in a shopping mall.
All they were sure about in Australia was that the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in 2024, net foreign migration into Australia amounted to more than half a million foreigners, or the fact that many of these foreigners come from countries like Nigeria or Bangladesh, where machete attacks are common.
If the machete attacks demonstrated anything, the Australians told us, it's that their anti-gun laws were effective.
After all, the assailants couldn't access firearms.
They were reduced to waving machetes around at their hapless victims instead of handguns, which is supposed to be some kind of improvement, I guess.
And therefore, because Australia doesn't have a Second Amendment, lives were supposedly being saved.
First of all, whenever Australians or anyone else tries to make this argument, in every single case, they'll ignore who is committing gun crime in the U.S. and where the gun crime is happening.
Because the overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by racial minorities in the hood, mostly black people.
And that's a statistical fact.
In other words, the very same Australians who will tell you that a white Australia policy was hardly racist and that no country should ever implement anything remotely like it ever again will also turn around and fault the United States for crimes that are overwhelmingly committed by non-whites.
They're trying to have it both ways.
They want America to become a non-white country as quickly as possible, even though, as we've seen, the inevitable result of that kind of policy in every case is more violence.
It's true here.
It's true in Canada, the UK, and it's true in Australia, as we saw on Sunday.
Australia's gun laws did not, in fact, prevent mass murdering Islamists from gunning down Jews on Sunday.
The shooters, a father and son named Sajid and Navid Akram, who's confirmed as a Pakistani national, in case you couldn't tell from the Australian-sounding name, legally possessed six firearms, including bolt-action rifles and what appears to be pump-action shotguns.
But the gun laws did prevent the victims, the victims, from defending themselves in any meaningful way.
At one point, a bystander charged in and managed to disarm the shooter, as you've probably seen this credible footage.
But it appeared that he didn't know how to work the bolt-action rifle, or maybe he didn't try to shoot, or he didn't want to shoot.
Maybe he was worried about the fact that he's in Australia, and if he kills an actual terrorist, that he's going to go to prison.
So for whatever the reason, he didn't shoot the guy.
And so the jihadist simply retreated and grabbed another firearm and kept shooting.
Watch.
The gentleman who raced into the scene to disarm one of the gunmen.
We're just learning some details about him because he has been shot.
Now, we are confident in saying that that is him.
One of his relatives has just spoken to one of our reporters.
We've got an interview coming in.
We understand that this gentleman's name is Ahmed Al-Ahmed.
He's a 43-year-old married father of two.
And he raced in to help.
We understand, apparently owns a fruit shop in Sutherland.
No experience with guns.
He was just walking past.
We are told that he has two bullets in his arm, but they think he's going to be okay.
Now, a couple of things about that.
I mean, you heard the guy's name.
And so the leftists on social media in particular, who are big believers that diversity is our strength, are saying that, well, a Muslim saved lives.
And we actually, I don't think we actually know this guy's Muslim.
I mean, it's based on the name.
It's a pretty, pretty, seems like a safe assumption, although we don't know it for a fact.
Now, the problem with saying that is that, well, so what, we need to import Muslims so they can stop other Muslims from shooting and killing innocent civilians.
Is that the argument?
It's a little bit of a torture, a little bit of a tortured argument.
And then the other reality, unfortunately, is that, as we said, I mean, it's a great, it takes a lot of courage to go and tackle a guy who's got a gun.
I mean, that's incredible, incredible courage, no question about it.
But then the terrorists just left and picked up another gun and started shooting.
So that raises a lot of questions, a lot of points.
And one of them is that if this man or any other victim had been allowed to legally own handguns in Australia, then this shooting would have been over very quickly.
You know, it wouldn't have gone on for 20 minutes.
I mean, imagine if the Good Samaritan there had been able to sneak up from behind him and rather than wrestling, having to wrestle a gun, like get into a fight for his life with his bare hands, if he just had his own handgun.
Of course, then you also need laws that would allow people to kill terrorists without then, you know, going to prison for the rest of their lives.
But that's the thing.
You know, there were a thousand people on the beach nearby.
One of them, if anyone was allowed to own handguns, would have shot these terrorists or at least forced them to retreat.
And that's not an academic or theoretical point.
A few years ago, a mass shooter walked into a church in Texas armed with a shotgun.
And six seconds after he opened fire, he was shot and killed by armed parishioners.
They all swarmed him with their handguns, preventing a mass casualty event.
Watch.
Video captures the moment a gunman wearing a dark hoodie emerges from a back pew, drawing his gun and firing inside this Texas church during Sunday morning service.
The gunshots sparking panic in the pews.
Worshipers seen ducking for cover.
One man covering his wife with his own body.
Six seconds into the shooting, two members of the church security team returned fire, hitting the gunman, dropping him to the ground.
The 911 calls came shortly before 11 a.m.
Active threat.
1900 South Las Vegas Trail.
Inside the church, at least five other parishioners pulled out handguns and carefully approached the fallen gunman.
One man kicks away his gun and picks it up.
It was a sad thing that he had to come into the congregation to hurt people, and it's a sad thing that we had to hurt him.
Now, you usually don't hear much about stories like this, even though they happen actually pretty frequently.
It's in the left's interest to mock the idea of a good guy with a gun and to act like it's a cliche, but it's not.
It's just simple logic.
Good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns.
I mean, that's not, might be a cliche, but it happens to be true.
You know, what they don't have to do is stare blankly ahead at the people trying to murder them, which is what happened on Sunday.
Watch this.
Oh, my God, get down, get down.
Boys, get down.
Oh, my God.
Now, unfortunately, it was not just the bystanders who froze when the shooting started.
Again, this attack went on for a long time, more than 15 minutes by some estimates.
And it took place within walking distance of a police station.
And here's the map that you can see.
The police station was right there.
Now, imagine using one of those safe trade zones or a safe exchange center after seeing something like this.
If the police aren't going to respond quickly to a mass shooting next door, what are they going to do if somebody robs you during your Craigslist sale?
Not exactly confidence building.
Now, in short, there's no excuse as to why the entire police department wasn't running towards these attackers within seconds.
How is this thing not over in 30 seconds, let alone 20 minutes?
But they were allowed to just pick people off with impunity.
I watched a video that many people have seen now where the two shooters stood on a bridge, like just firing for five straight minutes casually, just kind of standing there.
And here's an image of what one of the police officers was doing during that time.
If you're wondering where they all were, well, she was hiding behind a vehicle.
In a tactical sense, of course.
This is a very tactical maneuver, you see, to just cower behind a vehicle while the bad guy continues to slaughter innocent civilians at will.
And indeed, according to one witness, police officers, some of whom appear to be women, simply did nothing while the attack was unfolding.
Listen.
Can you tell me what happened?
There's two shooters, one on the bridge, one under the bridge, just started to shoot for 20 minutes.
They shoot, shoot, change, change their magazine and just shoot.
Simple as that.
20 minutes with four policemen there.
Nobody give fire back.
Nothing like that.
It looked like 20 minutes.
Like, and they should change magazine.
I look at him all the time.
Now, as Douglas Mackey said, this really is the mass shooting that has everything.
You've got the jihadis imported from abroad in the name of multiculturalism.
You've got a nation with one of the most aggressive forms of gun control imaginable that somehow failed to prevent the jihadis from assembling a small arsenal.
You've got the DEI police officers who spend most of their time arresting grandmothers for being racist online, ducking for cover as the jihadis indiscriminately open fire in broad daylight for 20 minutes.
You couldn't invent a better scenario to expose the complete incompetence of Australia's government and the abject failure of the leftist ideology that's taken hold there and everywhere else across the West.
And yet in the aftermath of the shooting, we all know how the Australian government and probably the Australian people are going to respond.
They're not going to fault the police department for doing nothing.
They're not going to fault their government for importing Muslims from the third world.
They're not going to address any of the reasons this attack occurred.
Instead, they're going to punish the native population.
They're going to try to ban all firearms for civilian use, including bolt action rifles and shotguns.
They're going to attempt to completely disarm Australians and eliminate the right to possess any firearms at all.
They're going to say that while they made tremendous strides in reducing gun violence by banning most rifles and handguns, well, now they have to go all the way and ban every other firearm as well.
and exhibit a uh in their argument will be this footage so they're going to play that footage on repeat as evidence that bolt action rifles can be just as dangerous as as those dastardly ar-15s And of course, that's true.
And it was always true.
A balt action rifle, especially in the hands of an experienced shooter, can easily result in even more fatalities than an AR-15.
The hunting rifle shoots bigger bullets with more power.
It might have a slower rate of fire, but not by that much.
A lot of Australians probably didn't realize that until today.
But now it's pretty obvious.
The problem is not simply that once you ban all civilian ownership of firearms, you make it impossible for farmers to protect their livestock and land.
Problem is not simply that feral pigs will destroy the crops, wild dogs will kill the sheep.
Problem is not simply that the entire industry of recreational hunting will disappear overnight along with tens of thousands of jobs.
Make no mistake, those are very real and catastrophic outcomes, but they're not the worst part.
The real problem is that once you ban all civilian ownership of firearms, the population will become completely defenseless.
The government, of course, will retain its firearms, firearms which its law enforcement agents will be too afraid to actually use against the bad guys.
And they'll have no problem using those firearms to enforce, you know, the next lockdown or free speech crackdown.
The foreign invaders, meanwhile, will keep every firearm they own, which appears to be a large number, given that these two jihadis managed to legally possess six of them.
So there's no doubt about that.
The only people who will be subjugated, as always, are the law-abiding Australians who are still pretending that Robert Menzies was wrong back in 1955.
And they're entitled to that opinion, of course.
They're entitled to believe that borders are racist and that firearms are the root of their problems.
Just one more gun ban.
It'll fix everything, they tell themselves.
That'll be their rallying cry.
And it will be the last rallying cry in Australian politics for all time, because once they fully eliminate the right to bear arms, what's left of Australian democracy will die along with it.
The lesson for Americans, once again, is to prevent the slippery slope from taking hold in the first place.
Once Australia committed to gun confiscation, there was no going back.
So-called assault rifle bans and restrictions on handguns are just the beginning.
The NRA, as beleaguered as the organization may be, is right about this.
Turns out that when someone is determined to kill lots of people, they're going to kill lots of people, whether they use U-Hauls, as in the attack in France in 2016, or bolt action rifles, as here or University of Texas or the Bath School disaster in Michigan, handguns, as in Virginia Tech or the Charleston church, pump shotguns, as in the Navy yard shooting, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Australia has made the fatal mistake of allowing foreign terrorists into their country while preventing the populace from defending itself.
And they've done this on the theory that rules are sufficient in and of themselves to establish order, but that's not true.
Rules are not enough.
You also need to ensure that your country is full of people who are willing to follow those rules.
And in that very important respect, Australia has clearly failed.
And Sunday was a very important reminder of what will happen in this country if we repeat their mistake.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Are you looking for a gift that actually stands the test of time?
With our show sponsor, Policy Genius, you can give your family the gift of security and peace of mind with life insurance.
Policy Genius makes finding life insurance simple, helping you secure real coverage so your loved ones have the financial safety net they need when it matters most.
Policy Genius is a simple online marketplace where you can compare quotes from all the major insurers in one place completely free.
They've got a team of licensed experts who will walk you through everything, answer your questions, deal with all the paperwork, and help you figure out what coverage actually makes sense for you without all the confusing insurance jargon.
The whole point is to find you the most affordable policy that actually fits your situation.
And based on thousands of five-star views on Google and TrustPilot, they've clearly been very good at it.
With Policy Genius, real users have gotten 20-year, $2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Don't wait until next year.
Give your family the gift of security today with PolicyGenius.
Head to policygenius.com/slash Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save.
That's policygenius.com/slash Walsh.
Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode.
There are a lot of perks to owning a home versus renting from a landlord, but one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home are the expensive repairs that are bound to happen.
Regular homeowners insurance does not cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures and electrical issues, leaving you on your own to cover the repairs.
But now there's another option called Home Serve.
For as little as $4.99 a month, you've got backup when things break.
Instead of frantically searching for a contractor in a panic, you could already be on the phone with HomeServe 24-7 hotline, getting someone scheduled.
HomeServe has a lot of different plans to choose from that cover different things.
Just pick a plan that fits your budget.
And when something goes wrong, all you have to do is called HomeServe, and they will handle it.
They've been doing this for over 20 years with a network of 2,600 local contractors.
HomeServe could have been great when my wife and I first bought a house.
Instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs, could have just called HomeServe and would have been one call and done.
Well, you know, you can help protect your home systems and your wallet with HomeServe against covered repairs.
Plans start at just $4.99 a month.
Go to home serve.com to find the plan that's right for you.
That's home serve.com.
Not available everywhere.
Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month, your first year.
Terms apply on covered repairs.
Let's start with some entertainment news, kind of lighten things up a little bit.
Although I'm afraid to say this is not positive entertainment news.
This is news of the new adaptation of the George Orwell classic Animal Farm, which, of course, when it was written in 1945 or 1946 or whatever it was, 1940s, it was meant to be a grim, stark allegory, a warning about communism, as I think everyone knows.
And the new Animal Farm is directed by Andy Serkis, the guy who played Gollum in Lord of the Rings.
And it's another one of those animated films with a star-studded voice cast.
Seth Rogan, for some reason.
I don't know why he keeps getting these voice acting roles.
His voice is incredibly annoying.
Steve Buscemi, Glenn Close, Woody Harrelson, a bunch of big names, none of whom are, you know, have any real talent for voice acting because movie studios don't hire actual voice actors anymore.
I mean, they stopped doing that a long time ago.
They just hire regular actors because they value the name recognition over the craft, the art itself of voice acting, even though voice acting is an art.
But anyway, that's the least of our problems here when it comes to this movie, if we can call it that.
Here's a little bit of the trailer.
Watching.
What's up?
We are going on vacation.
I do hope it's somewhere good.
What does that say?
Loster house.
That sounds awesome.
I love to laugh.
It's a slaughterhouse.
Look at all this deliciousness.
They want this.
Do you want to be food or do you want freedom?
Then let's fight for him!
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Four legs.
Good.
Two legs.
Fair.
No animal shall wear clothes.
Huh?
What?
We're shell pigs.
And all animals are equal.
Animals running a farm?
I had to see it for myself.
Thank you.
So cute.
Activate cute eyes.
I'd rather gouge them out.
I want that farm.
We should move into the farm.
Okay.
That's enough of that.
So I don't think I've ever seen a movie that so thoroughly fails to capture the tone and meaning of the original work that it's based on.
I mean, we've seen many attempts at adaptations that have failed spectacularly, but I don't think we've ever seen one that is quite this off, even just tonally.
So they've taken this masterpiece of literature, which was supposed to be a warning about communism, and they've turned it into this like slapstick, kid-friendly zootopia type of thing with pop music and fart jokes.
And worst of all, and most predictably of all, they've completely removed the core message, the point about communism.
And apparently, in this film, they've invented a new villain who is, of course, a rich white capitalist scheming to take over the farm or whatever, which if you've never read the book or if it's been a long time, you read it in middle school or something, that villain is not in that book.
And it's even worse than it appears in the trailer.
The Telegraph has this report on it.
It says, in this CGI retelling, Circus, who rose to prominence as Gollum, Lord of the Rings, has said he wanted to make Orwell's work accessible and not overtly political and suitable for a modern audience.
He would take a political allegory and make it not political.
Okay, so you just want to make a different, you just want to make a different movie is what you want to do.
So you just want to make a movie about animals on a farm.
You can do that.
You know what?
You can just make a movie.
You don't have to call it Animal Farm.
There are a million titles that would work.
You just want to make a movie about silly animals on a farm and a big evil billionaire person who's trying to take over the farm.
You can make that movie.
Just go make that movie.
You don't have to call it Animal Farm.
Rather than serving as a critique of totalitarian Soviet Russia, the film shifts its focus towards the dangers of capitalism and corporate corruption.
And then Circus has also sought to give the story a more optimistic ending, explaining why at a roundtable discussion in July, he said, we wanted some hope.
In the final scenes, Lucky confronts Napoleon, Orwell's Joseph Stalin figure, voiced incongruously by Seth Rogan, before the animals overthrow their pig leaders and plan for a better future.
Dear Lord.
I mean, you remember one of the greatest final lines in the history of Western literature where it says the creatures outside look from pig to man and from man to pig and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which is which.
And that's the end of the you know of the actual book.
Not a hopeful end, wasn't meant to be.
So they've gotten rid of that in favor of some kind of message about unity and friendship or whatever.
I mean, this is like doing that, especially to the end of the story.
It's like if they remade, it's exactly like if they remade The Godfather as a slapstick children's movie.
And rather than the iconic end of part one, I mean, part two has an iconic end too, but part one, one of the greatest film endings, maybe the greatest of all time, where we see, you know, from Michael Corleone's wife's perspective, and we see Michael Corleone and, you know, he gives his hand to the guy, calls him Godfather, and then they shut the door, you know, and it's just a great ending.
And it's like if they made a remake of that, took that out, and instead, at the end, it's like if Michael Corleone started dancing to a black-eyed peas song, and then his wife joins in, and then Michael Corleone does the moonwalk, and Clemenza sees it and turns to Fredo and says, that just happened.
And they start dancing too.
It's like that.
It's like that's basically what they did.
I hate everything.
Even aside from losing the message of the story, which is the whole reason it exists, it's also just bad in every other way.
And that's so much of kids' entertainment today.
I mean, again, putting aside the message, which usually, a lot of times the message is bad, but it's just, the animation sucks.
It's dull.
It's lifeless, bland, boring, lazy.
The humor is the same jokes from every other animated kids' movie that's ever been made.
I guarantee there's a scene.
I'm going to call this right now.
I guarantee there's a scene in this movie.
Guarantee it.
I put $1,000 on this.
Where one of the animals is complaining about Napoleon, the pig, and then Napoleon walks up behind him and the other animal goes, he's right behind me, isn't he?
I guarantee that is in the movie.
I guarantee it.
Haven't read the script.
I just know that it's in it.
And you know what's really sad?
They've been developing this thing for 14 years, a decade and a half to produce the laziest, most banal, pointless piece of crap we've ever seen.
A decade and a half to desecrate George Orwell's grave.
And not even subverting it.
I mean, not even subverting it in a bold or interesting way, but subverting it with Seth Rogan and bad puns.
Horrendous.
Horrendous all around.
Our sponsor, 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 AI, GCU's online students receive 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 that you may qualify for.
So they're debating a euthanasia bill in the UK.
And I just want to show you this moment from the debate.
I had to watch this back a couple of times because part of me couldn't believe that it was real.
But then the other part of me absolutely can believe that it's real.
It is real, it turns out.
Anyway, I just want you to listen to this exchange here.
Listen to this.
Other states around the world who have had a sister dying for some time, we have differences of view.
In Oregon, since 1997, there is a requirement to keep the mother alive as long as possible, particularly when there is a viable fetus.
In the Netherlands, takes a completely different view, and that is one of feticides, where the fetus has to be terminated by one means or another, often by intercardial injection of potassium chloride, before the mother can be euthanized.
Which end of the scale does the noble and learned lord prefer these things?
Because we are in a situation where the royal colleges are against this whole system.
And we will be relying on them to fill in the gaps of this legislation.
I think it is incumbent upon us to fill those gaps in for them because they're not keen on this.
Is, and the noble lord puts it accurately, some countries have taken one view and other countries have taken another.
It's clear from the choice that I am supporting that we take the view that pregnancy should not be a bar to it.
Pregnancy should not be a bar to euthanasia, he says, and which is easily one of the most repugnant things that's ever been said by anyone ever.
I mean, that is murder-suicide, which is probably the darkest crime a person can commit.
The amount of hate that it requires to do it.
That's like that's a human being at, that's hate all the way up to the brim.
I mean, that's at capacity.
I don't think a person, a human being can experience can be more hateful than that.
That you're going to take yourself out.
And rather than just doing that, you're going to take someone or a bunch of people out with you.
Hate and cowardice at its most extreme.
Like it's the most extreme manifestation of hate and cowardice together is a murder-suicide.
So, and that's what they're talking about.
So now think about what it requires for a person to actually legally endorse murder-suicide.
I mean, it's one thing to be the person committing this terrible act, right, which is evil and as we said, evil and cowardice at its most extreme.
But then to be someone who's like looking back sort of coolly and calmly and casually, coldly, and endorsing it and saying, yeah, I'm okay with that.
Yes, I'm in favor of murder-suicide in some context.
That's what the guy said.
And this is what's happening.
You know, euthanasia is spreading like a cancer across the Western world.
I talked about this on, it was on Tucker's show last week.
And we talked about this.
It's a good conversation, by the way, if I do say so myself.
So you should go check that out on his page.
But we talked about this about euthanasia, and it's spreading.
And the Western world is quite literally killing itself.
And this is an issue.
I mean, it's one of the biggest issues that we face right now.
It's one of the greatest threats.
And I mean, euthanasia is a leading cause of death in Canada.
We've talked about it on this show quite a bit.
But it isn't talked about nearly as much as it should be on the right.
And I think that's, and there's this part of the reason why it's not talked about among like the commentator class is that there's not a lot of interest in it.
And I know that because when I've talked about it on the show, there's not, you know, those videos don't exactly take off, usually.
It's like, you know, it's not going to go viral.
People aren't too tempted to click on that, which is fine.
I think it's worth talking about, so I'm going to talk about it.
If you choose to listen or not.
And I think that's partly because it's so dark and so depressing, and people don't want to think about it.
And honestly, another factor, and this shouldn't be a factor, but it is, but another factor is that platforms, pretty much all of them, make it really difficult to talk about an issue like this.
Like there's a reason why you hear YouTubers using absolutely awful, mind-numbing euphemisms like self-delete and unalive yourself, stuff like that.
Things I refuse categorically to ever say.
I'll never use those terms, except I just did say them, but I'm not going to use them unironically.
So it's hard to talk about because it's so dark and depressing.
It's also hard to talk about because of the speech restrictions on talking about things like suicide.
And on top of that, and I think that this really is it.
I think a lot of people, a lot of conservatives, still lack the framing.
They lack the language, the philosophical grounding to actually explain why it's bad.
And I think that's why a lot of conservatives avoid it, especially, again, commentators, pundits, whatever, podcasters.
A lot of them don't talk about this very much.
And this is one of the reasons why, is that they can't really explain why it's bad.
They know that it is intuitively.
Intuitively, we all recognize that it's a bad thing.
But I think a lot of people don't have the, they can't explain it.
And why can't they explain it?
Well, because euthanasia, it's an individual choice, allegedly.
People choose to do it, I say allegedly, because in reality, a lot of these people are not in their right frame of mind.
So I think they cannot consent to it, actually.
But in theory, they're consenting to it.
It's this kind of consent-based morality, which I think a lot of people in the Western world subscribe to, even if they don't think about it or know it, including conservatives.
They subscribe to this consent-based morality, which tells them that as long as whatever is happening, as long as everybody involved consented to it, then it's automatically okay, which is wrong.
Consent is just, that's just step one before we can determine.
That's just the, that's, that's, that's ground level, right?
If you want to determine whether something is okay, you know, two people or a group of people are engaging in something, yeah, well, first we need to know that everybody involved chose to be part of it, that no one's being forced at gunpoint into whatever this thing is.
But just because they all chose, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's okay because there are other, that's just the first item on the checklist, right?
There are other things on the checklist.
It's not the only item.
But that's what a lot of people subscribe to.
And so it, you know, euthanasia, everybody consents.
Again, allegedly, I'll stop saying that, but you know, I put the air quotes right.
Everybody consents.
And also, it doesn't harm anybody else, supposedly.
And now, in the case of a pregnant woman getting euthanasia, obviously it does harm someone else, but generally, euthanasia kills one person.
And that's a person who is choosing to be killed.
And so for that reason, because conservatism is so deeply infected with the libertarian virus, they just aren't able to articulate why it's bad.
Even though, again, intuitively, we can all look at this and see human beings being systematically euthanized at scale.
We can all look at that and say, this is obviously not good.
Like this is clearly not a good thing.
So let me explain why it's bad.
Okay.
I'll just lay this out very briefly.
There are a few very important reasons, like three, more than three, but let's talk about three.
First of all, it inverts the field of medicine.
It turns medicine on its head.
It destroys medicine, the field.
It destroys the field because it turns doctors into killers.
turns death into a treatment.
And once you've turned death into treatment, you have destroyed the concept of medicine.
Just conceptually, you have obliterated it because treatment is the opposite of that.
Treatment is supposed to ease human suffering and help people as much as possible to avoid death so that they can be healed and treated so they don't die.
You go to a doctor because you don't want to die and you want to, you know, you want treatment and you want to cure whatever it is.
Well, with euthanasia, it is using death as a treatment.
And so life itself becomes essentially the disease that, like, what do we treat it?
What is if euthanasia is a valid medical procedure?
Well, any medical procedure treats an illness of some kind.
That's why it's medicine.
Again, that's what makes it medicine, is that it's treating some kind of illness.
So when you give somebody a poison pill and kill them, what are you treating?
What is the illness that's being treated?
Well, the illness is life itself.
That's the illness.
Once life has been turned into the illness, then medicine has been, the field of medicine has been destroyed.
So that's one thing.
Second thing is that it opens a door that can't be shut.
This is the slippery slope.
That's what it is.
And that's why conservatives who were prescient enough saw this years and years ago.
And when euthanasia was, for the most part, restricted to people who are terminally ill, who are going to be dead anyway, very soon.
That's how it always starts is with, you know, you start the old boiling the frog thing.
Temperature starts warm and gets hotter and hotter and hotter.
So originally that's what it was.
And yet you had some conservatives who said, well, this is where it's starting, but it's not going to, once you have done this, once you've opened this door or once to keep the frog analogy going, once you've turned the stove on, it's not going to be turned back off.
That's not how these things work.
And then third, but and here's really the big one.
I mean, this is really the reason.
And this is the kind of argument that conservatives need to be able to make, or you are basically useless as a conservative mouthpiece if you can't make this argument, which is that your life is not your own.
You don't have a right to end your own life because your life is not yours.
Your life does not belong to you.
It is not an object that you own.
And I think this is the case that so many people are unable or unwilling to make, which makes them very ineffective generally as advocates for anything.
You have to be able to make this case.
Your life is not your own.
Your life is not yours.
You are not some sort of atomized individual entity that popped into existence out of the ether spontaneously.
That's not what happened.
You were created by God.
Your life belongs to God.
Your life belongs to a force and authority, a power far greater, infinitely greater than yourself.
You know, it's kind of like on a much smaller scale and much lower stakes.
This is a concept that parents teach their kids.
Like, you know, this is a speech I've given to my kids about their bedrooms.
I gave it to my daughter this speech the other day, again, because her room was a big mess.
As always, I said, go clean it.
Starts complaining.
Well, it's my room.
Why can't I just keep it how I want?
Well, the answer is, well, no.
No.
Oh, you think it's your room?
No, it's not your room.
No, you see, this is my room.
This is my room.
This room is my room.
The closet over there, that's my closet.
And the dresser, that's my dresser.
And the side table next to the bed, it's actually mine.
The bed, mine.
The floor, mine.
You see this little throw rug over here?
That's also mine.
You see all that stuff over there?
All the stuff you haven't cleaned that, you know, you just threw into a corner rather than cleaning it.
All that stuff there is mine.
That is all mine.
This whole thing is mine.
The house is mine.
Every square inch of this house is mine.
It's not yours.
No, because you didn't buy it.
You're not ultimately responsible for it.
Okay?
That's me.
So this is actually mine.
I let you because I'm generous.
I allow you to stay in this room and use it, but it's not yours.
And this is the same thing that God says to us because we're all petulant children to God.
And we all say, we all become much like the whiny child in many contexts where we say, this is mine.
It's my life.
It's mine.
And God says, no, it's not yours.
It's not yours.
I give it to you.
I lend it to you.
I allow you to have this amazing blessing called life, but it's not yours to just do what you want with.
This is a thing that comes with conditions.
Right?
I say to my kids, this is a room I've given you to stay in with conditions.
One of the conditions is keep it clean.
And you better follow that condition, or you're not going to have this anymore.
That's it.
You don't have to like it.
You're also not the authority here.
I am, right?
Well, God says to us, you're not the authority here.
I am.
I give you this with conditions.
So that's the argument, you know?
And by the way, your life also belongs to, in a less kind of absolute sense, but it also, but still in a real sense, it belongs to your family and your children and, you know, your spouse, your friends, even to your community, your country, you know, not in the sense of you being owned like a slave or something, like an object.
That's not what I mean.
I mean that your existence comes with obligations to the people around you.
And it's not just yours.
It's not this thing that you're like possessing.
That's not what it is.
And that's a point just about life.
And that becomes the foundation, really, for all of the arguments we make as conservatives anyway.
It all starts with that.
All that is just a really much more wordy way of saying that you're not God.
You know, you as a person, you are not God.
It's like what the priest says in Rudy, that I've learned two things.
One is that there is a God, and two is that I'm not him.
And that's it.
It's kind of in a lot of ways the foundation of conservatism.
You're not God.
This Christmas season, you could help change a life.
Picture a young woman who just found out she's pregnant and wasn't expecting it.
She's scared, maybe doesn't have much support and isn't sure what her options are.
That's exactly who our sponsor, Pre-Born Ministries, is there for.
They offer free ultrasounds and counseling to women facing these tough decisions.
Sometimes just seeing that ultrasound and talking to someone who cares makes all the difference in the world.
When a woman is facing that difficult decision, pre-born is there to help.
When a woman sees her baby's ultrasound at pre-born, everything can change.
That moment often gives her the courage to choose life.
This Christmas, just $28 can sponsor an ultrasound.
And right now, your gift is doubled through a matching grant to donate, dial pound250 and say baby, or visit preborn.com slash walsh.
That's pound250, keyword baby, or preborn.com/slash walsh.
All right, here's Kentucky State Representative Sarah Stalker, which, as far as I know, is actually her last name, Stalker, spelled just like the crime, stalking.
And here's what Stalker has to say.
Listen.
I'm going to be honest, I don't feel good about being white every day for a lot of reasons.
Because it's a point of privilege that I get to move through the world in a way that so many of my other colleagues and friends and family members of the community don't get the privilege to do.
And I'm just a female, but just a woman, just a white woman.
If I was a white man, I would be functioning from a point of even greater privilege.
I think we're missing an opportunity when kids, when kids have a moment to reflect about how the color of their skin does and does not allow them to move through the world.
It's running to them and trying to stifle that and trying to say, you shouldn't feel bad.
So we don't want to ever expose you to something that is going to make you have to pause and have maybe some internal feelings.
It's a missed opportunity for some really good dialogue.
So can I just say, first of all, I really don't understand this liberal thing where they use the phrase.
I'm sure I've complained about this before, but this phrase, move through the world, move through spaces.
I have no theory as to why every liberal midwit woman speaks this way, but they all do.
Every liberal female between the ages of like 20 and 75 uses this phrase all the time.
They're incapable of expressing their view on any subject without making some kind of statement about how they move through the world, move through spaces or how other people do it.
I don't get it.
Like, I really don't.
Where does this verbal tick come from?
Like, they can't even, they couldn't make an order at McDonald's at the drive-thru without this jargon.
Yeah, you know, I think as a as a woman and a member of a marginalized community, I move through the world.
I move through the world needing to eat sometimes.
And as I'm moving through these spaces, as I'm moving through the world in this body and I'm moving through spaces and I'm occupying these spaces and I'm moving through them, I really feel like I need a fish-filet.
I don't get it.
But that aside, she says that she doesn't feel good about being white every day, which is a sentiment that she means.
You know, by the way, that's one thing I learned from making our last movie, Am I Racist, is that these white guilt, these white guilt-ridden white women absolutely are sincere, which I wasn't sure about.
So that became, that came as kind of news to me.
I wasn't really sure about that.
Is this all performance?
Is this nothing but virtue signaling?
That's the easiest way to explain it.
But what I found is that, no, it seems like they really mean it.
Like they're plagued by this guilt.
It's a mental illness, really more of a spiritual illness.
And I thought a lot about this when we were making the movie.
And when I was in these places, when I was moving through spaces, when I was moving through spaces making the film and I was really moving, you know, I was occupying this body, this whiteness, and I was moving through spaces with my whiteness.
But anyway, when I was with these types of women, every indication, as I said, was that they really believe it.
Like they, this is what they, this is, they really feel this way.
They're tormented by their guilt for being white.
And I've tried really to understand it because to me, it's so, if you're a normal person, it's so foreign to you.
It's so alien.
Like if you're a normal person, the amount of time that you've spent feeling guilty about your race is zero seconds of your entire life, cumulatively, have you ever spent feeling even remotely.
You wouldn't even know how to generate those feelings if you wanted to.
So where does it come from?
And the only theory that I've been able to develop for this kind of thing is that is that it's not a grift.
It's not performance.
It's not a virtue signal.
Now, there is some, I mean, certainly there are plenty of grifters in the kind of anti-white race hustling world for sure.
But the Sarah stalkers of the world are sincere.
And the only way that I can understand that is that leftism is a religion.
And it is very specifically a religion that apes and subverts Christianity.
It's a religion that takes the cross of Christ and flips it upside down because liberals are incapable of making anything for themselves.
They're incapable of building, fundamentally incapable of building anything, coming up with their own ideas at all.
So instead they steal and plagiarize and subvert.
And all of the leftists, you know, leftism is a religion.
There are a lot of kind of sub-religions that branch off from it and LGBT and trans and all that kind of stuff.
And all of it is kind of like models itself after Christianity, but as a mockery of Christianity, because that's all they're capable of doing is just mocking things, aping and mocking and imitating.
They cannot make anything on their own.
So that's what they've done here.
And so this white guilt stuff, it's like this is their doctrine of original sin, you know, except that in this case, because it's a mockery, it's an inversion, instead of original sin being universal among all humans, it is specific to white people.
You know, we are stained by original sin, the original sin of whiteness.
And that is the original.
It's not even that the original sin is slavery or something.
It's the original sin is whiteness itself.
The original sin is just being white.
And, you know, that idea resonates with white liberal women quite a bit.
I think if I were to even deeper in my psychoanalysis of them, I think it's because they feel a lot of guilt.
They have a lot of guilt in their hearts.
Everyone has guilt in their hearts to some extent because none of us are perfect.
We do bad things.
You feel some guilt about that.
Everyone feels that.
Now, if you're a Christian, there's something that you can do with that guilt.
You have a way of understanding it.
You can confess.
You can be forgiven.
But if you're secularist, anti-Christian liberal, you have really nothing to do with it.
You have no way of understanding it except in this kind of racial framework.
And I also think that these liberal women, they have a lot of guilt.
They have a lot of actual guilt in their hearts because their religion, leftism, encourages them to do evil, terrible things.
I mean, so many of these women, a huge number of them.
I mean, we'll never know how many.
I think it'd be, if we knew, we would be, it's probably better we don't know, but a huge number of these women have killed their children.
Huge number of them.
And so let's start with that.
I mean, they're walking around with that.
An immense amount of guilt.
But they can't face that that is what's causing the guilt.
So instead, they feel the guilt.
They have all these terrible things they've done.
I mean, the most unspeakable things.
Liberal women have done, are responsible for some of the most unspeakable evils the world has ever seen.
And so they carry this around, but they can't, they don't know, they can't connect those dots.
Their religion forbids them from doing so.
And so they look for some other, well, why am I feeling this way?
You know, why am I feeling this way?
Oh, it's because I'm white.
It also allows you to kind of offload the guilt because now it's not really about anything you've done.
Yeah, okay, you've like aborted three of your kids or something.
And that's something that you've done.
So I'm not going to face that.
Instead, oh, I feel guilty because I'm white.
And well, it's not, you know, it's not anything I eat.
It's not my fault.
I didn't do it.
So it allows you to kind of offload it, make it about something else.
It kind of depersonalizes the guilt.
And I think that that's a lot of what's happening here.
This episode is sponsored by Everyday Dose.
We all know a person who can't function without their morning coffee, but then they spend the next two hours dealing with the stomach issues that come with it.
Same story every morning, sacred ritual followed by immediate regret.
No one is able to give up their coffee routine, but generally people also aren't thrilled about feeling like garbage for half of the day.
That's where everyday dose comes in.
Everyday dose is coffee plus benefits.
They combine high quality coffee with powerful ingredients like lion's mane and chaga, collagen protein, and nootropics to fuel your brain, boost focus, and give you clean, sustained energy all day long.
Tastes just like coffee without the downside.
No crash, no jitters, just clean, sustained energy.
I'm not usually the guy who gets excited about health drinks, but this stuff actually works.
No more afternoon brain fog, no bloating after lunch.
I'm not crashing at 3 p.m. every day.
Plus, it doesn't taste like grass clippings mixed with disappointment, which is a low bar that most of these products somehow still fail to clear.
So I'm genuinely impressed.
It's finally a solution that doesn't require choosing between your morning routine and not feeling terrible.
Get 61% off your first Coffee Plus Starter Kit, a free A2 probiotic creamer with over $100 in free gifts by going to everydaydose.com slash Walsh or entering.
Walsh to check out.
That's everydaydose.com slash Walsh for 61% off your first order.
Everyday Dose is also available at your local Target.
All right, finally, I just want to play this.
James O'Keefe put out another investigation, and I want to show you the part at the end.
This clip has gone viral, I think, for good reason.
And it's one of the funniest clips.
Sneaking in at the buzzer here, one of the funniest clips of the year.
This is where James, I'm not even sure who he's, who the target of this sting operation is.
Maybe it'll come up on the screen.
But this is where he reveals his true identity to this person.
And let's just watch how that plays out.
Yeah.
Well, the thing is, is that I actually am James O'Keefe.
Regularly.
Yeah.
No, I'm not.
I'm not James O'Keefe.
No, you're not.
I am.
Really?
Yes.
And you don't know that...
It's just, it's great.
Everything about it.
Like a perfect sitcom, perfect sitcom moment, except real.
So if you're listening to the audio only, you missed out because James O'Keefe is at dinner with this guy.
You know, the classic like O'Keefe setup here.
And I think the guy's name is Jonathan Franklin.
He's a professor or something.
I think that's what I think the name, that's the name that came up.
So let's just call him Jonathan.
And so this guy, so Jonathan has expressed, apparently, worry about being caught up in an O'Keefe sting.
And meanwhile, James is sitting there.
The only disguise he has on is a pair of glasses.
Not even a wig, nothing.
He's just sitting there, hasn't changed his voice.
He's not putting on some kind of fake accent.
You know, not wearing a COVID mask, like just sitting there with all these guys that wear a pair of glasses on.
And the other guy doesn't recognize him.
It's like the Superman Clark Kent thing.
The other guy doesn't recognize.
He pulls his glasses off.
And only then does the other guy start to connect it.
And then he gets up and tries to run away and falls as he's running away.
It's a little late for that.
I'll never understand when they run away like that.
Like you're already on camera.
You had a whole conversation.
Where are you going?
Why are you running?
You can't run from this.
Now, if it were me, and I don't want to give any tips to, because I want James O'Keefe to continue doing his great work, but, you know, well, first of all, okay, a few things.
At this point, if you're in DC, or I don't know if this is in DC or not, but if you're in any of these major like metropolitan cities and you're on a date with someone, well, first of all, if he looks exactly like James O'Keefe, like he probably is.
But even, but, you know, if it's one of the things, if James O'Keeffe has called in one of his female undercover reports, you're on a date with somebody you've never seen them before, you don't know who they are, and they're asking all kinds of really probing questions about what you do for work.
At this point, you should just assume that there's a camera somewhere.
You should just assume that.
The other thing, because you should also understand that most people are for someone to be asking a lot of questions about you, almost no one is like that in real life because people are much more self-centered than that.
Like no one's actually interested in you.
But you're sitting there at dinner.
This is the first person probably in your entire life who's actually like really interested in what you do.
That should tell you something.
But if somehow you still get caught, you know, if it were me and I got O'Keeffe, which I wouldn't because I wouldn't be going on a date with a man in the first place or with anyone except my wife.
But I'm just saying my move would be after the reveal, he goes, I'm James O'Keefe.
I would say, you got to think on your feet.
But I would immediately say, yeah, I know.
I know you're James O'Keefe.
I've actually been doing a sting operation on you this whole time.
Okay.
You thought you were stinging me.
I was stinging you.
No, I only said that stuff because I wanted you to say stuff that was embarrassing for you.
So you didn't get me.
I got you.
I'm not fired.
I quit.
No, it's that kind of move.
I'm not saying it's worth a shot.
I'm not saying, I mean, it's a desperation move.
It's a Hail Mary, but that's better than running away.
I mean, you're running away.
You can't, they already have the footage and that all you're doing is confirming your guilt.
You're confirming that everything you said was true and you're ashamed of it.
Just play it all.
Act like you've been here before.
Or you could just say, yeah, I know you're James O'Keefe.
I thought, you know, it's fine.
I got nothing to hide.
I thought we were just having a nice dinner.
What's the problem?
Anyway, but everyone sees that clip and they wonder how the guy was fooled by the least elaborate disguise of all time.
And not to bring it back to MIRAS again, but I can speak to this a little bit because we did the same thing with MIRAST and I get the same questions all the time.
People watch that movie, and just like they watch this clip, I saw some comments of that clip.
Like, this got to be staged.
Like, there's no way.
I mean, the guy would have known.
He knows what James O'Keefe is.
All he had was glasses on.
Like, he must have known.
And I get those comments sometimes like this.
This movie has to be staged.
I mean, they must have known it was you.
It's not staged.
It's all real.
And all I did was put on a wig.
And we got into places with people who knew who I was and yet didn't recognize me.
How is that possible?
Well, let me give you the scientific answer.
And it's this: you want to know how?
Let me just answer this question because I get a question all the time.
And I'll answer for James O'Keefe too.
I know gets asked this even more often than I do.
Let me tell you why.
Here's how it works.
A lot of people are stupid.
Okay, that's it.
How could they be fooled just by glasses or just by a wig?
Well, a lot of people are stupid.
Okay.
Like you, you might think you know that people are stupid, but they are so much stupider than you realize.
Not everyone.
There's a lot of smart people out there.
A lot of people are smarter than me.
That's not a high bar to get over at all.
But there is a great mass of dumbness.
And this is the key point.
A lot of the dumbest people are those who've risen to positions of authority and influence, like the kinds of people that James O'Keefe is going to go after, or that might appear in one of my movies, which makes the job of investigative journalists, or in my case, you know, comedic documentary filmmakers easier than it's ever been.
Which is why I always wondered if there's not more people doing this.
Not that I want more people to do it, but it's incredibly easy.
These people are very dumb.
And not just dumb, but vain and narcissistic.
Okay, which means you can easily manipulate them.
You know, that's how we got Robin D'Angelo and everyone else in the movie because we had faith that, first of all, they're stupid.
And second of all, all you really got to do is compliment them and you'll win their trust.
It really is that easy.
So you could have someone who's like, this is a little weird.
I don't know what's going on.
I don't know.
Who are you?
What are you doing here?
Oh, don't worry about it.
By the way, I just want to tell you, I really appreciate your work.
I think you're great.
And they'll say, oh, well, thank you so much.
Let me tell you some more about myself.
It's all it takes.
And now consider the consequences of having dumb, easily manipulated people in positions of power.
Consider that these are the people who are running so many of our institutions.
Very dumb, very easily manipulated, very susceptible to flattery, extremely vain and shallow.
And these are the people who are running so many of our institutions.
And consider all the consequences of that.
A lot of bad consequences.
Good consequences, though.
We get funny videos.
So that's something.
That's something at least.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
All of this is an illusion.
An echo of a voice that has died.
And soon that echo will cease.
They say that Merlin is mad.
They say he was a king in David.
The son of a princess of lost Atlantis.
They say the future and the past are known to him.
That the fire and the wind tell him their secrets.
That the magic of the hillfolk and druids come forth at his easy command.
They say he slew hundreds.
Hundreds, do you hear?
That the world burned and trembled at his wrath.
The Merlin died long before you and I were born.
Merlin Emirus has returned to the land of the living.
Vortiger is gone.
Rome is gone.
The Saxon is here.
Saxon Hengist has assembled the greatest war host ever seen in the island of the mighty.
And before the summer is through, he means to take the throne.
And he will have it.
If we are too busy squabbling amongst ourselves to take up arms against him, here is your hope.
A king will arise to hold all Britain in his hand.
A high king who will be the wonder of the world.
You to a future of peace.
There'll be no peace in these lands till we are all dust.
Men of the island of the mighty!
You stand together!
You stand as Britons!
You stand as one!
Great darkness is falling upon this land.
These brothers are our only hope to stand against it.