Ep. 1231 - The Biggest Corporations In The Country Instituted A Near Total Ban On Hiring White People
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 2 minutes
Words per Minute
179.64034
Summary
A new report shows just how bad the anti-white discrimination in corporate America has become, and it s even worse than you thought. Also, looting breaks out in a major American city once again. Is there any way to put a stop to this? Yes, actually, easily we could. And a nonbinary influencer breaks down in tears on a podcast when his views are gently challenged. Plus, the media is finally starting to realize that single parenthood is not ideal. We ll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Welch Show.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a truly shocking new report shows just how bad the anti-white
00:00:04.440
discrimination in corporate America has become. It's even worse than you thought.
00:00:08.680
We'll talk about that. Also, looting breaks out in a major American city once again. Is there any
00:00:12.800
way to put a stop to this? Yes, actually, easily we could. And a non-binary influencer breaks down
00:00:17.840
in tears on a podcast when his views are gently challenged. Plus, the media is finally starting
00:00:22.240
to realize that single parenthood is not ideal. We'll talk about all that and more today on the
00:00:30.000
You know, we all have a lot on our schedules with how much we have to do every day, soccer practice,
00:00:56.360
science fairs, prepping for the holidays, etc. The good news is you can take
00:00:59.880
one big thing off your plate by putting great meat on your plate with Good Ranchers. You care
00:01:04.640
about what your family eats and so does Good Ranchers. That's why they've spent years building
00:01:08.380
relationships with local farms to source the best 100% American beef, chicken, pork, and now
00:01:12.860
wild-caught seafood too. The best of the land and the sea can now be conveniently delivered to your
00:01:17.880
door. Right now, they're offering two years of free ground beef to anyone who subscribes. That's
00:01:21.460
a $480 value. Two years of free high-quality ground beef and a locked-in price. No other meat
00:01:27.160
company guarantees you 100% American meat and locked-in prices. That's because no one else is
00:01:31.660
Good Ranchers. You can save on your beef, chicken, and pork by locking in your price today. Every
00:01:35.460
single steakhouse-quality cut is individually wrapped and flash-frozen to make mealtime easy.
00:01:39.880
Act fast since this deal won't last forever. Go to GoodRanchers.com today. Use my code Walsh for
00:01:44.440
$25 off and free ground beef for two years. Remember, subscribe to any box to lock in your
00:01:49.000
price on America's best meat for two whole years as well. That's GoodRanchers.com today and use my
00:01:53.800
code Walsh for over $500 in savings. Subscribe to Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
00:01:58.880
If you open any history textbook in this country, you'll learn that the crowning achievement of the
00:02:04.220
civil rights movement was supposedly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And for the first time in American
00:02:09.240
history, the law banned discrimination based on race, particularly in the context of employment.
00:02:14.460
And from that point forward, we were told businesses would not be allowed to hire or fire people because
00:02:20.000
they were black or white or Asian or whatever. It was supposedly the dawn of a new era. Lyndon
00:02:25.000
Johnson might have escalated our role in Vietnam, but at least he finished what JFK started and signed
00:02:29.980
the Civil Rights Act. And we should all be thankful for that. That is the comic book version of civil
00:02:35.780
rights law anyway, which also happens to be what pretty much everybody believes to this day.
00:02:40.840
The truth is different, though. The truth is that in 2023, the Civil Rights Act is not simply a dead
00:02:45.620
letter. It is a document so defunct, so pointless, so irrelevant that it stopped prohibiting racist
00:02:52.400
employment discrimination several years ago. And no one even noticed when it happened, at least since
00:02:57.820
2020 and probably much earlier. The largest corporations in this country have openly discriminated
00:03:02.700
against white people solely on the basis of skin color. And to be clear, we're not talking about
00:03:07.800
a quote unquote holistic discrimination or discrimination at the margins here. We're
00:03:12.740
talking about a de facto near total ban on hiring white people. So here are the numbers. And there's no
00:03:19.800
need to hype this up or use hyperbole because the numbers by themselves are shocking, like hard to
00:03:27.540
believe. In 2021, the largest public companies in the United States, meaning the companies in the
00:03:33.260
S&P 100, they hired collectively 300,000 people in that year. Now, of those 300,000 people, only 6% of
00:03:45.300
them were white. So a total of 94% of them were so-called people of color, meaning blacks, Hispanics,
00:03:52.520
and so on. Now, this is data so extreme that it doesn't even seem to be real. Even if you know
00:03:59.680
that anti-white discrimination is a real problem and it's happening in this country and it's,
00:04:04.860
you know, mainstream. Even if you knew that, when you hear these numbers, it's again, hard to believe.
00:04:12.360
These are the kinds of numbers that appear at first glance to be impossible, but they're not
00:04:16.480
impossible. The biggest corporations in the United States with the best funded legal departments in the
00:04:20.500
entire world implemented this virtually absolute ban on hiring whites without any regard to the
00:04:26.520
hallowed Civil Rights Act. And there was not a single news story about it. There was not a single
00:04:32.220
member of Congress of either party who paid any attention to the fact that 94% of new hires among
00:04:37.240
the biggest corporations in the United States were non-white. Now, to be fair, as this was happening,
00:04:42.680
companies in the S&P 100 insisted that they weren't targeting whites in particular. For example,
00:04:47.780
here's one Apple executive telling the Washington Post that their main goal in the era of George
00:04:53.680
Floyd is not to punish anyone. Instead, Apple said they just want to honor the victims of supposed
00:04:59.160
racial injustice and create a more equitable playing field. Watch. So Apple has taken an holistic
00:05:07.140
approach, a sort of approach to criminal justice, education, small business, or economic
00:05:12.360
empowerment. Why this approach as opposed to, say, a more concentrated approach that focuses on
00:05:19.700
one of those issues? Yeah, it's a great question. I think we wanted to try to touch the places where
00:05:27.360
we thought we could have impact. And in honor of how this all got started, you know, our racial equity
00:05:33.780
and justice initiative is three years old. It started in the wake of the George Floyd, the Breonna Taylor
00:05:39.920
deaths. And we wanted to honor their encounters with the criminal justice system, which was so
00:05:48.600
deeply unfair to say that those murders, as they happen, should also, there should be work done in
00:05:55.740
that area as well. Yes, we have to honor them. We have to honor these scumbags. We have to honor
00:06:02.540
these criminals, drug addicts, and drug dealers. We have to honor them. We have to honor them by making
00:06:07.960
sure that only 6% of our jobs go to white people. By the way, white people still account for, I think,
00:06:13.920
like 70% of the U.S. population in total. So that's 6% of the jobs going to 70% of the population.
00:06:25.000
Now, on the other end, black Americans account for about 13% of the population.
00:06:31.140
And if you see a disparity where only 6% of a certain kind of job are going to 13% of the population,
00:06:36.100
we're told that this is a massive, massive problem. And this is systemic racism.
00:06:43.100
So 6% to 13% would be systemic racism, terrible, awful. It's slavery. It's Jim Crow. But 6% of
00:06:50.200
jobs going to 70%. Now, well, there's nothing to see here. The executive at Apple goes on and on with
00:06:58.520
a bunch of platitudes. And she never mentions that the S&P 100 is going to un-person hundreds of
00:07:04.240
millions of white people, effectively. She never says that Apple is going to start running ads with
00:07:09.300
a diverse array of overweight, multicultural actors having a little sit-down with an obese rendition
00:07:15.240
of Mother Earth. Apple, like so many other companies in the S&P 100, tried to keep its hatred of white
00:07:21.540
people under wraps. And for the most part, they succeeded. We only know about what's happened here
00:07:26.580
because of an article in the left-wing Bloomberg News, of all places. And incredibly enough,
00:07:32.040
this was not an article condemning the overt racist discrimination of the S&P 100. Not at all.
00:07:37.340
This was not a breathtaking piece of investigative journalism that demanded answers as to why the
00:07:42.540
most powerful corporations were not hiring whites because they're whites. Instead, the article from
00:07:48.360
Bloomberg made this racial discrimination sound like a great thing. Bloomberg endorsed it,
00:07:53.440
more or less. Here's the headline from Bloomberg News. And again, this is the only reason we even
00:07:59.280
know about this. The only outlet reporting on the fact that only 6% of the jobs went to white people
00:08:04.980
is Bloomberg. But here's how they framed it. Corporate America promised to hire a lot more
00:08:09.360
people of color. It actually did. The relief from Bloomberg was palpable. Thank God that thousands
00:08:16.020
of white people didn't get hired in 2021, Bloomberg was saying. In fact, Bloomberg went a step further
00:08:21.440
than that. Bloomberg also published the story under a banner reading equality. So they acted like it's
00:08:27.420
a win for equality to reject the vast majority of white applicants. That's equality. Because nothing
00:08:34.280
screams equality like preventing white people from getting jobs. That's equality. What Bloomberg did is
00:08:40.860
collect data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which by law requires that large
00:08:46.040
companies report their demographics to the government. And in the interest of full disclosure,
00:08:50.740
we have to note that we haven't seen all this data because Bloomberg hasn't published all of it.
00:08:55.940
And a lot of this is not posted by the government online either. But from what Bloomberg has disclosed
00:09:00.960
and from publicly available records, we can make a few determinations. And for one thing,
00:09:05.700
and this is a minor point, but it's important to make it anyway, from what we can tell, the data appears
00:09:10.680
to be counting Hispanics as people of color. So you'll notice that when Hispanics commit violent crimes,
00:09:16.020
like running over retired ex-police chiefs with stolen cars, for example, they're listed as white
00:09:21.680
on official records. But in this case, they're considered people of color. Make of that what you
00:09:27.060
will. So if they get a job, they're a person of color. If they commit a crime, they're white.
00:09:33.740
The other point, more important though, is that Bloomberg's data only captures hiring by companies
00:09:39.940
in the S&P 100. And that includes some of the most recognizable and biggest companies, of course,
00:09:44.940
in the world, like Apple, Amazon, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, CVS, Boeing, and so on.
00:09:49.880
But it doesn't include the vast majority of companies in this country, including small businesses.
00:09:54.600
In all, Bloomberg reports, the corporations, the S&P 100 hired around 320,000 people in 2021.
00:10:00.780
For comparison that year, the U.S. economy added around 6 million jobs overall. So
00:10:05.260
what are all the other businesses in this country doing? Are they also rejecting white people
00:10:10.020
because they don't have enough melanin in their skin? That's a very good question. It's one that
00:10:14.520
Bloomberg doesn't answer. From what we can tell, looking at data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
00:10:19.720
thankfully, the answer right now is no. So this trend seems to be limited to the largest companies
00:10:25.360
in the S&P 100. Overall, there has not been as much of a trend among most small businesses and
00:10:31.020
mid-sized businesses in this country to stop hiring white people. And that's a good thing.
00:10:35.260
Instead, we're dealing with a top-down artificial system of anti-white discrimination that only the
00:10:41.000
very biggest companies are engaging. And of course, it's also true that most companies could
00:10:47.880
not possibly afford to ban the hiring of white people. That would leave them with a pool of
00:10:52.340
qualified applicants so small that they would go under within a week. They just couldn't do it. So
00:10:57.300
if you're looking for the kind of glass half-empty interpretation on all this data,
00:11:01.300
you might say that the companies that could afford to stop hiring white people did.
00:11:07.060
And the ones that couldn't afford it didn't. Either way, there's no way to minimize what's
00:11:11.820
happening. Think about all the qualified white people who were passed over for jobs. Think about
00:11:15.580
how many careers were completely derailed, in many cases, before they even started because of this.
00:11:22.720
Think about the cultural consequences of having flooded the market with legions of
00:11:26.960
underqualified workers at companies that—and these aren't just any companies. These are
00:11:31.360
companies that make our jets and fly our planes and design our electronics. This is a massive and
00:11:37.940
unprecedented catastrophe. Nothing like this has happened in modern history. At the same time,
00:11:44.460
we do need to recognize that this discrimination is artificial. There is no consensus in this country
00:11:49.360
that white people aren't worth hiring. Most businesses seem to understand that discrimination
00:11:55.220
against white people is immoral, not to mention bad for business or both.
00:11:59.560
Whatever the case, they're not doing it. It's the corporations at the very top of the heap,
00:12:04.160
the ones with the most power, and the lobbyists who can control public policy,
00:12:09.220
they're the ones who are pushing this. They're the ones driving the overt anti-white racism that we
00:12:14.300
now see every day and everywhere in society. Yesterday, we talked about this anti-white bias in the
00:12:21.620
courts, but really, it's all over the place. It's the reason white people can't get jobs in many
00:12:25.580
cases. The reason why many white people are unable to provide for their families. They fall into
00:12:29.780
despair and die of suicide and drug overdoses at a rate that would have been unfathomable just a few
00:12:34.940
years ago. Bloomberg didn't make any of that clear, but that's exactly what is happening.
00:12:40.920
Now, why is it happening? I mean, why are these corporations pursuing this anti-white,
00:12:47.560
anti-capitalist, flagrantly immoral agenda of mass racial discrimination?
00:12:52.900
What possible explanation can there be for this? Well, if you look at Bloomberg's website,
00:12:58.400
there's some suggestion of an explanation. Bloomberg boasts that in 2020, as people were dying and
00:13:03.080
police stations were being torched to honor the legacy of a blessed St. George Floyd,
00:13:07.500
Bloomberg reached out to the corporations in the S&P 100, quote,
00:13:11.420
that summer, Bloomberg News reporters and editors started a project to hold companies
00:13:14.860
accountable to these pledges by trying to collect data on workforce diversity that's usually kept
00:13:19.360
private. We asked the entire S&P 100 to share information on their worker demographics. We
00:13:24.380
targeted those companies because they employ millions of people in the U.S. and they're influential,
00:13:28.600
lucrative, and sit across a broad swath of industries. In other words, as BLM writers lit major
00:13:33.780
cities in this country on fire, Bloomberg reached out to companies like Apple and Amazon, told them
00:13:37.860
that they'd better stop hiring white people, told them that we're going to be watching you,
00:13:42.440
better not be hiring any white people. That was the import of what they were saying.
00:13:47.040
And now three years later, Bloomberg is gloating that these companies did in fact stop hiring white
00:13:52.200
people. But they're not mentioning that they pressured these companies to do that.
00:13:56.580
So this is activism journalism at its finest. It's a case study in it.
00:14:02.540
Now, this is not to blame Bloomberg for what's happening, of course. Bloomberg was merely taking
00:14:06.260
advantage of a vulnerability that already existed. They were one of many major media outlets that saw
00:14:12.440
that major corporations feared one thing above all else, which is that there would be an article
00:14:17.080
written accusing them of being racist. The biggest corporations in the United States were more
00:14:22.960
worried about being called bigots than they were about hiring competent employees. Bloomberg saw a
00:14:29.440
market opportunity and they took it. And that's why they're celebrating right now.
00:14:33.800
Now, for the rest of us, for people who care about the future of this country,
00:14:36.960
this isn't just a wake up call. It's a reason to ask every company in the S&P 100 where they stand on
00:14:44.160
the information that Bloomberg is currently reporting. Do they also hate hundreds of millions of American
00:14:49.340
citizens solely on the basis of how they look? Or do they recognize that what's happening here
00:14:54.060
is a grave injustice, one that is endangering everyone in the country and ruining millions of
00:15:00.480
lives? Corporations need to start answering those questions. And if they can, it's time to treat them
00:15:07.760
the same way Joe Biden's DOJ treats, quote unquote, white supremacists. We need to stop buying their
00:15:13.120
products. We need to stop putting up with their holistic approaches to anti-white racial
00:15:18.520
discrimination. It's time instead to destroy them. Now let's get to our five headlines.
00:15:31.420
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've done before. And for many,
00:15:35.560
it isn't something they want to do, but rather something they have to do. If you've put off
00:15:38.780
replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news. You can now get a
00:15:42.860
free in-home window consultation and a free price quote from Renewal by Anderson. Renewal by
00:15:47.860
Anderson Signature Service is committed to giving you the best customer experience possible through
00:15:52.480
the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive
00:15:57.080
product. Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable,
00:16:01.840
quality, affordable windows or patio doors for zero dollars down, zero payments, and zero interest
00:16:07.320
for a year. Text Walsh to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window
00:16:13.020
and $750 off every door. These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting
00:16:18.940
Walsh to 200-300. That's Walsh to 200-300. Texting privacy policy and terms conditions posted at
00:16:24.900
textplan.us. Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages. Message and data rates
00:16:30.540
apply. Reply stop. Topped out. Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
00:16:36.780
Staying on the topic of racial justice for a moment, a bunch of people in Philly last night
00:16:40.680
looted a bunch of stores in the name of racial justice. And Fox News has the report, Philadelphia
00:16:46.760
police responded to popular retailers like Apple, the Apple Store, Lululemon, and Foot Locker after
00:16:52.600
they were allegedly being ravaged by swarms of looters taking over the city of Brotherly Love
00:16:56.920
Tuesday evening. At about 8 p.m. Tuesday, police responded to reports of large crowds of juveniles
00:17:03.460
allegedly looting stores in the center city business corridor of the 9th District.
00:17:07.420
The police spokesperson said, quote, in a proactive measure, officers from the 9th District stopped a
00:17:12.740
group of males dressed in black attire and wearing masks at the intersection of 17th and Chestnut
00:17:17.100
Street. As of midnight on Wednesday, police confirmed between 15 and 20 people were arrested
00:17:22.140
during the looting and at least two firearms were recovered. As the officers were speaking with these
00:17:26.240
individuals, they began to receive reports of looting at the Foot Locker on Chestnut Street.
00:17:29.560
And a short time later, there was looting at the Apple Store. So we just talked about how these
00:17:36.980
corporations, in an effort to appease the mob and to show off their anti-racist bona fides,
00:17:45.840
they put basically a total ban on hiring white people, which is, you would think, an extreme measure.
00:17:52.860
But does that let them off the hook when it's time for the racial justice warriors to start
00:18:00.020
looting again? Are they going to say, oh, no, Apple's cool. They stopped. They don't even hire white people
00:18:04.760
anymore. No, of course not. So this is what happened. I'm also not sure why Fox uses the word
00:18:11.320
alleged in here like three times because there's no alleged involved. They looted. It's on video,
00:18:18.560
but it's not an allegation. A bunch of people allegedly looted this store that we're watching
00:18:24.460
them loot right now. And there are many videos of this. Here's one of the videos. We'll put this up
00:18:30.660
All right. So that's them. We can pause it. Look at all those, those hungry,
00:19:00.480
desperate people. You know, that's why right there in that particular video, they're looting
00:19:06.040
a liquor store and they're just coming out with, you know, fistfuls of vodka and other liquor,
00:19:13.400
just like whole hand. You know, you saw one guy walk out with like five handles of vodka
00:19:17.240
because he's desperate and starving and he needs to feed his family, right? He's just, he's got to
00:19:24.560
feed his family. He's going to feed his family vodka. That's what he's feeding them, apparently.
00:19:28.680
Um, now I have to say, when I see stuff like this and we see it so often, I'm tempted to say as so
00:19:39.280
many people do now, and I'm tempted to join in and say, Hey, if these people want to destroy their
00:19:45.220
own community, if they're so dedicated to the mission of making their own neighborhoods into
00:19:50.140
unlivable crime-ridden dumps, then fine. I mean, have at it. Go ahead. If that's what you want to do,
00:19:56.360
you want to create racial justice by making your own life worse, Godspeed. Uh, congratulations,
00:20:04.680
you damned morons, if that's what you want. Because that's all that this is ultimately,
00:20:09.980
all the looting and writing we've seen in recent years, it's all one giant act of self-immolation.
00:20:14.360
And you know, the, the attitude, the, um, the NIMBY attitude, uh, not in my backyard,
00:20:21.500
that attitude gets a, it's, it gets a bad rap, but it's actually inappropriate attitude. That's
00:20:27.940
how everyone should feel like not in my backyard. I don't want that here. If you live somewhere,
00:20:33.220
then that's how you should feel about where you live. And yeah, I mean, ideally you don't want bad
00:20:38.760
things to happen anywhere, but if they're going to happen, you don't want them to happen in your
00:20:41.760
backyard. Um, you live somewhere and you don't want the community where you live to turn into a
00:20:48.180
cesspool. That makes sense. That's a healthy attitude. But the attitude you see on display
00:20:52.520
in any of these writing videos is the opposite. It's like, yes, in my backyard, I, yes, I want my
00:20:57.860
own community to be the worst place on earth. Yes. Let's ensure that let's, let's chase out all the
00:21:05.440
jobs and all the businesses and everything and, uh, and, uh, and, and, and leave us with nothing
00:21:12.600
and then complain about food deserts. That's a good plan.
00:21:20.320
And again, the temptation is to say, well, okay, have it your way. But the reason I can't fully
00:21:24.340
write it off that way and go about my day is first of all, the people, uh, you know, actively and
00:21:30.140
deliberately destroying their own communities won't take any responsibility for it. Of course,
00:21:33.920
they do everything they can to make their neighborhoods so awful, as awful as possible.
00:21:39.080
And then they blame everybody else for it. Like I just mentioned the food, like looting,
00:21:45.500
finding all the stores around and restaurants and places that provide grocery stores that provide
00:21:50.160
food, robbing them, looting them, destroying them, and then turning around and saying, it's a food
00:21:56.840
desert. Why won't anyone come here and, and open up business and sell food? So there's the
00:22:03.440
refusal to take responsibility, but, but mainly the main point here, as I've said before, is that I
00:22:08.800
want, you know, I want justice. I value justice. Most people do. Normal people do. And that's why
00:22:16.360
when we see videos like this, uh, even though it's happening in a community that we don't live in,
00:22:21.380
and even though most, even though most of the people in those communities either voted for it
00:22:25.280
and chose it that way, or are actively participating in it, so you don't have a lot of sympathy for them,
00:22:30.780
still it makes us mad. And it should make us mad because we want justice. We want these thugs to
00:22:36.300
be punished because we value justice. And we also know how easy it would be to put a stop to this.
00:22:43.180
It's incredibly easy. Like you could do two things. Okay. First, you can explicitly empower
00:22:48.800
businesses to protect their property with lethal force if necessary. That's what I would do. If I was
00:22:53.780
in charge, um, I would say to business, the first thing I would do is say to business owners, listen,
00:22:59.120
your business is your livelihood. It's your life. It's your children's lives. Um, mobs of hooligans
00:23:06.720
who come in to ransack your business, they're putting your life at risk and, and they have no
00:23:11.460
right to do that. So feel free to act in self-defense. I'm going to give you a lot of leeway.
00:23:17.640
Okay. You, you do what you feel you need to do when those people come in there, uh, looking to,
00:23:24.740
to, to steal all the, all the liquor off the shelf, do what you feel you need to do.
00:23:29.700
And we're not going to second guess you. That's one thing you could do. And, and then the looters
00:23:36.380
would know that they're putting their lives, they're putting their own lives at risk.
00:23:39.940
And some of them are so dumb, they do it anyway, but a good portion of them, you know,
00:23:44.940
they're going to think, uh, it's not worth that. The other thing you can do is you can take,
00:23:49.940
you can take, uh, one of these videos and you can, because I know they're going to tell us,
00:23:55.380
in fact, we saw, we read in the article that 20 people were arrested. The police are very proud
00:24:00.020
of themselves. We arrested 20 people. Well, 20 people, why wasn't it like 200 people? Why didn't
00:24:05.700
you arrest all of them? Is really the question, but, um, it's, it's not so much arresting them.
00:24:12.540
It's what happens after. So you can arrest people all you want. And even arresting 20 people,
00:24:18.140
that might be enough. Actually, if you've got 200 people looting and you arrest 20 of them,
00:24:23.760
that might be enough depending on what happens to them after you arrest them. And the problem is
00:24:30.340
that most of the time you arrest them and then they're back on the street, literally the next
00:24:34.360
day. And they never, they never spend one day in prison. So what you could do is you could look at
00:24:41.240
these videos and you could identify, you know, maybe it's just 20 people and, uh, you arrest them
00:24:47.560
and then you put them in prison for 20 years. It doesn't matter how old they are. It doesn't matter
00:24:54.560
who they are. It doesn't matter their age. Charge them all as adults. I don't care. It's a 17 year
00:25:00.240
old doing it. You're getting charged as an adult. Um, and you just completely destroy their lives.
00:25:05.980
You make an example of them. You're just, okay, you, you, you know, you did this. Now you're going
00:25:12.480
to be in jail until you're 40. Congratulations. I hope that handle of vodka was worth it to you.
00:25:18.280
Your life is basically over now. And then, uh, and you pass down the sentence and you get the
00:25:25.340
video of them weeping and wailing as the judge tells them that they're going to be in prison for
00:25:28.840
20 years. And they start crying about it and saying, Oh, I did was, I just took one thing.
00:25:33.380
Um, and then you spread that video around and make sure everybody sees it. Then you make an
00:25:38.000
example out of them. And then guess what? Most of these people, um, they're not going to think
00:25:43.000
it's worth it to go in and grab that bottle of liquor. It's not worth the price. Some of them
00:25:47.820
still will. And then you give them even harsher sentences. And that's what you do. If you're serious
00:25:54.440
about justice, if you're serious about maintaining order, if you're serious about how, if you want to
00:25:59.520
have a civilization, that is what you do. Um, but the people in charge want the opposite. So that,
00:26:07.460
that's the problem. Like everything I'm saying is incredibly obvious. Uh, and it doesn't even
00:26:12.060
really need to be said because the people, it's not like the people in charge, they know this.
00:26:16.040
They know that everyone, the, the law enforcement, the courts, um, and I put the, and this is more on
00:26:24.160
the courts than it is law enforcement because law enforcement, they can't, you know, they can arrest
00:26:26.920
you, but they can't do anything about what happens afterwards. So the people in charge,
00:26:31.700
the court system, they know all that they, they know that they could easily put an end to all of
00:26:35.920
this. Like overnight, they could do it, but they don't want to because this is, this is the world
00:26:42.220
they want us all to live in. All right. This is from NBC news. In the most recent episode of Dax Shepard's
00:26:50.740
podcast, armchair expert, Jonathan Van Ness broke down in tears while defending the rights of
00:26:55.340
transgender kids. Shepard and Van Ness engaged in a lighthearted conversation about a range of topics
00:27:00.580
before they began talking about the New York times. When Van Ness said the publication should
00:27:05.040
not be considered left-leaning, Shepard responded with, it absolutely is. Van Ness then said the
00:27:10.100
publication shares anti-trans content. After the two went back and forth on the topic, Shepard said,
00:27:16.620
some people are very uncomfortable about teenagers transitioning. They're challenging that. How do we
00:27:20.680
know that that person's not going to change their mind? Shepard said to even question,
00:27:25.460
it makes you an enemy. I don't think that's the way forward. And first of all, who is Jonathan Van
00:27:30.220
Ness? Does anybody know? Not that it matters. Jonathan Van Ness is a hairstylist. Okay.
00:27:39.340
And TV personality. And so he's on this, this podcast. This is going viral. This, this conversation
00:27:45.600
going back to the article says, Van Ness said that it felt like they were talking to their dad.
00:27:49.560
They then went on to discuss how transgender athletes do not have the competitive advantage
00:27:53.520
that some claim they do. Shepard responded by asking whether the inclusion of transgender
00:27:59.660
athletes is safe or fair for cis women in the sports. The two then discussed the topic for over
00:28:04.720
20 minutes. Okay. First of all, if you're confused by the way that this article is written, and it's not
00:28:11.540
just because you have no idea who this Van Ness guy is. Well, the reason you're confused is that Van
00:28:15.740
Ness identifies apparently as non-binary, which means of course, that when you speak about him
00:28:20.740
or you write about him, you have, you have to speak and write in a way that's completely incoherent
00:28:25.760
and impossible to understand. So, I mean, this sentence, Van Ness said it felt like they were
00:28:32.220
talking to their dad. They then went on to discuss how transgender athletes do not have
00:28:36.360
the competitive advantage that some people claim they do. Okay. So you've got the word they that
00:28:43.620
appears in those two sentences three times. And based on the way language works, this would
00:28:49.980
mean that Van Ness and Dax Shepard are brothers because they have the same dad. That's what the
00:28:56.160
sentence, they were talking about their dad. It sounded like they were talking about their
00:29:01.440
dad. And then they went on to talk about something else. Based on the way language works, that means
00:29:08.640
that they have the same dad. They were talking about their dad. So both of them, them, the two of
00:29:13.280
them are talking about their dad. They have been their brothers. Dax Shepard and this guy
00:29:18.040
are brothers. Well, but they're not, they're not brothers because in one sentence, they refers
00:29:25.700
to a single individual. And in the very next sentence, it refers to both people. Now we used
00:29:30.740
to call this bad writing and incorrect grammar, but now we just call it affirmation. As for everything
00:29:40.280
else, first, there's the claim, um, by Van Ness that trans women, men don't have a competitive
00:29:48.320
advantage. And he actually laid this out recently in an Instagram video. Uh, and I want to listen
00:29:53.200
to, to some, we only need to listen to the first piece of this, but go ahead and play that.
00:29:56.960
Let's talk about transphobia in sports. There's so many conversations around trans inclusion in
00:30:03.080
sports. We have state houses all over the United States that are passing bills to, uh, make sure
00:30:07.760
that no trans kids are allowed to play sport at any level in their state. And I just think that this
00:30:12.680
is a huge travesty. The science that we have now says that transgender women do not hold an unfair
00:30:18.300
biological advantage over, um, cis women. So that's what the science says. But let's just say,
00:30:24.600
you know, now what so much of the rhetoric is as well, if someone has gone through a male puberty,
00:30:29.920
um, and they've ever experienced that male puberty, then they will always be,
00:30:33.920
they will always be unfair to play women's sports and we have to protect women's sports. So we can't
00:30:38.360
have anybody who's experienced a male puberty in women's sports if it's a trans woman. So, okay,
00:30:42.760
let's say, let's say that that's true, even though the science does not support that, but let's say
00:30:46.480
that that is true. So now though, we have in dozens of States in the United States that have outlawed
00:30:51.840
gender affirming care for trans kids. So if there was a young trans girl who say, who let's say
00:30:57.600
wanted to be a figure skater or a gymnast or a golfer or whatever the hell, she wouldn't be able
00:31:03.080
to access the hormone blockers that would make it so that she would not go through a puberty.
00:31:08.480
All right. Shut up. Just, just, uh, every part of that is just from the very beginning, everything
00:31:12.820
that he's saying is, is just, is a total lie. And, uh, and I know that, you know, you,
00:31:18.800
you might watch a video like that with a guy like that and think, well, who, I mean, this guy,
00:31:22.660
no one's listening to this guy. No one's, who cares what he's saying? That is no,
00:31:26.300
obviously this guy probably has an IQ of 65 and who cares, but people do listen. I mean,
00:31:32.720
parts of the, one of the big cultural problems that people do listen to a guy like this,
00:31:35.480
you know, he's got a lot of Instagram followers. People listen to that. They hear a claim like that
00:31:39.100
and they believe it all the, so from the very, very beginning, well, they're, they're trying to pass
00:31:43.300
laws, uh, ensuring that trans people can't play sports at any level. That law doesn't exist
00:31:49.680
anywhere. Literally no one anywhere has passed or even proposed a law like that. Such a law has
00:31:57.900
never been discussed. No one is saying that we should pass a law banning trans identified people
00:32:04.320
from playing in sports. What if there's a trans girl who wants to be a figure skater? He can be a
00:32:09.160
figure skater. No one's stopping him. Nothing is changing at all. Trans identified people can
00:32:17.640
play sports at any level. The only difference is that you, you just play according to what your sex
00:32:25.680
is. You, you, you play according to what biological category you belong to, which is just no way of
00:32:30.360
saying that trans identified people are simply being expected to follow the same program and the
00:32:35.360
same rules that everyone else is following and has followed since forever.
00:32:39.160
Um, and then we hear that there's that, Oh, the new science. Did you know that?
00:32:45.640
Well, you know, the science now says that quote unquote trans women don't have an advantage. Oh,
00:32:49.500
really? The science says that there's new science has just dropped. Did you know that?
00:32:55.840
Yeah. It's the hottest new thing on the streets right now. This new science that just came out,
00:32:59.300
some new science came out and it apparently it turns out that everything we thought we knew
00:33:04.440
about the, the biology of the sexes is wrong. According to the science, can he quote any of
00:33:12.180
this science? Can he explain it? No, he can't. Cause it's just not, it's total nonsense. Just making
00:33:17.360
it up. And this is what they do. So this is what he brought into the conversation with Dak Shepard.
00:33:23.700
Uh, and then he started crying and, uh, uh, and here's a clip of that.
00:33:28.500
99% of kids who want to play sports, like aren't trying to go to the Olympics. Right. Honestly,
00:33:32.340
I just, I wanted to come like chat about my podcast. Like other, we're going to do that.
00:33:36.620
We're going to do that. I did not intend at all to get into a debate with you about this. I didn't
00:33:40.720
want that at all. I adore you. I think you're hysterical and talented and I love that you're an
00:33:44.800
activist. I could just like cry. Cause I'm like so tired of having to like fight for little kids
00:33:50.840
because they just want to be included. I wish that people were as passionate about
00:33:55.820
little kids being able to like be included or grow up as they were about fictitious women's
00:34:02.020
fairness in sports. I have to tell you, I am very tired. Yeah. I'm sure you are passionate about
00:34:08.640
little kids. Uh, you're tired. I'm so tired. He says, this is what these people do. They lie about
00:34:16.320
everything. They're totally full of about everything, uh, everything, nothing they say
00:34:21.960
is true. Uh, they advocate for the most horrific things imaginable. I mean, what he's actually
00:34:27.540
defending is the butchery of children, castration, sterilization of children. It's not just,
00:34:31.700
it's not just indefensible. It's among the most indefensible things in the world.
00:34:36.320
Okay. You know, trying to defend this, it's like, it's like defending cannibalism. I mean, it's,
00:34:40.960
it's, it's defending outright barbarism and he pretends that he wants to protect kids. He does
00:34:48.500
the whole think of the children routine, but all he's thinking about is how he wants, he wants them
00:34:53.440
sterilized and mutilated. I just care about the children so much. He says when, when he wants to
00:35:02.500
them physically abused, all of that. And then rather than defend it because he can't defend it,
00:35:08.980
he starts crying because all these people have is lies. Well, are lies and emotional manipulation.
00:35:17.920
That is the whole tool shed. Every tool in the shed lies and emotional manipulation. This is the
00:35:25.860
whole routine. Every time say a whole bunch of nonsense. And then when someone slightly pushes
00:35:30.300
back, I'm so tired, I don't want to talk about this anymore. Tired of what, what the hell have you
00:35:36.700
gone through in your life? Tired? Like, look at you, you in every way have the appearance of a man
00:35:45.740
who has never experienced even one moment of bullying or persecution in your entire life.
00:35:52.800
The fact that you can run around calling yourself non-binary and dressing the way you do and carrying
00:35:58.160
on the way you do, it's a pretty good indication that there, that, that a lack of affirmation and,
00:36:03.120
and a lack of support, these are not your problems. Your problem is very much on the opposite end of
00:36:11.320
that spectrum. And then you have Dax Shepard who, once again, I mean, how many times have we seen
00:36:17.780
this exact thing? We just played, uh, we had the clip from Trevor Noah, the Daily Show clip that was
00:36:22.980
going viral last week. We played, we played it and it was the same, the same thing where you have
00:36:28.780
someone like a relatively normal person who understands that this is all crazy and, and like
00:36:38.620
sort of very meekly, very gingerly, uh, cautiously pushes back a little bit.
00:36:47.700
And then the other person starts crying and doing that whole routine. And then, and then they,
00:36:51.580
they back away. Oh, nevermind. I, I, I, I'd love, you're so amazing. I love you so much.
00:36:56.980
Everything you say is actually correct. Nevermind. Uh, nevermind. I, I reject all of
00:37:01.340
science and biology and reality and stuff. I reject reality itself for your sake because
00:37:05.140
you're crying. I don't want you to cry. That's why it just doesn't work. I've been saying this
00:37:10.520
all along. It doesn't work. Trying to be gentle and trying to be nice and polite. It doesn't work.
00:37:16.720
I wish it did. Okay. If, if, if it was possible to be nice, I prefer to be nice and polite. I mean,
00:37:23.400
it might not, it might surprise you to learn that I prefer to be nice and polite. If I can be,
00:37:27.380
I'd much rather be that way. If I, if I can, it doesn't work with these people. You can't,
00:37:34.240
there is no nice, polite way to approach it. And that's why I've been, I've been shouting this from
00:37:41.340
the rooftops for years and, and, and slowly, but surely people started to understand
00:37:47.940
that when dealing with the left in general, but especially on this issue, trans, LGBT,
00:37:55.240
transing the kids, that whole world of issues, being nice and polite just doesn't work.
00:38:03.400
They will eat you alive. If that's how you try to approach it,
00:38:08.560
eat you alive in their way by being pathetic cry bullies.
00:38:12.320
The only attitude that works is just look them in the eye and say, everything you're saying is
00:38:18.460
nonsense. Here's why. And then they start crying and say, I don't, I don't care that you're crying.
00:38:21.820
I'm so tired. This is making me cry. Oh, good. Okay. What are you crying for? You're pathetic.
00:38:27.680
Like grow up. You're a grown man sitting over there crying. Cause we're having a, we're having a
00:38:31.500
debate. The hell kind of person are you? That's disgusting. It's, it's repulsive to me that
00:38:37.760
That's what Dak should have said. There's no way you have, if he would have said that,
00:38:45.440
he would have earned at least one lifelong podcast fan in me. All right.
00:38:55.580
Let's see. One other quick thing before we get to the next segment.
00:38:59.120
Collider has this. So this is a, you know, I I've seen this story and I've been trying to get some
00:39:06.860
confirmation for it and I haven't, I don't know. I don't even know if this is true or not, but it
00:39:11.700
says over the years, it's been said that laughter is the best medicine in the modern world. Okay.
00:39:16.240
I don't need any of that. Who cares? I don't need to read that. The article is basically that
00:39:19.820
they're, they're coming up with a reboot of the office. That's the claim anyway. So I've seen this
00:39:23.460
reported it's all over the headlines that they're doing a reboot of the office. And then I've tried
00:39:30.480
to, not that I've spent a lot of time researching this very important topic, but I've wondered where
00:39:34.800
is that coming from? Who said that they're doing a reboot? And I haven't quite found that, but
00:39:38.660
that's the claim anyway. It's not, it's not a big shock because, because of course, as we know,
00:39:45.420
Hollywood has completely run out of ideas. I mean, that didn't happen recently. They've,
00:39:48.640
they've been running on fumes. They've been running on creative fumes for really decades
00:39:53.680
now. And so now they want to reboot the office, which doesn't make any sense on multiple levels.
00:40:02.420
And the first level where it makes no sense is that the office is already a reboot. There's
00:40:08.360
the UK office. And then it was, and then that, that show ended. And that, that was a show that
00:40:15.300
actually knew how to, you know, like tell the story, get the jokes across and then get out.
00:40:22.520
That was two seasons, uh, two seasons of the original office was two seasons long.
00:40:27.580
And each, I think each, each season was like six episodes. Like there's like 12 or 30 episodes total
00:40:32.260
for the whole show. Could have, could have kept going, but, uh, they said, we've told the story.
00:40:37.380
We don't need to keep going. There's, there's not a whole lot else to say here. We got the point
00:40:40.480
across and then it was rebooted with the office. And, uh, that was funny for three and a half
00:40:45.520
seasons. And then it just fell off a cliff and it kept going for another six seasons or something.
00:40:50.220
And, uh, and now they want to do, and then they already had offshoot like parks and recreation.
00:40:54.140
So they had kind of like these, these sort of offshoot related cousin type shows. And now they want
00:40:58.780
to reboot. They want to reboot the reboot. Um, but of course the main reason why this is a terrible
00:41:05.240
idea is that as, uh, many people have pointed out, I'm certainly not the first, but a show like that
00:41:13.780
simply just can't exist in modern society. Now it can exist, like some of these shows, they can be
00:41:20.600
and films and things, they can be sort of grandfathered in because they already are there
00:41:26.060
and they're part of the zeitgeist and they're part of the culture. And so, you know, and so they're
00:41:32.080
allowed to continue sort of existing in memory, but, um, there's just no way that something like
00:41:39.960
that could be made, could actually be made now. You couldn't do it. It's like a movie, like a Mrs.
00:41:46.580
Doubtfire or something. Yeah, that that's out there. No one has circled back to cancel it yet.
00:41:52.100
Uh, lots of people in the nineties when they're growing up, saw that movie.
00:41:56.180
Could that exact movie be made now? No, hell no. A movie where the whole joke
00:42:01.500
is that a guy's dressing up like a, like a woman. It's like, it's funny. We're laughing at him.
00:42:08.080
Which is, which is, you know, back historically, you know, if Hollywood had a plot line where a guy's
00:42:15.280
dressing up like a woman, it was always, that's ridiculous. It's crazy. Let's laugh at it. This is
00:42:21.580
like a, it's a clown. This person's a clown now doing this for our amusement. So you can't do that
00:42:28.040
anymore and, uh, you can't have the office anymore because they're telling jokes that are related to
00:42:33.160
race and ethnicity and sexual orientation. And, you know, everyone's kind of, Michael Scott's the
00:42:38.040
butt of the joke, but everyone's kind of the butt of the joke and you're having fun with all these
00:42:41.500
different things and it just can't exist anymore. Humor cannot exist in this society, unfortunately.
00:42:52.460
This year has been unbelievably busy for me so far, but that doesn't mean I've neglected my
00:42:56.640
responsibility of stocking my swag shack over at dailywire.com slash shop. I'm out here pouring
00:43:02.440
blood, sweat, and tears into secret projects like Dancing with the Stars. And you probably
00:43:06.140
didn't even know that we sell candles now, but we do. Candles are not one of the special projects to
00:43:11.240
be clear, but don't let that stop you from getting the what is a candle candle with a sweet and
00:43:15.980
refreshing smell. It's exactly what one would imagine a candle probably smells like. There's
00:43:21.380
that and so much more in my collection. So head on over to dailywire.com slash shop.
00:43:27.420
Frederick Oscarson with a comment about the naked attraction, a full frontal new dating show we
00:43:33.880
talked about in the daily cancellation yesterday that is now coming to HBO Max. Well, it's on HBO Max
00:43:40.120
right now. And unsurprisingly, I'm not a fan of the fact that this show exists. I don't think that
00:43:47.520
it should. Frederick says with also an unsurprising comment, you're a typical American prude. Stay
00:43:54.220
with politics and the gender problems. It's a fun show to watch. Been airing here in Europe for a long
00:43:59.200
time. It's not the Stone Age anymore. I think that last comment is pretty funny because
00:44:05.480
it's not the Stone Age. So what is this, Frederick? To you, this is a sign of cultural advancement
00:44:15.500
and sophistication. A show where you take naked people and put them in boxes and then have someone
00:44:22.460
else standing there and judging each body part. Judging the faceless body parts of naked,
00:44:31.360
nameless people to decide who you want to copulate with. That to you is a, well, that's a sign of,
00:44:39.220
well, it's not the Stone Age anymore. It's a modern society. That's how advanced we are. This is
00:44:42.940
advancement. I mean, the funny thing is that it's actually quite barbaric and primitive.
00:44:48.460
You know, it's deciding on a mate that way by just assessing their naked body. They don't even
00:44:55.600
have a face or a name. I mean, it's a lot of things, but I would also call it like pretty savage
00:45:01.180
and primitive and barbaric. And then, uh, yes, it's, you're a prude. So this, it's also funny to
00:45:07.820
see the way that the, uh, prude, uh, goalpost has moved over, you know, through the years.
00:45:15.320
So you're always, you're always, uh, if you just, if you, what, what we find is that if you try to
00:45:21.320
draw the line anywhere at all, then you're always just a prude, which is interesting to me.
00:45:29.440
Bob Mack says, in full disclosure, I'm black, but conservative. MW is my favorite cultural critic
00:45:34.020
bar. None 99% agree, but not here. Three brothers minding their own business are provoked by an idiot
00:45:39.620
with a fake gun gets beat up when these guys become insatiably enraged. Manslaughter is fair.
00:45:45.320
Tom says on the same case, the case of Ethan Liming, which we started the show with yesterday.
00:45:50.600
Tom says, uh, the men shouldn't have stomped Ethan to death, but he definitely deserved a whooping.
00:45:57.340
Well, at least you would say they, at least you agree they shouldn't have done that. Yeah,
00:46:00.240
they shouldn't have stomped him to death. Yeah. You think so, Tom?
00:46:05.060
One, it's a crime of passion in my opinion. Two, you don't know what liquid could be in those pellets.
00:46:09.360
And three, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, don't shoot people with stuff. And this never happens.
00:46:14.380
Look, first of all, even if you were to argue that manslaughter is fair for the reasons that are
00:46:22.820
laid out here, that they were mad, um, they didn't get convicted of manslaughter. That's the point.
00:46:30.100
Manslaughter was a down, they originally, they originally charged with murder and then it was
00:46:33.280
downgraded to manslaughter and they couldn't even get convicted of that. They, so if I agreed with,
00:46:38.460
with both, with everything that Bob and Tom are saying here, if I agreed and say, oh, it's a crime
00:46:43.980
of passion, it's manslaughter, they didn't get convicted of that. They beat someone to death, all three
00:46:51.160
of them, and didn't, the fact that he died is not factored in to the conviction. They were just convicted
00:46:59.420
of assault. So, in other words, if they had beat, if they had just come up and punched him in the face
00:47:06.040
and told him to knock it off, and then he was fine, he just had a bloody lip or something and
00:47:11.260
went about his day, they went about his day, you know, they both went about their days, that would
00:47:14.980
be assault. And so, you know, the charge would have been the same. Basically, what we're being told
00:47:22.420
is that the fact that he was killed and stomped on while lying on the ground is not even relevant,
00:47:29.620
which is crazy. And I also have to say that, look, call me old-fashioned. I am from the Stone Age,
00:47:38.700
remember. But I don't think the fact that you're angry is in and of itself an excuse or necessarily
00:47:49.460
even a mitigating factor when you beat somebody to death. Like, I'm sure that you were angry. I don't
00:47:56.980
think that you beat someone to death unless you're angry. But I don't see that as an excuse,
00:48:01.280
and I don't see it really as a mitigating factor. The only thing that could justify what happened
00:48:07.420
is if they felt that their lives were in danger, and so they attacked him, you know, in their mind
00:48:14.480
in self-defense. And in the midst of the struggle, he sadly lost his life. And then if that were the
00:48:21.020
case, then I would say, look, yeah, I mean, you'd say to Ethan Liming, you provoked it,
00:48:26.200
you started it, you know, which is true. And they thought that, you know, they didn't know that it
00:48:32.320
was a fake gun. I mean, they thought that their lives were in jeopardy, and they defended themselves,
00:48:36.220
and this happened. But that's not the case. Remember, first of all, he's using a gun. I think
00:48:43.040
it's very relevant to note what the gun looks like. He's using a gun that looks like a Nerf gun.
00:48:46.720
It's very clearly a fake gun. It's not real. It's clearly a toy. And they also got hit with
00:48:52.340
the water pellet, so, like, they know that, you know, they know what's going on. And in any case,
00:48:59.780
when they go up, it's their right to confront him. At first, they kind of run away because they think
00:49:04.180
that they're under attack, and then they circle back, and they go after him. And that part of it,
00:49:08.700
okay, you know, the guy runs up, and he's shooting the water pellets at you. Confront him. You've
00:49:12.840
got everybody to do that. But then they just beat him mercilessly, and while he's on the ground,
00:49:18.500
they stomp on him. And to me, like, if anything should get you convicted of not just manslaughter,
00:49:26.740
but murder, it's that part of it. When the person is on the ground, and you start stomping them,
00:49:32.820
now we're well beyond self-defense. There's not self-defense anymore. Like, there's no such thing
00:49:37.360
as a stomp in self-defense. That means the person's on the ground already and fully, like,
00:49:43.140
at your mercy when you start stomping them. So that's not self-defense or anything close to it,
00:49:51.040
and that has gone way beyond what could be justified as, you know, anger, passion. That is just, like,
00:49:58.120
gratuitous, and now it is you want to inflict as much damage as you possibly can on this now
00:50:05.840
defenseless person just for the sake of it. And they should be in jail for the rest of their lives.
00:50:15.380
This is another, you know, example of a time when an example should be made of somebody.
00:50:20.420
Because you see this all the time in these videos that unfortunately circulate on Twitter and other
00:50:24.880
social media platforms where people are being randomly assaulted, and you always see this.
00:50:30.940
It's a very familiar move now. Someone's getting assaulted. They end up on the ground,
00:50:34.540
and then the stomping starts. Like, just kicking someone in the head while they're on the ground.
00:50:40.900
The court should come down very hard on that. You kick somebody in the head when they're on the
00:50:45.060
ground, you're going to jail for a long time. But that, again, is if you actually cared about
00:50:53.200
Who doesn't love a good Columbus Day sale? Some folks don't even want you to celebrate Columbus Day.
00:50:56.940
Well, at Jeremy's Razors, we want you to discover the new world of woke-free shaving.
00:51:01.280
Get $20 off select Jeremy's Razors products and bundles, including the Precision 5 Starter Kit,
00:51:06.280
the Founder's Kit, the Beard Kit, the Skin Care Bundle, and more. Be a pioneer for a better
00:51:10.220
shave and better hygiene. Don't wait. Make the switch today. Get yours at jeremysrazors.com.
00:51:23.420
Today we go back to the Atlantic, which has recently become very fertile soil for the daily
00:51:28.300
cancellation. Last week we had to cancel a woman who wrote an article for the publication trying
00:51:31.800
to explain why nobody should care about a woman's body count. And today we have a not entirely
00:51:36.860
unrelated subject, this time written by a woman named Annie Lowry. And the headline poses a question,
00:51:41.820
which is this, is single parenthood the problem? Now, if I were the author, the text of the article
00:51:46.780
would be very short. In fact, it would be one word and the answer would be yes. Single parenthood is
00:51:51.980
the problem, or it is at least a problem, a very big one. But Lowry has more to say than that,
00:51:57.240
and not everything she says is wrong. She begins, quote, the most heavily anticipated economics book
00:52:01.840
of the year makes a radical argument. Having married parents is good for kids. I know, I know,
00:52:06.940
it seems like a joke, right? Of course, having two involved parents living in a stable home together
00:52:10.920
is good for kids. Anyone who has considered having children with a partner or was ever a child
00:52:14.680
themselves must know that. But for years, academics studying poverty, mobility, and family structures
00:52:19.280
have avoided that self-evident truth. The economist Melissa Kearney writes in the two-parent privilege
00:52:25.280
released this week, and while the wonks avoided the topic, the rise of single-parent households
00:52:29.820
in America exacerbated inequality and contributed to astonishingly high rates of child poverty.
00:52:35.960
Now, this part is all true, of course, but there's much more to say. In fact,
00:52:39.540
this is the whole story right here. It would at least make for a more interesting article in
00:52:44.140
The Atlantic, I would think. Everyone knows it's better for kids to be raised by two parents than
00:52:49.000
by one. That's how things are naturally set up. Every child has two biological parents. No child
00:52:55.800
has ever had one or three, only two, which is a pretty good indication that they are supposed to
00:53:01.860
be raised by two. And those two, just to be clear, are a man and a woman. This is the most natural thing.
00:53:09.840
Or I should say, it's nature in its elevated, civilized state. Now, in the animal kingdom, in most
00:53:16.240
cases, babies are conceived, the father runs off after copulation, and the babies are born and
00:53:22.660
they're raised only by their mothers, and usually only for a short time before they're out on their
00:53:27.060
own. So single parenthood becoming more common and accepted in human society is a sign that society
00:53:35.040
is devolving. People are behaving more like cats and crocodiles than human beings. Single parenthood is
00:53:41.980
literally animalistic. It's what you find in the animal kingdom. It's a family arrangement that you
00:53:48.380
can find in the forest or in the jungle or out on the Serengeti. It's not meant for human society.
00:53:55.640
We are not beasts. We are people. And we're supposed to raise our children, both parents,
00:54:00.580
father and mother. Now, obviously, we're speaking here on the broad societal level. Society devolves and
00:54:06.560
it becomes more animalistic when it accepts and promotes single parenthood as a positive good,
00:54:11.820
as equal to the nuclear family or even better than it. Now, that isn't to say that obviously
00:54:18.260
every single parent themselves has done something wrong necessarily. If a child is raised by one
00:54:22.860
parent because the other parent died, for example, then that's a situation where you have no choice
00:54:27.000
but to make do. And those parents deserve a lot of credit and a lot of respect. The same for a
00:54:31.840
situation where a child is raised by one parent because the other abandoned the family. The one
00:54:36.560
who has left is, uh, is now the one who left the family and abandoned the family is acting like an
00:54:42.120
animal. The one who is left is doing the best they can to compensate. The trouble is that many kids are
00:54:48.020
being raised in single parent households because both parents are irresponsible and selfish or because
00:54:53.960
the single parent chose to break up the family for no good reason. This is why the universal celebration
00:54:59.340
of single moms as if they're all victims put in a difficult spot through no fault of their own
00:55:03.760
has always been horribly misguided. Now, some of them are victims who are put in a difficult spot,
00:55:09.280
uh, through no fault of their own, but certainly not all and probably not the majority.
00:55:15.440
But as the author notes, the so-called experts, the academics, the economists, the, uh, the, uh,
00:55:20.560
college professors, the politicians, and so on have for many years ignored or outright denied
00:55:25.040
these basic realities. It's just one of the, uh, one of the great, uh, many basic realities that
00:55:30.500
these people have tried to cover up or distract us from. They tie themselves into pretzels to try
00:55:35.240
and explain why it's good actually for kids to have only one parent raising them instead of two.
00:55:40.320
They try desperately to pretend that all family arrangements are equally valid, equally good,
00:55:44.200
equally likely to lead to well-adjusted children who can thrive as functional adults in society.
00:55:48.820
On this topic, as on so many other topics, the experts use their alleged expertise to lead society
00:55:54.820
deeper into confusion and self-destruction. And now they have the gall to complain that people no
00:56:00.440
longer trust the expert class. Well, how can we trust them? You know what I mean? They've only been
00:56:07.140
horrendously wrong about everything my entire life. They've only tried to tear human civilization apart
00:56:12.420
at the seams. Other than that, they've earned our trust. And we could spend longer analyzing all this,
00:56:18.580
but the author moves on and we get to this part, quote, but it is worth asking what good comes
00:56:23.180
of pointing out that many people could use a cohabitating partner and that many kids could
00:56:27.680
use a second involved parent. Kearney has written an important, careful book on a topic that is an
00:56:32.600
elephant in the room. As she puts it, still, I'm not sure anyone has any idea what to do with the
00:56:37.680
elephant. Kearney's own research and the research of other scholars convinced her that the rise of
00:56:41.640
single parenthood wasn't important and overlooked social phenomenon, a key to understanding the
00:56:45.820
country's low rates of mobility and high rates of poverty. Well, I have to say, no, it was not
00:56:52.920
overlooked. Okay, the problem of single parenthood was not overlooked. It was overlooked by the
00:56:59.140
Atlantic, perhaps, and by the rest of the mass media, and by those experts we talked about a moment
00:57:04.080
ago. But some people, the social conservatives specifically, we've been talking about this and
00:57:08.880
warning about it for decades. It wasn't overlooked by us. It's just that we have been shouted down and
00:57:15.860
ignored for decades. Now the people who ignored us are slowly but surely coming around to the
00:57:21.000
realization that we were right about this, like we are right about literally everything. Okay, the social
00:57:26.500
conservatives have been right about every cultural issue since forever. We've been right about
00:57:33.700
everything. We are always right. Always. It's just that, you know, and eventually on every topic,
00:57:41.720
eventually the experts come around and they say, you know, I think maybe it should be this way instead.
00:57:48.100
But they won't acknowledge that we were right. They're always coming around to the realization that
00:57:52.500
we were right, but they never say you were right. Because they want to continue to demonize the very
00:57:57.900
people who arrived at the conclusions 50 years ago that they're just arriving at now.
00:58:04.700
In any case, the article continues laying out more of the economic and social problems that come with
00:58:08.640
single parenthood. And most of what it says, again, is correct. But then we get to the final paragraph,
00:58:12.840
which says this, quote, the real elephant in the room, I think, is that the United States doesn't
00:58:18.080
want to contemplate, let alone create, a policy infrastructure that supports single parenthood.
00:58:23.500
It doesn't want to make sure that kids thrive with a single earner in the home. It won't do this,
00:58:27.640
even though it seems obvious that a large share of children are going to grow up with one parent going
00:58:31.640
forward. And even though we aren't realistically going to increase the marriage rate among lower
00:58:36.180
income Americans, we don't want to build a society where children are seen as a collective gift and a
00:58:41.400
collective responsibility. It's not single parenthood that's failing these kids. We all are.
00:58:46.560
No, it's single parenthood that's failing them. We aren't failing the kids. Okay. What's this we
00:58:54.960
stuff? Speak for yourself. I can speak for myself at least because we includes me and I'm not failing
00:59:02.400
them. If there's a child in a single parent home across the street because the mom had sex with some
00:59:07.700
random guy outside of marriage and they both had no interest in marrying in order to create a stable
00:59:11.480
home for that child, then that child has been failed, but not by me. If he's in a single parent
00:59:19.080
home because the mom got bored with her marriage and decided to rip the family apart so that she
00:59:23.160
could go off and find herself or whatever, then again, the child has been failed, but not by me.
00:59:29.240
And if he's in a single parent home because the dad is a deadbeat who ran out on the family,
00:59:32.780
then once again, that child has been failed, but not by me and not by you and not by us and not by we.
00:59:41.480
The child's mother failed him, or his father failed him, or in most cases, they both failed him.
00:59:47.720
100% of the failure comes from some combination of the mom and the dad. Now, as always, the left
00:59:56.680
wants to remove personal responsibility from this conversation and from every conversation, but you
01:00:00.740
can't because ultimately there is no solution to the single parent problem outside of adults making
01:00:07.880
better choices. If they will not make better choices, then nothing will get better. That's the
01:00:13.820
reality. All we can do, if the rate and volume of bad choices doesn't change, then all we can do is
01:00:21.400
try out, try our best to deal with the mess that these selfish jerks are creating. And some of that
01:00:27.720
will involve policy changes, yes, but the policies should not be tailored to support single parenthood.
01:00:32.400
Rather, the policy should encourage and promote marriage and two-parent households.
01:00:38.140
We've done more than enough to support single parenthood. Too much, in fact. We need to support
01:00:43.660
two-parent households in order to eventually have fewer of the kinds of households that are creating
01:00:48.200
all of these problems. Are children a collective gift? Sure. Are they a collective responsibility?
01:00:56.500
I mean, yeah, in a broad sense, but there is a hierarchy of responsibility for each individual.
01:01:04.200
And your responsibility starts closest to you, and it branches out from there.
01:01:08.940
This means the first responsibility you have is to your own family, your own children.
01:01:15.800
You cannot go out and be reckless and irresponsible and then expect society to take care of you and your
01:01:21.860
kids. Because society is comprised of individuals, and each individual has a list of priorities,
01:01:28.200
and neither you or your children will ever be at the top of it. That's not because they're selfish.
01:01:33.820
It's because they have their priorities straight. And they have to take care of their own families
01:01:37.960
first. That's how it's set up. So it's up to you, first and foremost, to make sure that your
01:01:43.840
children have what they need. And what they need, first and foremost, is a mom and a dad in the home.
01:01:48.740
So society can't provide that, and the government can't provide it. Only you can. And that has to
01:01:56.260
be the first step. Annie Lowry of the Atlantic seems to get close to this realization, but she
01:02:01.420
doesn't make it all the way, because these people never do. And for that reason, she is today canceled.
01:02:08.500
That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.