Matt Walsh (5:27)

Welcome. Welcome to the United States of America. It is such an honor for us to receive you here today. This is the land of the free. And we know that all of you have faced. I'm Chris Landau. First of all, let me introduce myself. I'm the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States. This is my friend, Troy Edgar.

Chris Landau (5:47)

Yeah, I'm the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

Co-host (5:50)

Again, welcome.

Matt Walsh (5:51)

So great to have you guys here. I know you've gone through a long flight. I cannot believe there are babies and children who are actually so well behaved. This is much better than mine. So blessed for that.

Co-host (6:06)

Now, before we get into the specifics of why these particular white people are fleeing South Africa and why the left is so enraged by them, just look at these people. They're waving American flags. They're holding their children. They're well behaved children. They're speaking English. They're coming over as intact family units. They're respectful as they're spoken to. They're not complaining. They're not demanding better accommodations or better food like so many foreign nationals who come to this country. They're acting like responsible, well adjusted, productive people. And under the circumstances, this is no small feat. These people have been subjected to decades of persecution in their native land of South Africa solely based on their skin color. And make no mistake, I say the word native, and I mean it. South Africa is indeed their native land, at least if that term has any meaning at all. Afrikaners, like, you know, the ones who just arrived at Dulles, are descendants of Dutch settlers who first arrived in South Africa in the 17th century. Okay, that's a very long time ago. So these people can trace their roots in South Africa back 400 years, which is something like 15 or 20 generations. If you cannot be considered native to a land after 15 generations, then the word native again has no meaning. But now the white descendants of these Dutch settlers are being persecuted by black Africans, most of whom are descendants of the Bantu. And the theory is that these white people deserve to be persecuted because they're colonizers. But the funny thing about the Bantu is that they themselves displaced and conquered the people known as the Kozan who were living in South Africa first. So, in other words, if the white South Africans are colonizers, then so are the black South Africans who are now persecuting them. Now, we've talked before about how exactly these white South Africans are being treated and persecuted. By some estimates, one white farmer is killed every five days in South Africa. And some of these executions are brutal. Quoting from Newsweek, quote, Gabriel Stoles, 35, said that his younger brother Kyle, 21, was shot dead by four people on a game reserve. What is happening to us is torture, it is slaughter, it is brutal, it is revenge. The world doesn't know what is happening in South Africa, he said. Meanwhile, a 56 year old woman from Pretoria said that three armed men broke into her family's house, stole money and her close quote. Now, in response to these reports of rampant farm invasions and sexual assaults, the government of South Africa has repeatedly claimed that overall these statistics show that it's safe for white people in the country. And activists on the left have mostly repeated that same line. They've accused Afrikaners of basically inventing all the homicides and torture that they're being subjected to. The problem with that argument is that even if you pretend for a moment that it's true, it wouldn't change the fact that Afrikaners are clearly being subjected to overt persecution on the basis of their race. And we know that's true because the government of South Africa just enacted a law that permits the government to seize land from white farmers without compensating them for it. That is the express purpose of the law, to steal land from white people and give it to black people. And predictably in South Africa, white people, you know, think that that is evil because it is. And many of the black South Africans support it because they're the ones who are benefiting from it. Watch.

Matt Walsh (9:39)

The administration claims Africanas are being discriminated against because of the race. After South African president Cyril Ramaphosa signed a law this year allowing for private land to be seized by the government without compensation. It's known as expropriation without compensation. The law was drafted and signed as a means of addressing the country's land ownership disparity, where black South Africans, who make up 80% of the population of own less than 10% of all privately held land.

Co-host (10:07)

In 2022, I traveled to South Africa.

Matt Walsh (10:09)

To speak with white farmers and black farmers about what was then the idea of a law that would allow the government to confiscate privately owned land. Here's what they told me during my trip.

Co-host (10:19)

I personally support the land exploration without compensation. But however, my worry is what do.

Troy Edgar (10:26)

We do with the land we have? Currently, I've paid for my land by working very hard for it so I didn't inherit it. I've started with nothing. But I work 10 hours a day for many, many years and pay for the land that I currently own.

Co-host (10:49)

Okay? So this is actual verifiable persecution. You know, these Afrikaners are not being coached by some left wing NGO to make up a sob story so that the administration lets them into the country when all they really want is access to the US labor market so they can get a better job or even worse. And more commonly, they want access to the U.S. welfare state. That's normally how asylum claims work. They're pretty much all fraudulent and everyone knows it. But this is a very different situation. The government of South Africa has given itself the authority to seize land without compensation from white people specifically, and then give it to black people. Okay, if that's not persecution, then what is? If the government could come in and say, you're white, we're taking your home from you and giving you nothing. Okay? That is persecution on the basis of race and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. And meanwhile, chants of kill the boar, as in kill the white farmer, being led in massive stadiums by black politicians. In South Africa. The purpose of asylum laws and refugee programs is to protect people in precisely this scenario. They're being targeted based on characteristics that they cannot control. But across the corporate press, we're told that these Afrikaners should stay and they should just take it. Essentially, they need to lose their land and in some cases lose their lives because of the alleged sins of their ancestors. Watch.

Troy Edgar (12:12)

So deeply and morally wrongheaded and repulsive. These are the descendants of the people who created the most diabolical system of white supremacy in human history. Apartheid. They're not directly responsible for it, but it was a system that actually moved black people off of the Arab arable land. So they inherited the land that the black people had to give up. It was called forced removal, something called a bantustan policy where they moved black people out of the cities and farmlands into these remote areas with non arable land. I mean, it was just one of the most worst processes ever. But what has happened in this strange, bizarre world we're living in is that the Afrikaners have become the darling of these right wing white supremacist movements around the world. That it's like the lost cause for them. It's like the old confederacy. They're held up as these white Christians who are being dispossessed of their land. It's like this is a modern replacement theory in a country where by the way white people make up 7% of the population and own 78% of the farmland. So it's actually. There's no injustice here, as you mentioned. It's taking places away from refugees who are really being crushed by authoritarian governments and military governments for these folks who have never had anything happen to them. And Trump, amazingly, called it a genocide. One of the worst lies I've ever heard him say. There's just been a small handful of farmers that have been killed over the past 10 years.

Co-host (13:50)

This guy is such a. Just a lying piece of garbage, you know, it's just a small handful. It's just a small handful of white farmers that have been killed. You know, just a handful. What's a few white farmers being murdered for their race? Yeah. What's a few of them between friends? So what's the big deal? You know, a certain amount of sexual assault and murder apparently is a reasonable punishment for the supposed sins of your great grandfather. I mean, just think about this for five seconds and you can imagine what kind of torture these people have planned for you. And actually, you know, the most insufferable part of this answer came at the beginning. He describes apartheid as a horrific example of racial injustice that we should never repeat, which, of course, is accepted liberal orthodoxy. He says it was so bad that even today, white people who had nothing to do with apartheid should suffer for it. That's about the safest sentiment that you can express on television these days. What he doesn't address, and it's a very noticeable omission, is what came after apartheid. He doesn't say whether South Africa is a better country now, now that it's, you know, than it was under the previous regime. And it's clear why he doesn't address that. It's the third rail of international politics. It's the one question you're not supposed to ask. A lot of people fear that if you ask that question, then you're justifying racial segregation. But actually, you're not doing that. You're not interested. What you're interested in doing is just understanding how the world works. You're interested in observable and provable facts. So with that in mind, here are some of the conclusions of a recent paper from the center for International Development at Harvard University about the current state of South Africa. And here we go. Quote, income per capita has been falling for over a decade. Unemployment at over 33%, is the world's highest, and youth unemployment exceeds 60%. Poverty has risen to 55.5%. Based on the national poverty line. Yet many more households depend on government transfers to sustain meager livelihoods. Most cities are failing to adequately connect people to productive opportunities and are failing to innovate, grow and drive inclusion. Rural areas and former homelands where almost 30% of South Africans live exhibit dismally low employment rates and remain exceptionally poor. Critical network industries, including electricity, transport, infrastructure and services, security, and water and sanitation have experienced major deteriorations over the last 15 years. Rail and port capacity has declined, generating large losses in exports. Urban crime is very high, and theft and sabotage undermine the functioning of many national infrastructure systems. Close quote. Okay. And just imagine how much better all that's gonna get once you start displacing, you start removing the farmers who are actually like farming, you know, have productive farms. When you kick them out and redistribute that land, how much better is all this gonna get? Well, how did this all happen? How exactly did post apartheid South Africa become a disaster zone? How did everything fall apart the moment the country became the ultimate embodiment of anti white race based government? Of course, the answer here is contained within the question. In South Africa, post apartheid, people are awarded positions of power based on their skin color. This is a far more extreme system than apartheid, which literally meant separation. This is something else entirely. This is a system that says if you're not white, then you get to run the power grid and the trade policy and every other vital function of the country. Identity trumps merit in every single case and of course, catastrophe follows. Now, we've shown this chart before, but it's worth looking at again. You could take a look at it here. As you can see, it shows that South Africa today has more laws involving race classifications than it did during apartheid. Only these laws are targeted now at white people specifically. And the country has become even more dysfunctional as a result. So, by every measure, South Africa is worse today than it was under apartheid, by every measure. Now, it's enough to make you wonder, if, as MSNBC claims, white people are responsible for the sins of their ancestors, then what should happen to the current rulers of South Africa? They've done far more damage to that country than anyone that came before them did. They've engaged in far more pervasive racial violence. They've made the economy stagnate. They've collapsed the power grid, they've killed the export market. So if the white people deserve to get murdered on their farms, what exactly should happen to the black Africans who have been entirely responsible for the total decay of South Africa in the 21st century? Now, those are rhetorical questions, of course, because nobody in the corporate press is capable of engaging in an ounce of introspection about anything that's happened in South Africa for the past 30 years. Instead, they're happy to tell you that according to South Africa's government, everything's fine.

Troy Edgar (19:00)

They got this big celebration.

Co-host (19:02)

And these are the only, you know.

Troy Edgar (19:03)

White African descendants of apartheid, the European colonials, or those who participated in apartheid. They were of all ages, including children.

Co-host (19:14)

South Africa says that the allegations about persecution of these people, the allegations are false, according to the South Africans. Well, you know, we checked with the people doing the persecuting and they say everything's fine. So nothing to see here. We said to them, hey, are you persecuting people over there? No, we're not. Thanks for asking. Okay, well, nevermind then. Wow. They said they weren't doing it. Now these people know that they're saying, well, everything they're saying is ridiculous. They also know what will happen to them if they step out of line. Seven years ago, Australia's Minister of Home affairs, basically their equivalent of our Department of Homeland Security, became one of the first major Western political figures to call for the resettlement of Afrikaners. The minister's name is Peter Dutton, made a public declaration condemning persecution of white farmers in South Africa. Additionally, Dutton stated that these white farmers deserved the protection of what he called a civilized country, saying that they should be offered emergency visas so that they could flee to Australia. If the white farmers remained in South Africa for much longer, Dutton said the consequences would be horrific. And in the end, he was shouted down and humiliated on the international stage for wrong thinking. And the brutality in South Africa continued, even though he, of course, was completely correct. Donald Trump is the first major Western figure to offer Afrikaners an alternative, and that has led to many meltdowns just like this one. Watch.

Matt Walsh (20:33)

Well, in my view, what makes it different is that they are white South Africans. The president, in my view, has not hidden his racism behind a bushel. In fact, in his policies, whether it's removing government workers or in this case, admitting white South Africans while denying refugee status, asylum seekers from other countries, principally Central and South American and black nations, to come into this country. And so I think that, you know, this policy, while it's not surprising in this action, really speaks of the underlying message in this that disrespects and shows disdain for people of color while embracing these Africaners and also expediting the process by which they can come into the country while denying that same process to other refugees.

Co-host (21:33)

Now the relevant distinction here is that Central and South Americans want to come to this country so that they can get better jobs or exploit our entitlement programs. They are not being persecuted because of their skin color. That's a very big difference under our laws. There's not anywhere in the world actually where there are non white people who need to flee because a white government is persecuting them for their skin color. That's not happening anywhere on the planet. But the reverse is. And there's also a big difference here. From a logical perspective, we cannot rescue every poor person in the world. If being poor is enough to make you a refugee, then there are billions of poor people and we gotta find some way to fit them all into the country. You know, we simply don't have the capacity to do that even if we wanted to. But we can save people who are being explicitly targeted on the basis of their skin color. And in this instance, the left is making it very clear that they don't want to do that. In many cases, they're coming up with all kinds of bizarre rationalizations to avoid saying it out loud, but it's pretty clear. For example, here's one reporter pretending that rescuing intact, stable families from South Africa is somehow just as risky as accepting single military age foreign nationals from Venezuela.

Matt Walsh (22:51)

Watch the Trump administration, they're saying that essentially these white South Africans assimilate better and they're also not as much of a security risk. That's really causing a lot of of people to be appalled, frankly.

Co-host (23:05)

And I also should tell people that.

Matt Walsh (23:06)

This violence that they're talking about that are dealing with these Afrikaners. I've been hearing from people that say there is violence in South Africa, but it's affecting everybody of every single race.

Co-host (23:14)

Katie. It's appalled many people, we're told, but it happens to be completely reasonable. It's clearly better for this country to accept patriotic refugees who want to be here from intact families, period. Anyone who denies that is operating with an ulterior motive. And that would include the Episcopal Church, which has just made its intentions pretty clear on the topic. Because the Trump administration dared to save white people from persecution. The Episcopal Church is now ending their long standing partnership with the federal government to help resettle refugees. I mean, this is one of the most extraordinary mask off moments you will ever see. These people have no problem resettling Somalis, Haitians, tens of thousands of other people who hate this country. They want to abuse our charity and exploit us. But the moment they're asked to resettle even one white person they shut down the whole operation. So here's the relevant portion of a letter from the leader of the Episcopal Church. And just listen to this. It's like, it's so cartoonishly evil that you. At first you think it can't possibly be real, but no, it is. Quote, just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we're expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the US Government has classified as refugees. In light of our church's steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant with the US federal government. Now, you can read that paragraph 10 times, and it's still hard to believe that they put it in writing. They're saying explicitly that they're not willing to save white people from persecution because it doesn't align with the ideals of racial justice and reconciliation. Okay? So when someone says that racial justice is just a very thinly veiled code word for anti white persecution, there you go, right there. And what this episode is revealing pretty clearly is that the word refugee has always been a cover for the Great Replacement. Okay? The Great Replacement is real. It's not a theory. It's a thing that's actually happening. The idea behind refugee programs, as far as the left is concerned, is to make the country less white. That is why it exists. That's why they care about it. It's the only reason they care about it. They view the replacement of white people as a necessary step towards racial justice. Any other explanation has always been a complete and total scam and intended to obscure the fact that they despise white people. They delight in their suffering and their death and their displacement, and they want to see more of it. That's the only way to explain everything that's happening right now, including the Episcopal Church and that letter that I just read. This is not a conspiracy theory. We now have confirmation directly from the corporate media and the refugee resettlement industry. Directly from them. And for many years, conservatives have made this point. And every single time they've been shouted down by an extraordinarily well coordinated and well funded propaganda machine on the left. In the end, all it took to short circuit the propaganda machine to get these ghouls to tell the truth about their motivation was for an administration to actually save the lives of just like a few white refugees. 59. That's it. The sight of just 59 white people being rescued from systematic persecution was too much for them to bear. I mean, they couldn't even grin and bear it and pretend to be okay with it for political purposes. They just couldn't continue the facade any longer. That's how profound their anger and racial resentment and hatred really is. But no matter how much anti white vitriol these people spew, the fact remains that as more and more Afrikaners flee to the United States, the total collapse of South Africa is now basically inevitable. We are witnessing the end of the failed post apartheid experiment as well as the public exposure of the long standing refugee scam in this country. Two of the biggest leftist myths of the past century have just been obliterated for everyone to see. None of these refugee scams should receive another dime of taxpayer money, whether they're affiliated with a church. Notice the quote, the scare quotes around that or not. Anyone who demonizes Afrikaners should be given a one way ticket to South Africa to see how well that's worked out for them and all the rest of us. Those of us who actually care about this country should embrace these South Africans. And regardless of what some fake churches and the corporate press desperately want, no matter how many times those frauds all beat their chests and scream about apartheid, we should welcome them to our home. Now let's get to our five headlines. Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the April 15 deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. The good news? Well, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Are you self employed or a business owner? Even if your books are a mess, they've got it all covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free and acting now can stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com walsh. You may have missed April 15, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move. I want to play this because, well, just because I very much enjoyed it. And so here is Ron DeSantis, Governor DeSantis, delivering a two and a half minute takedown of property taxes, which is, it's just. The whole thing is music to my ears. Let's listen. Level ongoing tax.

Matt Walsh (29:21)

No, you should own your property free and clear. I think to say that someone that's been in their house for 35 years just has to keep ponying up money, you know, that is not. You don't own your home if that's the, if that's the case. So, yes, of course I'd like to see people be able to owe. Oh, free and clear. And it's interesting because it's like you, you know, if I go to Best Buy and buy a flat screen TV and put it on the wall, I got to pay a sales tax on it, right? But I don't keep paying tax on it every year. I mean, it's just not. That's not how we do things. It's like, okay, if you're going to tax something, you tax it at the transaction and then let people actually enjoy their free, their private property, free and clear of the government. So that, I think, is the vision, that's the philosophical insight. And if you think about our founding fathers when they were proposing the Constitution in one of the Federalist Papers, I think it was Hamilton he's writing about because, you know, there was opposition to the Constitution. They were making a more powerful federal government than under the Articles of Confederation. And people worried about taxation. And they didn't have, obviously a 16th amendment, which eventually came on income tax, but basically you were not effectively allowed to do any direct taxation. It had to be indirect, meaning you couldn't just, I mean, you could theoretically just apply like a tax on land federally, but it'd have to be a portion among the states. So practically it could never work. So basically Hamilton saying, look, the indirect taxes are the most effective, efficient way to raise revenue for the government because they basically allow the individual to choose how much tax they want to pay based on how much they're consuming. And there's a security, there's a protection against excessive tax in that regard, because if the government raises consumption tax too much, it kills the golden goose because then it causes people to stop purchasing as much. But he said taxing property is one of the worst forms of taxation because people don't have a choice in the matter. And you're just basically drilling these folks over and over again on tax. And so it's an issue that I think has pinched a lot of people, but philosophically, it was not the way that the federal government was constructed.

Co-host (31:39)

I like how he specified flat screen tv, which is like specifying, you know, color tv, but just giving the governor a hard time. Because he's exactly right about this. And he's right about some. You know, he's right about a lot of things, which is why I hope he runs for president again. I also like J.D. vance, so I think we'll be very blessed for a primary that comes down to those two. Not to get ahead of ourselves. So, yes, property taxes are an abomination. Direct taxes of any kind are an abomination. We cannot be a free people with a system like this. We just can't. You know, if the government has the ability to tax your land in perpetuity and your income in perpetuity, then in what sense are you free? In what sense can you call yourself a free man? You're not free. You know, you have to pay the government for the privilege to sit in a lawn chair on your own front lawn. You're not free. And we need a lot more Republicans who are willing to talk about this. This needs to become a Republican issue. This is why I don't care about lowering taxes. It's better than raising them. Lower taxes are better than higher taxes. I'll take them. But I don't really give a damn about that. Because lowering. Who cares? Lower property taxes by two points. Big deal. It's kind of an insult, actually. It's like if the bully who is stealing your lunch money every day suddenly announces that he's gonna. He's gonna steal 4% less than he normally does because he wants to, you know, he wants to make sure that you got a little bit. You'll have a little bit of money, you'll have a couple of 50 cents to go buy, you know, whatever. Can't buy anything with it. And then he expects you to thank him for it. He expects you to thank him. It's just an insult. The problem with property taxes and income taxes, it's not just the amount they take. I mean, that is. That's part of the problem. That can be very. That is very onerous and even backbreaking in some cases. Just dealing with property taxes specifically. I know that, you know, the first home that we ever owned, the property taxes were so bad that it was one of the primary reasons why we had to move. We were paying like 8 or $900 a month just in property taxes. And this was not a, you know, this is not A million dollar home by any means or even close to that. And that amount of money a month at the time was like it was alive. It was ultimately a deal breaker. And that's pretty insane. I mean, it's pretty insane that you're paying rent to the government that you move into that you buy a home, you bought it and you still are paying rent basically to the government for the privilege of living there so that you can never really own it. I mean, even, even after you've paid off your mortgage. Because you can quite accurately say that, well, yeah, if you got a mortgage, you don't really own your home, but even after you, you pay it off, you go in and buy a house in cash and you, and you, but you still don't own it because you got property, because you got, you got to pay rent. You got to pay rent to the, to the government for the privilege of owning your own home. And that's not even the worst part. The worst part, to my mind is the spiritual cost, the mental cost, the demoralization of not being allowed to truly own anything. The worst part is that the government is saying to you, saying to all of us, you will own nothing. We will not let you own anything ever. You're not allowed to own anything. Your home is not yours. Your land is not yours. None of your property is yours. Your income is not yours. We have direct access to anything. We can go right into your bank account if we want. If you don't give us as much as we think you owe us, we can just go into your bank account and take it. You own nothing. We, the government, have direct access to anything that is yours. We can take any of it at any time if we want to. And there won't even necessarily be any due process at all. So it is oppression. It is like actual oppression. And I want to hear more Republicans talking about this. So when I, and a lot of us on the right now, we get, we're very tired of the Republicans who, for them, the only thing they care about, like, well, we want to cut taxes. They don't want to talk about all the really important cultural issues, the important issues that have to deal with our sovereignty, our existence as a nation, as a people. They don't want to talk about that, but they will talk about cutting taxes. Yeah, I'm very sick of that brand of Republican. I have been basically forever. But that's not because taxes aren't an important issue. It's because even what you're saying about taxes is not, it doesn't like cutting. As I said, you're not even getting close to addressing the actual problem. And if you cut taxes a little bit, then they get raised, and it's up and down and up and down. The problem is that what we need to get down to is that some of these forms of taxation should not exist in the first place. That's the issue. And there are very few Republicans that are willing to talk about it along those lines. And that's a problem. All right, let's talk about something.

Matt Walsh (37:23)

A.

Co-host (37:23)

Little bit more positive. So here's a conversation that is. It has gone viral. It's making the rounds right now on social media of Joe Rogan on his podcast recently, I think this is his most recent episode, a couple days ago, came out, and they start talking about religion, they start talking about God, about the origins of the universe. Now, Joe Rogan, as you probably know, is an atheist and has been in the past very outspoken about that, which is what made this clip really, really interesting. Listen to this.

Chris Landau (37:57)

Well, space is the ultimate. Who knows? Because we can only see so far. We see so far, but even so far is only so far.

Co-host (38:05)

Well, and then they're saying, like, it's always expanding, which that's. That can't be true because, like, what is it expanding into if space is space? You know, if they're like, oh, it's like blowing up a balloon where everything's okay, well, you're blowing up a balloon in a room, right? So what's the room that you're blowing the blind. And then that's in a bigger room. And then that's. Right.

Chris Landau (38:24)

And then there's the concept that it's actually finite. It's not infinite and it's some sort of donut shape. It, like, goes back around eventually.

Co-host (38:33)

Then who made all that? Right. Is there a God? Did God make this?

Chris Landau (38:37)

Or is God the universe?

Co-host (38:39)

Yeah, but then who made God? And then that bothers me, right? Who made that thing?

Chris Landau (38:44)

Is that a thing that we think that, like, because we were born and we die, that we have these biological limitations that we attach to the universe itself?

Co-host (38:56)

That's. That's a very. Yeah, that's fair. That. Yeah. That we just. We see things as being built and.

Chris Landau (39:02)

Destroyed, that there's always been something. Wouldn't it be crazy if there wasn't something at one point in time that seems even crazier than there always has been? Something. Because if it's just something, if it's just the nature of everything, there is always something, Right?

Co-host (39:16)

Right.

Chris Landau (39:16)

It couldn't be Nothing. And then all of a sudden, everything that seems.

Co-host (39:20)

Because what started that? What kicked that off exactly. What snapped its fingers?

Chris Landau (39:24)

That's McKenna's great line. Terence McKenna had a great line about the difference between science and religion is that science only asks you for one miracle. I want you to believe in one miracle. The Big Bang.

Co-host (39:35)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, That's a good one.

Chris Landau (39:37)

It's a great line. It's because it really is true. And it's funny because people would be incredulous about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet they're convinced that the entire universe was smaller than the head of a pin and for no reason than anybody's adequately explained. To me, that makes sense. Yeah, no, instantaneously became everything. Yeah, yeah, okay.

Co-host (40:01)

I can't buy that.

Chris Landau (40:02)

I'm sticking with Jesus on that one.

Co-host (40:04)

Jesus makes more sense. Sticking with Jesus. Well, that's a pretty incredible moment there. Now, I don't think that Joe is gonna go off and be baptized tomorrow, although that would awesome. But it is a significant statement, I think. And what they're saying here is true. You know, when you really think about the. And study the great deep mysteries of the universe, you realize that no matter what, you have to deal with incomprehensible mysteries, no matter what. Our universe and our own existence defies all of the physical laws and rules that we think exist. Existence defies reason, basically. That's how it seems to me. The fact that anything exists, that we exist defies reason, defies what we think we know and what we think we can observe. And so that's the world we're in. I mean, that's the world that all of us are in, no matter what, like it or not. And that's the world we're in. So we are dealing with. With things far outside of our comprehension, no matter what. And they're talking about the beginning of the universe, which, it's true, makes no sense. On the atheist worldview, the idea of something coming from nothing is incomprehensible. The thing that the other guy mentioned, and I'm not sure who that is, but the point about the expanded universe expanding, like, what is it expanding into if it's expanding? For it to expand assumes that there's an end to it. A thing without an end cannot expand by any definition of the word expand that makes any sense. Infinity cannot expand. So if it has an end, what's on the other side of it? If you could theoretically travel faster than the expansion of the universe, what would you run into? And these are all incomprehensible questions which shows that atheism, I mean, the point is that the atheism does not avoid the incomprehensible. Atheism does not avoid the miraculous, which is the point, which is the quote that Joe Rogan said there. Now, that quote, I think is pretty clearly meant to be a selling point for atheism because the point is supposed to be that, well, with atheists you only have to accept one miracle, and if you're religious, then, then there's many, many more down the line. But number one, that's not true. And number two, you're still admitting that even on the atheist worldview, you have to accept what to us seems as miraculous. And I think that. And anyway, again, it's not even true that. Well, okay, so if you're atheist, then you only have to deal with one miraculous event, which is the beginning of everything. Well, no, there's all kinds of stuff that happened after the beginning that also cannot be explained on the atheist worldview. And to me, I think the most incomprehensible and miraculous thing that atheism can't explain is not the universe itself, which that's a problem, or even life itself, but consciousness. That to me is. Is the fact of our existence that points most immediately and unavoidably to the supernatural. I mean, the existence of the universe points, the supernatural, I believe the existence of life points, but even more than that, the existence of consciousness. Because even if you can explain how inanimate material, how matter came into existence on its own somehow, which we can't, and even if you can explain how biological matter came into existence on its own, which we still can't, you're still left with the question of how this matter, how this material became aware of itself. How could chemicals arrange themselves in such a way accidentally that they develop an awareness of their own existence? You know, consciousness, the knowledge of the self as a self, which is what consciousness is, I would say consciousness is basically selfhood. Even if we concede that beings, that organisms can form accidentally, which I don't concede, but if we did, it's an like an infinitely larger leap to say that the self can form accidentally, that are, you know, in awareness of the self can form accidentally, and we don't even understand what consciousness is in physical terms, much less where it comes from. So that's also. So it's not just one miraculous event, there's a series of them that the atheist must posit leading, I think, to what, for the atheist is the ultimate miraculous and unexplainable event, which is consciousness. So all that is, that's good. That's all. To have someone like Joe Rogan speaking in these terms at all is just culturally a major progress. Look, like most of you, I enjoy shooting guns in my free time and have a lot of fun doing it. But my friends at Silencer Shop told me that they could help my guns be even more enjoyable. Shooting suppressed isn't just quieter, it's better. Suppressors reduce noise, tame recoil, and make your time at the range or in the field safer and more fun. Once you've tried it, you'll wonder how you ever shot without one. That's where Silencer Shop comes in. They don't just sell silencers, they make your firearms better and your life easier. Silencer Shop helps more Americans get suppressors than anyone else because they make it so simple. Yes, suppressors are legal, and whether you're new to the process or a seasoned pro, Silencer Shop's expert team will guide you every step of the way. Now's the perfect time to take the plunge. It's tax season. Let Uncle Sam chip in to upgrade your gun collection. Use your tax return and get a suppressor and transform your shooting experience. Silencer Shop makes it ridiculously easy. They handle all the complicated paperwork for you. Their nationwide dealer network lets you get started in minutes, and you could be shooting suppressed in no time. So don't wait. Visit silencershop.comwalsh today and make your firearms quieter, safer and better. That's silencershop.com Walsh Silencer Shop is the easiest and best way to get your suppressor. Becoming a member of Daily Wire plus isn't just a subscription, it is a statement. It means that you're joining millions of Americans who share your values, respect our nation's history, and are committed to building a stronger future. Members get ad free access to our daily shows from the most trusted names in conservative media, in depth, investigative journalism and entertainment that actually reflects what you believe. Movies, documentaries and series reshaping the culture in real time. Join now at DailyWire.com Subscribe now let's get to our daily cancellation. A while ago, there was a supposedly mind bending observation that made the rounds online and it went something like this. If we really wanted to, we could fit the entire population of the world, several billion people, inside one building in New York City. The architects and mathematicians crunched the numbers and they came up with the plans for a new structure that would supposedly make it work. Here's one artist's rendition of what it would have to look like with the Empire State Building there for scale. So it's very, very large, and it's not especially appealing from an aesthetic perspective, but it's certainly not impossible in theory to construct something like this. We have the technology, there's no doubt about that. With enough time and money, we could get it done in theory, and on the surface, it was a pretty attractive proposition for some people. After all, if we build a gigantic cube structure like this in the desert somewhere, then no one would ever have to be homeless again. And then we could build maybe a massive cube shaped pizza hut next door, and no one would ever go hungry again. All the world's problems, in essence, could be solved. All you have to do is provide the physical structure and good things will happen. This kind of thinking crops up occasionally in various different contexts. It's one of the reasons that left wing cities pour millions of dollars into nonprofits that promise to end homelessness, which in turn spend thousands of dollars on hotel rooms and pocket the rest. It's also the reason that this video just went viral featuring a Canadian based nonprofit that's promising to end homelessness entirely with their new creation, which is a set of so called tiny, tiny homes. And here's a little bit of their presentation. Ryan, what have we got?

Matt Walsh (48:48)

A little tiny home here. So it is 4ft by 7ft, so it's 28 square feet total. Want to show you around a few things.

Co-host (48:55)

Take a peek.

Matt Walsh (48:57)

Okay.

Co-host (48:57)

I'm gonna sit right here in the corner. Okay, Ryan?

Matt Walsh (48:59)

Okay.

Co-host (49:01)

Mind you, I'm about 6 foot 2. I'm 6 foot 1.

Matt Walsh (49:05)

I fit in here. I got a lot of space. So inside here you got your ventilation. This is really important for the wintertime or, sorry, for the summertime. You can keep all your heat and you can cook. Right here you got a desk. That's the way you can, you can eat, do your artwork, do whatever you gotta do. I got a propane burner behind me.

Co-host (49:23)

Where do we sleep? Ryan, when you're ready to go to.

Matt Walsh (49:25)

Bed, I grab this back cushion, put it down, I move it over.

Co-host (49:31)

Damn. And the same thing for this one, right?

Matt Walsh (49:33)

This cushion as well, Slots down.

Co-host (49:36)

Well, it all sounds fantastic. At least if you've never interacted with a homeless person in your entire life. The unhoused people can use the tiny desk for sending emails and, you know, joining conference calls. And it's a big relief for everyone because as we all know, nothing is more annoying than organizing a conference call and then realizing that the local hobo didn't log on. And then the unhoused individual can access propane, which certainly won't be misused in any way. That can't. Nothing bad can happen there with a homeless person with a propane tank. And then he can go to sleep and repeat the process the next day. What's not to love? Well, as I pointed out the other day, actually there's like a lot to not love about this whole setup. The biggest issue is that a homeless person will turn this tiny, tiny home into a horrifying feces and trash filled drug den in about 45 minutes. That's because, as we've established many times before, homeless people are not homeless because they fell on hard times. They are homeless because they are completely dysfunctional drug addled vagrants who have no ability to live in civilized society and no interest in even trying. And it's time for everyone to just grow up and start being honest about this. Now, to give you some idea of exactly what I'm talking about, in case you need a visual reference, here's footage that was shot by the independent journalist Kevin Dahlgren. And it shows an example of a similar tiny home that was purchased by the city of Portland for its local homeless population at a cost of around $16,000 a pop. And there you go. As you can see, it does not appear as though the vagrant who inhabited this tiny home decided to make use of the facility to join conference calls or to tighten up his resume. He didn't seize the opportunity to conduct little tiny piano recitals or tiny basket weaving sessions for the local elderly community. Instead, he used his tiny home to get high and hoard dead cats. That's basically what happened. And of course this is not unusual. It's how these kinds of projects always go. My prediction about how the homeless will treat these tiny, tiny homes from this Canadian company is not a Nostradamus prophecy. There are many, many examples of this kind of approach failing disastrously. Here's one recent example from downtown Los Angeles watch only on Fox 11 concerns of rampant drug use outside of a hotel that's now being used for LA's Inside Safe temporary housing program. And neighbors say it's all happening just steps away from two schools. Fox 11's Matthew Sedorf live tonight outside City hall after relocating from the hotel on Union Street. Matthew, what'd you find? Well, Christine, after hearing from this viewer and seeing it firsthand, we didn't feel safe even doing a live shot outside this hotel. But tonight we're hearing and seeing this video from outside for the first time. Oh, she got it.

Troy Edgar (52:24)

Look she got her fentanyl.

Co-host (52:26)

Possible illegal drug deals on public sidewalks.

Matt Walsh (52:29)

They're attempting chest compressions, overdoses. She really was waving a gun.

Troy Edgar (52:34)

And arguments with police.

Matt Walsh (52:36)

The rampant hard drug use and sales.

Co-host (52:40)

Just some of what Christopher Stone has recorded outside the Stuart Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Outside the building Thursday, Fox 11 recorded several people slumped over a large encampment and possible human waste.

Matt Walsh (52:54)

They relieve themselves on the sidewalk because they're too high just to walk the.

Troy Edgar (52:58)

50Ft to their private bathroom.

Co-host (53:03)

Yes, it's too dangerous for the reporter to even film outside the hotel in downtown Los Angeles. This is the center of one of America's biggest cities that we're talking about. This is not Haiti, but it's resembling Haiti more and more, all in the name of helping the homeless. And this kind of thing happens all the time in Los Angeles, as you might imagine. A couple years ago, vagrants caused more than $10 million in damage to the boutique Mayfair Hotel. According to Los Angeles Times, they quote, shattered windows, vandalized bathrooms and tore carpet off the floor. There was also open air drug use, violence, threats to staff and so on. All of this dysfunction was made possible by a federally funded program that turned hotels into homeless shelters to predictable results. Again, these people were staying in a nice hotel, not some tiny, tiny home. And they still managed to destroy it immediately because as I've said so many times, their main problem is, is not a lack of housing and this is not just a local issue. By the way, it's true everywhere that these homeless shelters and tiny homes are installed. The sun reported on a similar situation in the UK for example, quote, 18 mini homes which provide a bed, shower and cooking facilities were installed three years ago in response to the growing number of street sleepers in Camborne. Furious locals claim that they have led to a spike in street drinking, drug taking and antisocial behavior. One local trader who did not want to be named in fear of reprisals, told the sun, I've experienced a rise in shoplifting and have had my windows smashed. Indeed, on the day the sun visited, drinkers clutching cans of lager were gathering in Commercial Square at the bus station. Close quote. And the same thing happened in a so called tiny home village in Seattle. As Jason Rance reports, quote, Jason Shackelfur is the owner of Stingray Auto Repair just about seven blocks from the Village. In court documents also presented as part of this lawsuit, he complains that that crime and vandalism in the area has skyrocketed since the introduction of Village. The business now opens an hour later due to his safety concerns and says that he now finds needles and condoms around his business. Quote, Most days we have to hose the urine out of our front doorway. This was never a problem until this year, Shackelford declares. Also affecting us is that we can no longer leave customers cars in our own parking lot overnight as they are sure to get broken into. Close quote. Now people are outraged at me for my take on these tiny homes. But none of these people can deny the point that the homeless consistently destroy any kind of housing offered to them anywhere, ever, always. Okay? The evidence is very clear. And that's because the vast majority of the homeless people do not want to be in homes and are not interested in or capable of doing the basic things necessary to be productive members of civilized society. As we just saw from that story in la, you can offer them a private bathroom and they will still just take a dump on the sidewalk rather than walking 50ft to the bathroom. Now this all becomes even more obvious if you're just again, honest and you think about what has to happen for a person to end up homeless. Okay, it's not like these are sober, law abiding, functional, sane adults who get laid off and next thing you know they're sleeping on a cardboard slab on the sidewalk. To be homeless, you need to be somehow unable or unwilling to get any job at all or obtain any lodgings at all of any kind. Now just, just for reference, just like for an example, I and I checked based on a quick Google Google search, the cheapest apartments in Nashville where I live right now are around $600 to 800 bucks a month. Now these are not nice places at all and are probably located in dangerous areas, but they're basically palaces compared to living on the sidewalk. And even if they're unsafe, they have the security of Fort Knox compared to a cardboard box. Meanwhile, the average full time employee at McDonald's probably takes home around two grand a month. Again, not a handsome salary, but it's enough to afford the cheapest apartment and it's enough to, you know, you can get it enough to eat, to survive. So if you're homeless, why wouldn't you just do that? Any 16 year old high school student can get a job at McDonald's. Even a very low salary is enough to afford an apartment if you're willing to stay in the cheapest, crappiest place, which you should be if the other option is a park bench. So then why are there homeless people all over the city? Like why are there vacant apartments right now that you can get for like 700 bucks a month and afford on a very low salary with a job that a teenager can get. Why? Why do I see the same rotations of vagrants hanging out at the same intersections for months, if not years at a time? Like, if they're hitting the pavement, trying hard to land some kind of job so they can afford some kind of housing, how are you still on the street six months later? Well, because the answer, of course, is that they're not trying at all. They're not making any effort of any kind at all to improve their circumstances because they don't want to improve their circumstances, because they don't care. And yet even that, right, even that is actually not enough in most cases to make you homeless. In order to be homeless, you need to be unable and unwilling to get any job or to live in any apartment. And because that alone is not enough to make you homeless most of the time. And you have to have alienated every single person in your life who would otherwise help you. Now go and talk to anyone who has a homeless brother or homeless cousin or whatever, and they will all tell you the same story. The story is the same every time. The story is, you know, I tried to help the guy for years. I invited him to live with us. All he did was steal and lie and manipulate, and he made himself a liability and a danger to everyone around him, including my family. And so eventually, even though we love him, we couldn't do anything for him anymore. We just can't, because he won't take any help and he abuses anything we give him and he steals and lies and manipulates and that's all he does. You know, it's the same story a million times over. And all of that is required in order for a person to wind up homeless. Leaving aside the very rare exceptions to this rule, in almost every case, it is that it is someone who is unable and unwilling to do even the smallest, most basic things, to get even the lowest paying job and live in the most modest department. And also, they have systematically alienated every single person in their life. Mix all that together, that's how you end up with somebody on the street. And that's why you aren't going to solve the problem with cute little tiny homes. If you could, homelessness would not exist because there are already small, unpleasant and extremely cheap housing options in every city in the country. So what is the solution? The only solution is to institutionalize. You start making use of prisons and asylums. You know, we began closing the asylums in the middle of the last century in this country, in part because the pharmaceutical industry successfully pushed the claim, which we now know is false, that they can produce effective antipsychotic drugs. And now everyone admits that. Actually, we have no idea how many of these drugs even work or if they work. We have no explanation for the dramatic rise in the number of mass shootings and suicides and so on. But despite these developments, no one's ever bothered to revisit the decision to close the asylums from the 1950s to the 1980s. Instead, activists are now seriously pushing the idea of tiny, tiny homes, even as every other tiny, tiny home becomes a storage locker for needles and dead animals. What these activists don't want to acknowledge, even though it's obviously true, is that you can't fix homelessness by building a giant cube in New York or a pop up tent city in Portland or a tiny home in Toronto. The homeless population overwhelmingly is deeply troubled, mentally ill. They've dedicated their whole lives to drugs. It's the only thing they care about. And the way that they want to live is incompatible with civilization. Now, that's tragic, of course, but it's a lot more tragic to allow psychotic degenerates to destroy everyone else's quality of life. The fact that some people are incapable of living in a functional society doesn't mean that society needs more tiny, tiny homes. It means that these people need to be in an institution somewhere far away from the rest of us. And if the creators of these tiny, tiny homes don't realize that now, it will occur to them the moment that their new tenants get high and take a dump all over their tiny, tiny furniture. And that is why the creators of these ridiculous little homes for the homeless and everyone else who denies the true cause of homelessness and refuses to be honest about this are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Preborn's network of clinics are on the front lines nationwide, on standby for women deciding between the life of their babies. Preborn seeks these women out to help them choose life not just for their babies, but for themselves. By introducing mothers to the life growing inside of them. Through ultrasound, her baby's chance at life doubles. $28 a month could just be the difference between life and death of so many lives. To donate securely, go to preborn.com dailywire that's preborn.com dailywire. A single heartbeat can echo across generations.