Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson argue gay adoption and surrogacy exploit children, calling them "abominations" rooted in unnatural family structures, while dismissing studies as inferior to intuition. They blame feminism for 60M+ U.S. abortions and collapsing birth rates, urging men to reject MGTOW isolation and embrace traditional fatherhood despite cultural decay. Criticizing Congress’s failure to lock in Trump’s gender policies, they frame nationalism as a survival instinct against globalist distractions, ending with a call to bypass YouTube censorship for "truth." [Automatically generated summary]
Yeah, well, I think there I was referring to Social conservatives, because social conservatives still somehow get a bad rap, you know, so-called social conservatives, even among other conservatives and other people on the right, it seems to me.
But, so when I say we, I mean like so-called social conservatives?
We should look at the way that human society was structured for thousands of years, and we should probably consider that they were right about a lot of that stuff.
Maybe not everything, but there are just certain basic civilizational truths that we have moved away from in recent decades, but I don't think there's any good reason to move away from them.
And so if human beings did something a certain way for literally millennia in every civilization that we know of, it's probably right.
That, and this isn't the only argument against it, but I think it is a worthwhile argument that there's never been a society anywhere on earth, anywhere, period, where they have had two men in a romantic relationship starting a family.
That's just, that's never existed.
It's always been a man and a woman start a family.
Or in certain ancient civilizations, and even some primitive ones today, you might have a man and several women.
Yeah, well, I think that there are a couple of things.
First of all, it's interesting to note that when this conversation about gay parenthood first started, really in earnest, like 10 years ago, most of the conversation was focused on adoption, and gay men want to adopt.
But now what's happened is there's been a shift.
And now you've got a lot of these gay couples that are turning to surrogacy.
So they're renting wombs, you know.
They're renting the...
They're purchasing the body parts of women and renting them, using them like an Airbnb rental.
But this is, in a very literal sense, the objectification of a human being, treating them like an object, using them as an object.
So it's just interesting.
There was a study done recently, a survey a couple years ago, actually, that found that it was like 60 plus percent of gay couples, when they think about parenting, they would prefer surrogacy.
So it's a slight of hand trick you see on the left a lot.
Where they want to bring about some social change and they present an argument for it.
But then once they get what they want, they abandon that.
And then you figure out what they actually wanted.
So it's kind of like adoption has given way to surrogacy.
And then the whole argument, which I never bought, which is that we're rescuing kids who are in these terrible situations in foster care, that's out the window.
Because...
These are not kids that you're rescuing.
You're creating them.
Rather than rescuing a kid from an unfortunate situation, you're creating them to be in an unfortunate situation from birth, which is a different thing.
So that's the first thing.
And the second thing is that even if we're talking...
But would you concede that one upside to a collapsing post-industrial economy is there are a ton of poor people who are willing to have babies for profit?
I'm just like, this is so, like, people don't take three steps back.
Like, if this were happening, if Dickens were writing about this in the 1850s, you'd be like, wow, you know, London's a very screwed up place where we're taking advantage of the poor.
Like, that's the step beyond prostitution.
I mean, it really is treating someone, as you said, correctly as an object.
But there's also the fundamental point, whether it's surrogacy or adoption.
The fundamental point is what does the child have a right to?
We keep hearing about this right to parenthood.
I mean, you have gay couples now that are demanding insurance cover fertility treatments as if the reason why two men can't make a baby is because of fertility problems.
No, it's because of the laws of nature.
And that is cloaked under this, it's sort of under this umbrella of why I have a right to parenthood.
You don't have a right to parenthood.
What does that mean?
No one has a right to be a parent.
It's great to be a parent if you can, but you're not born with this entitlement.
You're entitled to a child.
What the hell does that mean?
Rather than talking about the right of the parent, let's talk about the right of the child.
This applies to so many other.
This applies to abortion.
This applies to a lot of topics.
What does the child have a right to?
I would say a child has a right to a mother and a father.
A child has a right to the basic, fundamental setup that billions of kids throughout history have had, which is a mother and a father.
Now, if through the course of events, through no one's fault, that is taken away from a child, I mean, you can have a parent that dies, you end up with a single parent, you can have a divorce, which I think is terrible.
But it's not supposed to work that way.
So if you have a child in foster care, you're looking for a mother and a father.
And to just say, okay, well, we'll give this child to two dads.
You're basically giving up on that child.
You're saying, well, yeah, we couldn't find the right setup for you, so instead you're getting this.
It's the collapse of, well, it's just this war on, it's kind of what we started with, it's this war on normalcy, on civilization, really.
It's part of the anti-family agenda, the anti-human agenda, and I think that, and that's always been there, why did it catch on, though, to such an extent?
I think that the side that was supposed to stand up for The family and Stand Up for Civilization largely failed and abdicated their responsibility to do so.
Conservatives, the church has just largely failed.
I mean, hypocrisy in the actual sense, in the literal sense of not someone who says something and does another, but someone who claims to believe something they don't, which is what actual hypocrisy is.
And so we have a lot of hypocrites on the right and in the church, unfortunately, who are just claiming to believe things they don't really believe.
And so I think that the answer is, it's like, why aren't there enough pastors in any church, in any denomination, standing up and talking about these issues and leading, You know, leading on these issues.
And the answer is, well, there's a lot of cowards, but also a certain portion of them don't really believe it.
I mean, they don't believe.
It's like whether or not they really believe in God is a question.
Because it's always a lie, obviously, when they say, oh, this isn't, we just want to do what we want to do, and we're not, it won't affect you, and we don't need you to be involved.
This is just what we're doing in the privacy of our own homes.
It makes sense to an extent that if someone across the street from me is in their home doing some freaky weird stuff and that's it, they're just in their home doing it and I never even know about it or see it.
My children don't see it.
My children don't know about it.
Then, yeah, it's hard to make an argument that I'm somehow impacted by that.
Because I'm not.
Except maybe in the most indirect sort of way.
But that's not how it actually works.
That's just the slogan.
That's not what really happens.
And so we follow the trajectory.
And we've seen this time and time again.
It always starts with tolerance.
They say, well, just tolerate this.
Which I guess we're supposed to think means...
People are doing this on their own.
You don't have to.
You could just stay out of it, and they'll stay away from you and tolerate it, right?
Tolerance, so it starts there, but then it goes to, very quickly, acceptance.
Then they start saying, well, you should accept this.
Well, accept and tolerate are not exactly the same thing.
Because then they go to, well, okay, now actually we need you to celebrate it.
So it goes from tolerance to acceptance to celebration.
Pretty fast, actually.
Pretty fast.
Yeah, I think there was a time when that process might have taken, you know, 10 years, and now it seems like it's just 10 minutes.
So, we went from decades ago, it was, hey, they're just in their private lives, in their own homes doing this, doesn't affect you, to now, well, they're literally marching in the street, you know, in leather bondage gear,
like, flaunting in front of confused children standing there.
So we're not positive that cryptocurrency is the future of finance, but we do know that what we have now is broken and dangerous.
Debt has never been higher in this country.
Many of our so-called leaders are getting rich, serving you.
It's a scam.
So where does it go?
Well, thankfully, there are options.
Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants the United States to be the crypto capital of the world.
He's already created the Crypto Advisory Council and recently signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve.
This could give normal people an alternative to the government's failing system, and frankly, to the U.S. dollar.
I'm not saying put all your money outside the U.S. dollar, but don't be crazy.
Don't be stupid here.
You can see where it's going.
So the people at iTrust Capital can help you get in to this.
It's complicated for people who aren't following it.
They make it easy.
They're based 100% in the United States of America.
We looked into this.
They service only American investors, and they operate the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto.
24-7 both inside and outside of your tax-advantaged IRA.
And it all happens on one easy-to-use dashboard.
They also operate a closed-loop system, meaning that bad actors can't access your account and steal your money.
So if you're considering adding Bitcoin if you want to or some other cryptocurrency to your portfolio, iTrust can be trusted and it's easy to understand.
itrustcapital.com or click the link below.
It scrambles the gender roles.
That's what I notice and that's what upsets me most.
Because I think everything is built on biology, on nature, and gender roles are a function of nature.
And I think if you scramble that, if you confuse that, if you convince people that there's no difference between men and women, that's when civilization falls.
And we are certainly discovering that in this culture.
And that's why you can go on TikTok, which I don't recommend, but you can go on TikTok anytime.
It's a whole genre of video now on TikTok where you've got these young women.
It's usually young women who do these videos, these selfie videos, where they're in tears, crying.
Because they went out into the working world and they found it so miserable and depressing and empty and they just hate it and they don't want to work and they don't want to do it and they're in despair over it.
And that's exactly what's happened.
I think we were, you know, the message to women...
You just have to be willing to make the sacrifices.
And a lot of people aren't.
And that's fine.
Two, because you have to decide on what your priorities are.
And so, you might say, look, it's a priority to us that we have a big enough house that each person can have their own room.
We don't want to share rooms for kids.
It's a priority to us that we have two cars, that we can go on a nice vacation once a year, that we can have two or three TVs, that everyone can have a smartphone with all the plans, and we want to have five different streaming subscriptions, and we want to be able to eat out whenever we want.
That's a priority to us.
And if that's a priority, then, yeah, in a lot of cases, you're going to need double income.
But if you're willing to say, okay, we're going to downsize our home, we're going to share bedrooms, we're going to have one TV, we're going to have one car, we're going to go on much more modest vacations, and we're going to cut things down to the bone a bit because it's worth it to us.
To be able to keep mom at home and to be able to homeschool or whatever it is.
So I think if you're willing to say that, a lot of people could do it.
You're going to have your problems and your struggles, and some of them may be financial, and there can be some real misery that comes from that.
I don't deny it.
But it's just a...
Fundamentally happier home, in my experience, when the children are being raised by their mother, by their parents.
The kids are happier.
And beyond happiness, you can control how your children are raised.
And you can raise them with your value system and maintain that, which is...
Almost impossible if you're putting your kids in public school, I'd say.
It's almost impossible because the kids are going to spend five days a week, seven hours a day, nine months a year for 12 or 13 years of their formative years, not with you or your wife in this government indoctrination center around their peers.
And so inevitably, they're going to be absorbing They're going to start orienting themselves to the world based on that by looking at their peers.
Not even so much what their teachers are telling them, but what their peers are doing.
And that's what's going to happen.
So at a certain point, you're going to lose.
You run the risk that you're just going to lose them.
And that's why you have these parents who turn around and everything they've instilled in their kids seems to have just gone out the window.
You are supposed to be providing an environment for your child to grow and develop and mature physically, morally, spiritually.
To have a childhood, have actual childhood experiences.
I hear from people all the time, people my age and older, that say, oh man, I remember when I was a kid and we were outside, we would run around in the woods and we would be outside all the time playing tag and I just wish my kids had that because kids these days are just on the screens all day.
They don't have a real childhood.
And I say that your kids can have that.
There's no reason why they can't have it.
My kids have that.
I work in media, and yet my kids have exactly that kind of childhood because we just determined from the beginning that our kids are going to have a real childhood.
They are going to run outside and scrape their knees and climb trees, and that's what they're going to do.
That's the kind of childhood they should have, and it is possible to have it.
The only difference now is that it has to be a choice.
The only exception we make is if we go on long car rides, which for us is four hours plus.
Then we have tablets that are for the car.
Four hour plus car ride.
There's no internet on it.
It's books and like educational games.
And the tablets have that.
And in the car, if it's four plus hours, you can use those tablets.
And then when we get to our destination, we're taking the tablets back.
And I've noticed this, that even this little bit of access to that kind of technology that we do give to our kids in the car in this really specific scenario, you see how it just has this pull on them.
And it becomes, especially if it's one, we sometimes go places, it's a 15-hour, 16-hour ride over a couple of days.
So during that time, they do have the tablets for a while.
But it shows you why most parents, despite I think wanting to do what you do, I do think a lot of parents will hear this and say, man, I would like to do that or I should have done that.
And especially if it's easier, we have it a little bit easier because our kids are homeschooled.
And most of their friends are like homeschool Christian families.
And most of them are on the same page.
Not all of them, but most of them are.
And it does make it easier.
It certainly does.
If your kid's in public school, it's going to be a lot harder because there's a whole culture that comes out of the screens, out of the devices.
There's a language that comes out of it.
And when I see one of my kids, like one of the 12-year-olds or the 8-year-old, Around one of their peers who are not part of the homeschool community, but just like a kid from public school or something.
The difference is stark.
It really is in every way.
The way that they speak, like I said, they have a different language that they pick up.
The way that they carry themselves.
I think a lot of these kids are a lot more just sort of jaded and cynical.
If you were to go back 10 years, 15 years, my view was I don't like it personally, but you were never a weed smoker.
I've had it.
I've never been, years and years and years ago, not in adulthood.
It's not for me.
It's not for me.
And my view used to be, well, it's not for me, but probably all this, I kind of bought into the war on drugs thing and all this money that we're spending to try to stop people from smoking it is a waste.
And so it should probably just be legal, even if I don't like it.
There's this argument.
From the marijuana fans that, well, it's no different than alcohol.
And we know how prohibition of alcohol worked out.
And so if we're going to allow people to go out and get a drink, why shouldn't they be able to go out?
Yeah, I'm not convinced by the argument for that reason.
I'm also not entirely convinced that alcohol and marijuana are comparable.
For one thing, an alcohol can be really bad, and there's addiction, and it can destroy families and lives.
Alcohol is, though, at least a more social, it's a social lubricant.
So, if you're with a group of people and you're having a drink, it can help you have, kind of loosen up, you have a better time, as long as you're not being excessive.
Now, if somebody gets trashed, then it kind of ruins the time for everyone, and that can happen.
I think marijuana is not like that.
It kind of turns you inward.
It makes you antisocial.
So if you're sitting around a table with some people and a couple of them are drinking a beer, even if you're not drinking, you can have a perfectly nice time.
But if you're sitting around a table and a couple of the people are stoned, it's like that's lame.
No one's in his right mind, but everybody's kind of grooving out to his own music, and testosterone levels have just dropped to the floor, and so probably not going to have an insurrection when everyone's high, right?
If you feel like that's in operation in the United States, it's like, well, you know, people have the right to X, Y, or Z. Therefore, we're doing this.
And it's like, actually, that's a disaster.
But people have a right.
You know what I mean?
It's like, there's no reference point in reality there.
And that's why I think all I can do in response to that is if it's one of these terms that doesn't mean anything anymore, then it's not persuasive to me in an argument.
Right.
It's a term that has become not useful.
And it may have been useful at a time.
It may even be a term that...
Used to have a definition or should have a definition.
And, you know, I know when you say that, it sounds like, well, that's easy, because what are the chances that I'm actually going to have to fight off some bad guy that breaks into the house?
As a man, you should be, I believe, a stabilizing presence to your family.
When they're around you, they should just feel safer and calmer.
Not necessarily because they're worried that a bad guy is going to be.
That's part of it.
But it's not just that.
The world's a confusing place.
The world is a dark place.
Everyone has anxieties.
And when you're there, they should just feel calmer and better having you around.
And if something goes wrong, if the shit hits the fan, there's a problem, they should be able to know that, okay, well, thank God Dad's here.
Or thank God my husband's here.
And I think that's...
One of the central duties of a father, which means that we've gotten away from, in large part in this society, we've gotten away from, we don't talk about stoicism as a virtue anymore at all.
Now, most women, I think I've been conditioned that they aren't allowed to say this part out loud, but I think it's true that they also don't really want A man who's going to complain and open up to them too much.
That's why you never cry in front of your wife or your girlfriend.
Like, never.
I mean, in the rarest of cases.
You have a close family member dies.
That's one thing.
Your daughter walking down the aisle.
But other than that, just never cry in front of them.
Especially not because you're stressed out, because you're just dealing with some kind of anxiety.
And people think that this is extreme, or they want to pretend that, well, if women can cry, the men can cry.
Imagine a scenario.
Let's say you're in the car, and the weather gets really bad.
And then you get lost.
Maybe the GPS goes out.
And you're lost.
Weather's bad.
It's really stressful.
One of those stressful things.
It's dark.
It would not be uncommon in that scenario for if you're with your wife.
She might start crying.
She's very nervous.
She starts crying.
Oh my gosh, we're lost.
What are we going to do?
And that would not be an uncommon thing.
And as a man, you don't think less of your wife for that.
Hopefully, you're there to comfort her and say, no, I got this.
We're going to be fine.
We got it.
Now, you as the man, if you started crying because you're stressed out and lost and it's dark and it's raining and you don't know where you're going and your wife saw that, she will never look at you the same way again.
She will always remember that.
She'll remember the time when it was stressful and she needed you to take over and be in control and figure it out and you started crying like a little bitch.
She will always remember it.
And I think we, again, I think we all intuitively understand that.
We understand that it's, okay, in that scenario, for the woman to cry is normal.
But it's interesting that you said at the outset we've been told the opposite, and it's almost like, well, it's not almost like it is, that all the ingredients in a successful marriage and family, and in fact, in a successful life, Have been systematically targeted by the people in charge and their proxies for destruction.
So like everything you need to know to have a successful life has been undermined.
Like, no, you definitely cry in front of your wife.
Like, show your feelings.
No, she should go get a higher paying job than you.
Like, you should do more of the housework.
Like, you need to be the woman actually in the relationship.
No, it's totally fine to spend all Saturday playing video games.
We're getting not just like three degrees off good advice, but we're getting 180 degrees opposite advice.
It's like our society has been targeted intentionally for destruction.
And I'm wondering why?
Where does that come from?
If you read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, which came out, I think, in the early 60s, you know, over 50 years ago, that book is like, A recipe for destroying a society, and yet it was promoted.
That's sort of the root of modern feminism.
What is that?
Is it spiritual?
Are these spiritual forces working to destroy the West?
Do you have any clue?
It's so comprehensive.
Everything you've said is the opposite of what your kids are taught in school.
60 million dead babies since Roe, just in this country.
And if we're talking worldwide, you know, hundreds of millions.
But in this country, 60 million children were killed through abortion, which is the feminist sacrament.
You don't even need to go beyond that.
That's kind of enough, I think, to make the point.
But of course you can.
Ever since feminism took hold, divorce rates have skyrocketed.
Birth rates have plummeted.
I mean, we're watching the disintegration of the family unit in real time.
And people are less happy.
They're unhappy.
I mean, as much as there's this cliche kind of image of the 1950s housewife who, you know, was depressed and all the Hollywood films are always like with this image of the housewife was depressed and she was on whatever drugs secretly.
The husband was off having sex with the secretary.
And most of that is just Hollywood.
It's a Hollywood cartoon.
And in reality, it's kind of the opposite.
Now is when all that is happening.
Women are depressed, anxiety-riddled, on antidepressants.
Men, too.
So, birth rates plummeting, 60 million dead babies.
In some ways, there are some things that are easier about today than 300 years ago, certainly.
So, a lot of the challenges might be different, but the basic path is the same.
And you can't give up on it because to give up on it is despair.
I mean, that's just giving up.
So, hold fast to your faith, number one.
Number two, figure out what your vocation is.
And you'll have a professional vocation, something you're supposed to be doing with your life, and go and pursue that no matter what it is, no matter how hard it is.
And also keep in mind that if you're 18 years old, and I say this to younger guys all the time, In many ways, I admit I'm quite happy that I'm not 18 years old, 20 years old in this environment.
I am happy for that.
And I'm certainly happy.
Thank God that I'm already married.
Certainly.
But you do have one huge advantage.
One enviable advantage.
Which is the same advantage that every young man has had.
That you're young.
You're hopefully physically healthy.
You're not married.
You have no kids.
You have no dependents.
So you can...
It's very low stakes.
You can go anywhere and try anything.
Right?
Like you don't...
If you're looking around and saying, well, there are no jobs in my town.
I can't find any jobs.
Go to a different town.
Go anywhere.
You can go...
If you end up living in your car for a week...
Or two months.
It's not great.
That sucks.
But you can do that because it's just you.
Now for me, I got six kids.
So if things fall apart for me, it's much higher stakes.
And it's not as simple as I can't just go anywhere and try to do anything.
At this point, I can't just like, okay, well, I'll go get a job at McDonald's.
It's not going to work.
I got all these kids to take care of.
But for you, you can go anywhere and do anything and you can take risks.
And if it doesn't work out, It'll be hard, but it won't be disastrous.
So that's one thing.
And that's whatever your professional vocation is.
But there's the personal vocation that I think for all men is the same, which is that every man is called to be a father.
Every man.
For most men, that will come in the form of biological fatherhood.
Not all.
There are other forms of fatherhood.
There's spiritual fatherhood.
I think some men are called to religious life.
If you're Catholic, called to the priesthood.
You don't get married, but you are still a father in a spiritual sense.
But every man is called to fatherhood.
No man is called to live for himself only and serve only himself.
No man is called to live a life where they go to work, come home, play video games, have no one depending on them, no one that they love.
No one is called to that life.
So go and pursue that.
You know, go pursue that.
And go pursue it fearlessly.
And know what you're looking for.
And realize that there are a lot of women who are also looking for the same thing.
I hear from conservative Christian men all the time saying, I'm conservative, I'm Christian, there are no good women left.
But by today's standards, that's young to be Getting married.
But we just didn't want to waste time.
What's the point?
If our fundamental values don't align, then this can only end in heartbreak.
So there's no point.
I'm not going to waste my time.
I'm not going to waste two years of my life dating this person when there's no future.
And I know for a fact that the heartbreak is coming.
It's the only way it can end.
And I'm just delaying it for no apparent reason.
I'm not going to do that.
We laid all that out really early on, and people ask, well, how do you know that someone's values align with yours?
Ask them.
That's one way to find out.
Now, somebody can lie, but you can weed out a lot of people just by asking.
And then after you've done that, and you go to the polygraph stage.
Right, polygraph.
That's where dating comes in and you get to know them a little bit.
It doesn't have to be that long.
You don't need to date them for five years.
It doesn't take that long to get to know someone, to know what they're really about, I think.
And if somebody's a total fraud, if they're a terrible person, most people are not good at hiding it.
I think most of us can tell.
I could talk to someone for two hours or less.
I could talk to someone for 20 minutes.
Easily.
And if you're dating someone for six months, that's more than enough time.
I mean, all the time you spend with them, it's more than enough time to figure out what they're really about.
And it's still possible.
And that's my main message to young men, is that there's this kind of, what do they call it, MGTOW, men-go-their-own-way movement online among some right-wing men in the manosphere.
I think in practice, I don't know if it involves that in practice, I think often practice just means go get a job, live your life on your own, and give up on the hope.
That's exactly right, and that's exactly the right message, is when someone says, well, everything's rigged, it's not fair, it's really hard, I might fail.
Right, okay.
That's the answer, right?
Yeah.
Yes, you're right.
Okay.
What now?
Now that we've established that, now that we've established how bad it is, which we have, what's next?
What are you going to do tomorrow?
Now, we're all on the same page.
It's rigged.
It sucks.
It's bad.
I hate it.
I wish it wasn't this way.
And yeah, even after everything I just said, you could still get married and somehow you end up with a sociopath who was able to hide it, which I think is rare, but it can happen.
And then you have kids and she cheats on you and she takes the kids.
But then I discovered that once I started actually thinking about that and meditating on it, maybe not literally meditating, but really thinking about it, I became less fearful somehow of it.
They're going to be some kind of fraud on the internet luring people with false prophecy.
That's my gut reaction.
So discredited has that word become.
The reason I ask this, it's a moving target, of course.
It means something different in every generation or maybe every year.
But because Donald Trump just got elected after four, probably the worst four years since the American Civil War under Joe Biden, there is this large group, tens of millions of people who are aligned in this thing, this movement, this block of voters,
Because I don't know what it is exactly, is my point.
I don't know what it is.
I know what it isn't, I think.
So one thing that unites us is that we have this general idea of wokeness, leftism, whatever you want to call it, and we don't like that.
So I think we all have that in common.
When we look at a woman with blue hair and a nose piercing, Everyone on the right, we could look at that woman and we could say, we probably don't like her.
And we probably don't agree with anything she thinks.
And the main thing that we don't agree with them on is that we think free speech is like a foundational concept, the foundational concept of the United States.
And if you have an opinion, you ought to be able to express it.
And I thought this was what everybody agreed on.
I thought that's why they voted for Trump.
Shows you how dumb I am.
And then I wake up and I see these people, many of whom I know, scolding Rogan, me, just scolding in general.
You're not supposed to platform that person or that set of ideas or that those are words that shouldn't be spoken.
And I'm like, you know, we're a hundred days into this and already people I thought were on my side are mad because of like naughty words or concepts or ideas or questions.
Are mad about asking questions.
It's like a parody or something.
I thought that's like we made fun of the left.
They'd be like, just asking questions.
Your questions are more than questions.
They're assaults on me!
And I'm literally hearing people on the right say that about me, so it pisses me off.
Well, I don't like her for a lot of other reasons, too.
You're a lot nicer than me.
But, yes, so using that term as like a pejorative, as this forbidden thing, that should be a leftist.
That should be one of the quintessential, we think about wokeness, that's one of the quintessential features of wokeness, whatever that is exactly, is this idea you don't want to platform people.
I just don't agree with it.
I mean, what is...
What does that even mean?
And also, usually when someone is accused of platforming someone else, it doesn't even make sense to begin with because the person that they're saying is being platformed already had a platform.
We all have platforms.
We're out there saying what we think already.
So usually when they say platforming, what they really mean is you talked to that person.
It's not that we don't want you to platform that person.
They already had a platform.
We don't want you to speak to that person and have any kind of conversation with them.
But what they're really trying to do is set guardrails around my mind and treat me like a slave, a non-human being.
They're trying to tell me you're not allowed to think certain things.
And I reserve the right, I think it's an absolute right to think whatever I want, A. B, if you disagree with what I think, it's incumbent on you to convince me that I'm wrong through reason.
Like, show me the countervailing evidence.
It's not enough to say, My views are naughty.
The person I'm talking to is naughty.
They're discredited.
They're bad.
I mean, that's like a species of religion and a false religion, I would say.
And yet, I'm seeing that impulse.
That reveals a way of thinking that is totalitarian and low and dumb and embarrassing and that I associate with the left, but I'm seeing it everywhere on the right.
Like, what the?
I'm trying not to use the F word.
What the heck is going on, Mount Walsh?
Like, if I disagree with you...
Matt Walsh, I would say, I disagree with you and here's why.
And I believe in free speech in principle, so people should, and to me, free speech is, it's not a complicated idea.
Free speech means that you have the freedom to express whatever opinion or perspective you want.
I can agree or disagree.
It doesn't matter.
Now, that doesn't extend to things like, in my mind, hardcore pornography.
That's not speech.
That's not an opinion that's being expressed.
That is digital prostitution.
But if it's an opinion, if you're just sending a message about what you believe, you should be able to do that.
Period.
So that's the first thing.
But then also strategically, when you start complaining about platforming, it's a bad strategy because when you point to someone and you say that person shouldn't be platformed, all you're doing, if you're worried about what that person is saying,
all you're doing is making people more interested in what that person says.
I know I'm that way.
If I hear that there's a controversy because so-and-so was platformed, And I've never heard of that person.
I immediately say, oh, what's this person all about?
I wasn't planning on watching the whole thing, but I watched the whole thing over the course of a few days.
It was a long debate.
You know, I have a different...
I come in with a different perspective than maybe some people who are really interested in the debate in that I don't have a dog in the fight.
I don't...
Everyone is...
I'm constantly hearing from the peanut gallery demanding that I kind of give my verdict or my take on Israel and Israel versus Palestine and all this kind of stuff.
And I have given my take.
And my take is I don't care that much.
I just don't care that much.
I'm not just America first.
I'm an American chauvinist in that I only care about my own country.
I honestly don't care about other countries.
I wish them well.
I don't wish them ill.
I wish the people of other countries well.
I think they all have a right to defend themselves and they should.
I think that if you can't defend yourself as a nation or if you can't survive without...
Being propped up by another government, say ours, then you shouldn't exist as a country.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know either, by the way, and I think Israel seems like a perfectly functional and strong country, including with a strong economy that goes up and down, but basically, I mean, they have a robust tech sector.
They've got a lot going for them, and so I think I kind of agree.
I'm just saying they don't seem to feel that way, but who knows what the truth is.
But countries have to make more realistic decisions when there's no backstop in the same way that people do and in the same way that people on welfare or people with trust funds equally kind of tend to make terrible decisions about their own lives.
Yeah, and by the way, when I say that a country that can't survive without us shouldn't exist or doesn't exist, That's not any kind of like moral judgment.
It's just this is the way of human civilization.
You have to be able to stand on your own two feet to even qualify as a country.
And I think the American taxpayers have been saddled for many years now with propping up country after country after country when that is not a responsibility.
Like, if I told you, anyone who hears this and thinks that it sounds cruel or something, well, if I came to you and told you that Your friend's child died.
What you're describing is sentiment, sentimentality, really, and that it's our job as evolved beings to override that false sentimentality with a clearer moral code.
It's part of this destructive, like I said, a lot of it comes down to destroying the family and we do that by inverting everybody's priorities so that they want to get you to the point where you're more concerned about peace in Ukraine than you are about Protecting your own child.
I go on social media, which I really try to avoid, but whenever I go on it, and it's all right-wingers or whatever they are now, but it's all Trump voters, right, in my feed, they're yelling at each other mostly about Israel, but also about Ukraine,
but about foreign countries.
That's what they're mad at.
I mean, they're totally obsessed.
And by the way, I think it's legitimate to have views on all four.
I've got a million views on a million different foreign countries, including those two, but That's their overriding concern.
It does seem, I hate the word op, but it does seem like by design, someone has sapped the vital energy from Trump's voting base by convincing them that what's happening in these foreign countries is more important than what's happening in their own.
But about the Dave Smith and Douglas Murray debate.
My point was I'm going into it.
I don't really have a dog in the fight.
I don't know why these guys either.
I don't know either of the guys.
I'm not following the issue that closely.
I'm just not.
I'm focused on America.
And so I'm...
I'm really just interested to see how this turns out.
I'm listening to both arguments.
And I thought that Douglas Murray, who seems like a really smart guy, I thought he made a crucial mistake in the debate by starting, it seemed like the first 45 minutes to an hour,
was this litigation over who's an expert and who isn't.
And that's just not...
You're not going to win the argument that way.
Nobody wants to hear it.
Nobody should want to hear it.
Credentialism.
You're not an expert.
We've seen what the expert class has given us, especially over the last five years.
Calling yourself an expert goes back again to words that don't mean anything anymore.
That's a word that should mean something.
It is possible.
Expertise is a real thing.
There are people who can be experts on a subject.
I would hope that the pilot of my plane is an expert in flying a plane.
As we've seen, we can't rely on that being the case either anymore.
But that's what it should mean.
But we've also used the word expert and applied it to people who are making outrageously false claims.
I mean, the experts are the ones who told us that you can castrate your son and turn him into a girl.
That was the expert opinion.
That was the opinion of the expert class for years and still is with some of them.
So in a world like that, in a world where the experts are telling us that women have penises and men can have babies, the word expert just doesn't mean anything anymore.
It should, but it doesn't.
Which means that if you're going to have this conversation, skip past that.
We don't need to litigate what an expert is or who an expert is.
And at one point he asked Dave, because once they got into arguing about what happened after October 7th, how Israel responded, and Dave has all of his criticisms about what Israel has done.
And then Douglas Murray said, what would you have them do?
What would you prefer for them to have done?
If they want to rescue the hostages and also destroy Hamas, what do you want them to do instead?
And then, from what I remember, Dave, he pointed out that, okay, destroying Hamas and rescuing hostages are not necessarily the same objective.
And then they started talking about rescuing hostages.
They didn't really circle back to the destroying Hamas part.
And I would have liked to see him stick on that point.
So we could talk about maybe there are other ways to rescue the hostages, but do you think they should try to destroy Hamas, given what happened?
And if you do, how else should they go about it?
But they kind of moved on to other things, and it became a sort of unfocused, in my mind, sort of like circular conversation, as these debates tend to devolve into very often.
You feel like it's very hard to go from affluence to less affluence.
It's very hard to move backward.
It's hard for the human brain to deal with it.
But it's possible.
You feel like the United States could become significantly poorer, not poorer, but less rich than it is now, and still remain cohesive and happy, people with meaningful lives who love their neighbors and their spouses and their children.
But you're not going to do that without families.
You can't do that if people are living in studio apartments by themselves with their cats.
That's just not going to happen, right?
Right.
I just think objectively that's the most important issue.
Why isn't it the topic of discussion or debate?
And why did the Republican Party shunt aside social conservatives like circus freaks for 40 years?
I think there are a lot of people invested in it not being the topic of conversation because once you start talking about it, you start noticing things that they don't want you to notice.
You know, the actual agenda to destroy the family, to destroy marriage.
You start noticing that, you know, we veered off, took kind of a left turn veer off away from the way civilization was structured for thousands of years.
It hasn't really worked out.
You start looking at any of these things and you say, okay, well, we started making all these changes, all these reforms, all this supposed progress, and a lot of these wheels have been in motion for decades.
How has it worked out?
By its fruits you shall know it.
So how has it worked out?
None of it has worked out.
And I think you notice that, and I think there are people who don't want you to.
And also, Some of these social issues, when you're talking about families and these kinds of things, it hits closer to home.
And so people feel, everyone has, they have their own hang-ups, they have their own sensitivities, they have maybe mistakes they feel they've made in their own families, their own marriages, with their own kids, and they feel indicted, I think.
So I do think for some people it just feels it's safer to talk about issues that are 10,000 miles away.
But I do think there's a connection to the way that you live at home.
Connection between the way you live at home and, like, the policies that you espouse and the impulses that you have and, like, the vision that you have for the country you lead.
Like, I don't really know if you want people with, like, truly unsettled, dark personal lives with power.
In some ways, it's been better than I expected, in some significant ways.
I think that my number one criticism of Trump in his first term was, despite all the talk about how he's a fascist dictator, in reality, in his first term, it seemed to me he was very...
Shy about wielding his power and his authority.
He seemed to be a lot more worried about what people say about him, what the media says about him.
A lot more focused on the coverage and all that sort of thing.
And this time around, that doesn't seem to be the case.
And jumping in with 2,000 executive orders or whatever it was, dozens, touching on some real hot-button controversial issues.
But there are plenty of people, the majority, I would say, of people in Washington are arguing the opposite, which is like, you know, it doesn't matter that they're breaking the law.
That's what they're arguing.
In fact, they should be protected as they break the law.
So why are you following laws as someone who was born here, paying all the taxes for all this stuff?
You're propping up a system with at least half of the money you make every year, at least half, more than half if you total it all up, even in Tennessee, and you're paying for a system in which it's only downside for you,
and it's upside for people who are mocking the laws that you pay to enforce.
Because if I were to say, well, hey, if they don't have to follow the law, then neither do I. Well, really quickly, the system will come along and disabuse me of the notion that this is a...
I'm only throwing it out there because you said you were becoming much more radical and I'm trying to accelerate the process by pointing out some things that I want you to think about.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, it's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking.
With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.