Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:01]
A
This episode is brought to you by Netflix. This Monday night, witness the end of an era. John Cena takes center stage for his final appearance ever on Monday Night Raw. One last match. One unforgettable farewell. Come celebrate the legacy of a true WWE legend. Monday Night Raw, November 17th at 8pm Eastern Time, 5pm Pacific Time only on Netflix. Be there for the moment, everyone will.
- [00:28]
B
Be talking about a message from McAfee wondering why the post office is texting you or why you owe thousands of dollars in toll fees because someone's trying to scam you. The good news? McAfee can help with McAfee's award winning scam Detection it's easy to tell what's real and what's fake over text in your inbox and online. If they're fa, you want a free gift. Seriously, if they're faking it, they're not making it pass to us. Get award winning scam detection today. Mcafee.com keepitreal Shopping is hard, right?
- [01:02]
A
But I found a better way. Stitch Fix Online Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started today@stitchfix.com Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify what I think is happening here is that a certain subset of people identifying as conservatives for whatever reason don't want our leaders focusing on America. And therefore when someone suggests a change, when someone suggests focusing on America, they get very upset. The only country that should matter to our leaders is America. America only America is the only concern. That looks to be about 20 people doing this antifa aerobics protest class. Here's a fun riddle. How many showers total do you think this group has taken over the past month? This is your last chance to win my personal lifetime membership. Here's what you need to do. Download the free Delaware plus app on iOS or Android, then tap Follow under my picture. That's it. Do that and you're entered to win. I'll announce the winner Wednesday right here on the show. We've been talking a lot recently about advancements in technology on the show, and some of it is really concerning, to put it mildly. There are threats to your information and safety everywhere when you go online, but there is one thing you could do to protect yourself, and it's incredibly simple. That is Download ExpressVPN ExpressVPN is an app that routes all of your online activity through secure, encrypted servers, which means data brokers can't see what you're doing online. And if they can't see it, neither can their customers, whether that's government agencies or big tech companies trying to access those logs. The thing about ExpressVPN is that none of your online activity gets logged in the first place. Just in the past year alone, They've received over 400,000 data requests from tech companies and government agencies, but they did not hand over customer information one time. That's because they have a strict zero logs policy. They can't share your data because they don't have it to begin with. As someone who spends hours online researching for my Shall I rely on ExpressVPN to keep my data secure? Whether I'm digging into sensitive topics, just browsing, I can't imagine doing research without that protection, especially when I have to connect to public WI fi. It's also really easy to use. Just one click and you're protected. Plus works on everything. Your phone, tablet, smart TV, desktop, you name it. On up to 14 devices at once. Right now you get an extra four months. When you use my special link, go to expressvpn.com Walsh you get four extra months of ExpressVPN. That's exp r e s s vpn.com Walsh now you might think that when someone's in the business of talking about politics on a podcast for a living, there's a natural temptation to make increasingly outrageous and controversial statements and a bid for attention. After all, there's no built in audience for podcasts, no matter how big or successful it may be. Even Joe Rogan doesn't have a guaranteed audience. Unlike CNN or msnbc, no one is forced to listen to any particular podcast in an airport or senior living center or anything like that. So it's conventional wisdom in some circles that podcast hosts are naturally more extreme and unhinged than everyone else. Because if the listeners don't hear something truly shocking or stunning, then they're going to tune out. And you know, there's some truth to that idea. But the flip side of the coin is that these days, statements that are not shocking or stunning or even remotely provocative are often still treated as such. Which means that certain podcast hosts, like yours truly, may earn a reputation as some kind of shock jock, even though they mostly just say pretty normal and sane sorts of things. So, for example, last week on this show I made probably one of the One of the safest and most straightforward statements I've ever made in my entire career. This is a statement that's basically a paraphrase of what the founding fathers said many times over. For 99% of this country's history, no one would have batted an eye after hearing it. And yet after I made this particular statement, all hell broke loose on social media. Over the past few days, nearly 6 million people have viewed the footage of my remarks on X and there have been thousands of furious and unhinged reactions, much of it coming from the right or the right. And that's. Those are the responses I want to focus on today. So we're not talking about, you know, a media matters driven outrage cycle here, at least not exclusively. I actually can't think of anything I've said recently that's caused more consternation and outrage from conservatives than the footage I'm about to show you. Except, except when I said that conservatives should stop fighting with each other and focus on the people who actively want to kill us, that was, that was the most controversial thing you could ever say, it turns out. But, but this is a close second place, I think, on the, on the outrage meter. So here's the big moment. Here is the excerpt from my show that evidently is simply intolerable to a significant portion of the right watch. What we want is for someone to unashamedly and single mindedly advocate for Americans and Americans only. We want someone to say, you know, the only thing I care about is helping Americans. The only people I care about in the world are Americans. And we don't want to just hear that, but we want to see the action taken as well. You know, I've seen some people on social media say, hey, it's America first, but not America only. I disagree. I think it is America only. It's like I said months ago, I consider myself an American chauvinist. America first. America only. I'm American chauvinist. I don't care about. This is the only thing I care about. America should be the only thing you care about, especially as a leader of the country. Now you could pull up some speeches from George Washington and read pretty much the same thing said much more eloquently, but still, it's the same kind of idea. Washington said that the great rule for the United States in regard to foreign nations is to, quote, have with them as little political connection as possible. Jefferson and John Adams agreed. All the founders wrote that if it benefited the United States, we should trade with other countries, we should speak to them if it was in our interest to do so. But otherwise, we really shouldn't have anything to do with them at all. And if that seems controversial to you, think about the issue in terms of your own family. Now, speaking for myself, although I suspect everybody listening to this podcast agrees with me on this, you know, I'm America only in the same sort of sense that I am my family only. My priority is my family. I will never put any other family above my own. I will help other families only to the extent that it brings no harm to my own family. My family is the only family that I treat as my family because it is my only family. There will never be a time when the interests of another family will come before my own. If I had to choose between rescuing a thousand strangers from a fire or just one of my children, I would choose my child without hesitation. It could be a million strangers that I could rescue or just one of my children, and I will choose my child. I'd say that's my family only. And I also think that every parent would do the same. Now, our leaders are are not our parents, and we're not their children. So I hesitate a little bit to make those kinds of analogies. But the same general principle should apply. They should prioritize their people, Americans, above all other people on earth. They should concern themselves with other nations only to the degree that it benefits Americans. If they could choose between helping 10 million foreigners or one American family, they should choose the American family without hesitation. If they could help 10 million foreigners, but it would harm one American family, then they should not help those 10 million foreigners. This is what it means to be a nation, a people, or what it should mean. And from the time George Washington was president, no American, no one who truly cared about conserving and protecting this country disagreed with this. It's just. It's obvious. Now, from the responses I received over the weekend, it is clear that my statements are now considered highly incendiary, even among some conservatives, for stating that our leader should exclusively prioritize America's interests. America's interests only. So we mean by American only, the only interests that matter are our own. And for saying that, I was criticized from many directions. And I also received some words of concern or perhaps more eager anticipation from other commentators who prophesied that I would be fired for that video that I just played. A lot of comments like that. Well, if you're hearing this and you're watching it, it seems safe to say that I was not, in fact fired from my job for saying that we should prioritize America's interests. Nor would it have made much sense if I had been, because I've been saying the same thing for many years now. And it's also just really obvious. Meanwhile, many of the more serious responses to my commentary were obviously made in bad faith, meaning they, they misrepresented what I said. And again, these misrepresentations were not coming from the left. So we got, we have a. We got a big problem here when the idea that we should only prioritize our own country's interests is. Is controversial. On the right, we've got. We got a big problem and we got some fundamental problems here. And that's why I think it's worth talking about. So, for example, here was the response from a lawyer named Ethan Isaacson, who describes himself as pro Western civilization. And here's what he told me. Quote, the problem with America only is that America still exists in the world and has to have relations with other nations. Some will be adversaries and others alliances. Ignoring the rest of the world doesn't make the world go away. There are many posts along these lines. And of course, the problem is that nothing that he wrote is actually responsive to what I said. I never denied that other nations exist. I didn't say America is the only country that exists on the globe. I didn't deny that, you know, some nations will be adversaries and others will be friendly. I also never stated that we should ignore the rest of the world. If Cuba develops a nuclear bomb and tries to detonate it on American soil tomorrow, I would support military action to stop them. On the other hand, if Cuba has some kind of humanitarian crisis, which they often do, then we generally should not intervene because it has no bearing on the United States. It would not make us stronger in any way to send them billions of dollars. Quite the contrary. So we shouldn't do it usually, and that's the point I was making. The only country that should matter to our leaders is America. America only America is the only concern. We should only get involved with other countries when there is an unequivocal benefit to our own country. And that is rarely, though not never, the case. And that's the part you're not supposed to say. But it's true. No matter how great an alleged ally may be, we shouldn't do anything for them unless it serves our interests. That is the one qualifier that we should take into account. Does this serve our interests? Does this help American families? And if it doesn't, we shouldn't do it. Now, I used the analogy last week of teams in sports. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps make the point, you know, that if you're the coach of a football team, you would never do anything to help another team if it hurts your own team. Now, that doesn't mean that you hate other teams or you deny their humanity. Doesn't make you a selfish person or a bad Christian. It just means that your duty, your job, is to your team. And when it comes to our, quote, unquote allies, the other important point is that, you know, they all need us more than we need them. And there is no exception to this rule. They all do. You cannot name a single ally of the United States where they benefit us more than we benefit them. And you certainly can't name a single ally of the US that's worth any significant degree of internal political division on the right in our own country. Especially at a time when leftists openly want to murder every single one of us. They're gloating about shooting conservatives in the neck and killing their children. And meanwhile, conservatives are mad at me for saying American interests are paramount. And it didn't stop there. Here's another one quote, Matt, you can't use the camera or laptop or cell phone or Internet without a functioning global supply chain, Matt, you can't even get antibiotics produced in the US Good luck with America. Only now, this is an example of someone attempting to argue with me, but really agreeing with everything I'm saying, making my point even better than I did. That's because he's right about antibiotics. We don't even make penicillin anymore. And that needs to change. We need to start producing more antibiotics in this country at the moment. As we learned earlier this year during the tariff wars, we get the active ingredients in most antibiotics from China, which is not ideal, especially since over the past decade, we've experienced substantial shortages of antibiotics in this country. According to one recent paper, quote, Between 1992 and 2024, the U.S. increased the annual importation of antibiotics from the global market by approximately 26 fold. So we've never been as reliant on foreign antibiotics as we are right now, and there's no clear reason for this. We have the capacity to make antibiotics in this country, or at least to source them from somewhere other than China, and we should make that happen. And no, that doesn't mean that we need to make literally every product in this country, but it does mean that when we have the option of making critical products that we need for society to function like basic antibiotics. It's usually better to do that in our country if we can. But apparently by saying things like this, I was actually calling for the end of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. So here's one response along those lines. Quote, America only means the US dollar is no longer the global reserve currency. That's upheld by global trade, finance and alliances. Isolation erodes trust, leads to de dollarization, rising inflation and debt costs, and cedes geostrategic power to brics. Does Matt even know how the world works? This is another reply that doesn't make much sense and invents things I didn't say and then accuses me of being a moron for believing these made up arguments that I didn't make. Of course, focusing exclusively on America's interests does not mean that we should suspend all international financial transactions and destroy the value of the US dollar. That would be contrary to America's interests. So we shouldn't do it. It's pretty simple. Again, America only means that the only priority of our leaders is to serve the interests of our country and its people. So when you say, oh, but what about this? If we don't do this, it's going to hurt Americans. Okay, well then we should do it. If it's, if your argument is true, okay, now we're arguing based on the, on the right premise here. That's the whole point. If you're making any argument for doing anything globally, the argument should be, well, yeah, we should do this because this will help America. Now you might be wrong, you might be right about that argument, but that is the argument you need to make. Making the argument that, well, we should do this because it's really important to those foreigners over there that we do it. That is the wrong argument because that is not the point. The point is serving our own interests. If it serves our interests, we should do it. This really is not complicated. It really isn't. At a certain point when people are willing to constantly misrepresent my position on this, you have to wonder if something else is going on. What I think is happening here is that a certain subset of people identifying as conservatives for whatever reason don't want our leaders focusing on America. They want our leaders working for their favored foreign country instead. And therefore, when someone suggests a change, when someone suggests focusing on America, they get very upset. They start accusing you of things you never said. It's like a bit like telling a drug addict that he needs to get help and square his life away. Oftentimes he completely spirals out of control, lashing out uncontrollably. Here's another example. Quote, the American colonists literally won the revolution in 1781 because of France. If France didn't help us, we would have lost. This idea that a nation doesn't need mutually beneficial alliances is so ludicrous and ahistorical. Can't believe this is becoming a talking point on the podcast, right? Yes. Can you believe this latest talking point on the podcast, right? All of us podcast bros on the right are saying that we shouldn't have accepted France's assistance in 1781. That's what we're really fired up about in the last few weeks. That's. That's what people are arguing about now. Now France in 1781, that's what we're all saying that we should not have. You know, we should have told the French back in 1781 not to blockade the British or to send us financial assistance and troops because we could have handled everything on our own. This guy really has his finger on the pulse of the podcast, right? He's exposed us now. Just to play the game for a second here. If I had been alive in 1781, I would have accepted the assistance of the French military. And there's no inconsistency here. And that's because follow along closely. Aligning with France was obviously in our national interests at the time. And so it's perfectly in keeping with what I'm talking about. It helped us survive as a country. Once again, America only means doing only what serves our national interests. That did serve our national interests. So it's good that we did. It seems like a very basic point, but apparently I need to constantly spell it out because thousands of people are pretending to be confused. Now, in keeping with that theme, I was also accused of violating the tenets of Christianity by saying that we need to focus on America. Here's Peter Laffin, a D.C. examiner quote, America first. America only is manifestly at odds with the Christian faith. This can't be squared. This is another common refrain. Here's another similar post from Philip Gough, who's a author. This sentiment is completely incompatible with Christian ethics. Here's a similar post from a man named Evan Wickham. Quote, the moment a Christian platform pushes America first and only Christians should stand up and call it what it is. Anti gospel nonsense. Calling Walsh's take extreme is an excuse to stay silent. Renounce it. Jesus didn't draw borders around his compassion. Yes, renounce it. Don't just disagree with putting our country's priorities first with only prioritizing interests of our own country. Renounce it. You must disavow. Yeah, you need to disavow me. Very important. A lot of conservatives these days are big on that. Gotta disavow. We disavow. Disavow that person and that person. And once you disavow them, disavow them too. I remember back when it was, when this was a, like the feature of left wing cancel culture was the constant demands for renunciations and disavowals. And now it's coming from conservatives all the time. Every day it's another person. Now I'm. Now it's, now it's my turn. Renounce me. Disavow me now. In other words, according to these various commentators, the gospel commands that Americans advance the interests of foreign countries. That's what the gospel says somewhere. That's it. It's in the Bible somewhere in some form. But as you might have guessed, none of these commentators can point to a citation for any of their claims because there isn't one. Now, as far as I can tell, the idea that Christian ethics mandates open borders so that, you know, more foreigners can sexually assault and murder women on college campuses or drive drunk on the highway at 2pm and wipe out entire families, that's not actually something that Christ endorsed at any point. Nor is the idea that foreign countries deserve $80 billion in financial assistance every year from the U.S. which is what they're getting. None of that's in the Bible. That's not even hinted at in the Bible. So this is just of course, being totally made up. And in lieu of citations to the scripture, we got more posts like this one from Evan. This reply was directed at me along with William Wolf, who serves as the Executive director of the center for Baptist Leadership. Quote, I'd love to hear the Walsh Wolf tribe talk about how to love one's undocumented neighbor with examples. I know of an ICE agent here in San Diego who both upholds the law and teaches his team once they cross, there are neighbors deserving of love. I don't know why this is hard. Now, first of all, if there really is a senior ICE agent somewhere in San Diego who instructs other ICE agents that illegal aliens, once they cross, are our neighbors deserving of love, then he needs to be fired immediately because the ICE agent should be saying that illegal aliens are foreigners who don't belong here and they deserve immediate deportation and that's it. They are not our neighbors. Or at least they shouldn't be. That's the Whole point, Evan, they're not our neighbors, okay? They're from another country. They don't belong here. Legally upholding the rule of law. That's also in the Bible. You know, we're not paying ICE agents to treat illegals lovingly as our neighbors. We're paying them to enforce our immigration laws. And secondly, notice that Evan uses the word undocumented instead of illegal. And you notice this a lot. You know, the same Christians who are upset about the basic principles of nationalism are also very often the kinds of Christians who use words like undocumented. These are weak, pathetic frauds who have conformed themselves to the world. You could tell it even in the language that they use while they pretend to be holier than the rest of us. And they also dress up their indifference as compassion, because these are people like Evan. Couldn't care less about American sovereignty, couldn't care less about our national identity, couldn't care less about our country, couldn't care less about all of the people who are being killed by illegal aliens or the job opportunities that are being taken away. The way that it's decimating our economy, the housing market. Couldn't care less about that. He doesn't care. It doesn't affect him personally. He doesn't care at all. Does not care. And so therefore, he has no anger about it. And in his indifference, he can step up and say, oh, well, I'm much better than these other Christians. I love everybody, but they're not holier than the rest of us, nor do they have any idea what they're talking about. Loving someone doesn't mean just letting them commit crimes, okay? It doesn't mean giving them a get out of jail free card, and it doesn't mean exposing innocent American citizens to violent and extremely preventable attacks by illegal aliens. There is no conception of Christian love that involves opening the borders and suspending immigration law. That is a flagrant bastardization of Christian teaching. It's not even bastard. It's got nothing to do with it at all. This is open borders. Communist globalism is what it is. This is not Christianity. This is antithetical to Christianity, and yet it's becoming mainstream among many Catholics. You know, and I mention that because several US Bishops just released this video condemning the Trump administration for enforcing immigration law. And as we're talking about people claiming that we have some sort of Christian duty to, you know, accept open borders or open up our borders and allow all illegal aliens in. Well, this was just released a couple days ago. So this is right in line with that. Let's watch it. Here it is. As pastors, we, the bishops of the United States, are bound to our people by ties of communion and compassion in our Lord Jesus Christ. And we are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and. And immigration enforcement. We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants. We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care. We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We are grieved when we meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children to school or when we try to console family members who have already been separated from their loved ones. Catholic teaching exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants. We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation's immigration laws and. And procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of good will work together. Yeah, this is. You know, I'm Catholic, as you know. I love the church. I love my faith, and that is why I watch something like that. And I find it so infuriating and disgusting and cowardly and dishonest. And the funny thing is, you know, I don't recall the bishops making any sort of video like this to condemn the Biden White House for, for example, supporting, funding, and facilitating the mass slaughter of children in the womb. You remember that? I don't remember that. I don't remember them all lining up for a video where they're solemnly, we condemn this. This. This is terrible. This should not be. I don't. I don't remember that at any point. I can't remember seeing any video with solemn condemnations of the Biden White House and its support for the castration and sexual mutilation of children. I don't remember that either. And that's in spite of the fact that Biden actually is, quote, unquote, Catholic and was actively engaged in activities that are explicitly condemned as mortally sinful by the church. Now, Trump is neither Catholic, nor is he doing anything policy wise that contradicts church teaching. Nothing. Okay? I'll tell you that right now, as a Catholic, Trump is not doing a single thing policy wise that contradicts church teaching. Period. Biden did things in his policy that contradicted Catholic teaching every day. Every single day. And we never got a single video like this. And deportations certainly do not contradict church teaching, biblical teaching. And yet the bishops suddenly find their voice and their courage for this issue. Now, notice they don't say what reform they're looking for exactly in that video. They go on to say that some immigration enforcement and border security is necessary. But they also claim, without setting a single specific example, that the Trump administration is somehow abusing its authority by deporting illegal aliens. They say some immigrants have arbitrarily lost their illegal. Their legal status without naming a single actual case of this happening because it hasn't happened. It's a lie. Who exactly has arbitrarily lost their legal status? Where does that happen? Bishop, you made the claim. You have a moral duty if you make a claim like that to be able to support it. Now, I cover this topic for a living. I have no idea who they're talking about. If they're talking about the foreign communists who lost their green cards after they openly called for the destruction of Western civilization, that wasn't arbitrary. Now, if you want to argue that it was, that it was overkill or something, I don't think it was. But if you want to argue that, you can make that argue. It's not arbitrary. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The administration isn't randomly picking certain people and just kicking them out of the country for no reason. They kick them out because they lied. They lied on their visa applications and because they're subversive foreign agents. Then the bishops say that some parents are afraid of being detained on their way to school, which is supposed to sound empathetic, apparently. Imagine if they, you know, but imagine if they tried this tactic with. With any other crime. Imagine that a parent robs a bank, and the next day he's nervous driving his child to school. And you've got a bishop saying, well, he's nervous. The poor guy's nervous on his way to school. You know, we should dismantle all of the. We should dismantle all of the laws of the United States. Just tear down the border so that this. Because this guy's nerv and he's bringing his kid to school and he's nervous and that. And so, you know, never mind. Let's not have a nation. Let's not have a country. Good point, Bishop. Let's just not have one at all. So it doesn't. Because we don't want to make them nervous. Should we feel sympathy for that parent? Is that the implication here? Should we feel sympathy when a bank robber is separated from his child? When he's arrested by the FBI. I mean, when you commit a crime and coming into this country illegally is a crime, you very often get separated from your children. That's that. That is a. This happens every day in this country. And it's got nothing to do with illegal immigrants most of the time. So here's a wild idea for these bishops. How about instead of condemning the federal agents who arrest criminals, you actually condemn the crimes themselves, the crimes that are harming this country. How about you? You tell parents to stop committing federal crimes in this country and to return home as quickly as possible to their home countries where they belong, back in Mexico or Venezuela or whatever. Presumably, you know, this parent would have no problem driving their child to school. They could do it every day without fear. So why isn't that their responsibility as a parent? The rule of law must be maintained. That is also a part of Catholic teaching and always has been. Now the reality, of course, is that these bishops don't really see illegal migration as a crime. They see bank robbery as a crime. But they don't care about illegal migration because they want open borders. They don't think illegal entry should be prosecuted at all. And instead of admitting that directly, they're relying on emotional blackmail, for example, about parents who are scared as they drive their kids to school. And to be clear, when I talk about putting America first and only America, America only, I'm laying out a philosophy that is specifically for our country and its leaders. I'm not suggesting that the Church should adopt this approach universally, as my critics seem to be implying. Obviously, the Church is not America only. Although Church leaders should not be working to actively undermine our sovereignty either, which is what these bishops are doing. That's what's happening here. And it's clearly a deliberate effort by some of these bishops, as well as a large faction on the right to undermine our national sovereignty. And that's the real reason that so many so called conservatives and Christians have spent the last two days having a hissy fit over my incredibly basic articulation of the most obvious and self evident principle of nationalism. For one reason or another, they want to undermine our sovereignty. So I'll say it again. America only. America only should not be a controversial idea in this country, least of all among right wingers. The point is very simple. The only priority of our leaders should be the well being of our country and its people. There is no other priority. If getting involved in another country's affairs benefits our people in some way, then we should do it. If it doesn't, we shouldn't. There is never a time when our leaders should do something that harms our people or fails to benefit them, but benefits foreigners. Again, this should be just about the most obvious thing a political commentator could possibly say, and yet we are so confused that it's treated as some kind of provocative theory. But it's not. I'm advocating for exactly what our founding fathers called for, which is the defense of our national interests to the exclusion of all other funds, foreign demands and conflicts and loyalties. And if that passes for a controversial statement to anyone you know on the right, then that person is not actually on the right. They're not a conservative in any sense that means anything to me. What are we trying to conserve? Well, conserving our national identity should be really high up on the list of the things that we want to conserve. And if that doesn't interest you, then we're just not fighting for the same thing. Two months after a leader in our movement was murdered in front of the entire country, these self described conservatives are advancing the same interests as the leftist demons who killed him and we should reject them just as forcefully. Now let's get to our five headlines. Do you remember the great ammo shortage of 2020? Shelves were bare and even online options were wiped out. Well, there's a company making sure that never happens again. It's called Ammo Squared and they've been helping over 100,000 members stockpile ammo automatically since 2015. Here's how it works. You sign up, pick your ammo from over 70 different calibers, set an auto buy budget, choose a shipping frequency, or just let it grow. Over time, your ammo accumulates and is stored for free in Ammo Squared's climate controlled facilities in Texas and Idaho until you're ready to ship. No minimums, no extra fees. It's perfect for small budgets or anyone who wants to build up a stockpile without spending thousands or hundreds of dollars up front. Setting up an account is so simple and straightforward, plus they've got so many different ammunition options to choose from that it practically negates ever needing to visit a store that may or may not have what I need in stock. Everything is right there waiting for me when I need it. Plus, with the holidays right around the corner, it's the perfect gift for the gun lover in your life. It's the easiest way to stay prepared without the hassle. Head to ammo squared.com take the work out of buying ammo. 100,000 members and thousands of five star reviews can't be wrong. This ammo squared.com check them out today for a special offer. We all know a person who can't function without their morning coffee. We might be that person, in fact. But then they spend the next two hours dealing with the stomach issues that come with it. It's the same story every morning. Sacred ritual followed by immediate regret. No one is about to give up their coffee routine. But generally, people also aren't thrilled about feeling like garbage for half of the day. And that's where Everyday Dose comes in. Everyday Dose is coffee plus benefits. They combine high quality coffee with powerful ingredients like lion's mane and chaga, collagen, protein and nootropics to fuel your brain, boost focus and give you clean, sustained energy all day long. Tastes just like coffee without the downside. No crash, no jitters, just clean and sustained energy. We're fans of Everyday Dose here at the Matt Walsh Show. A lot of hours are spent working on the show, believe it or not. May not seem like it, but it's true. Everyday Dose has become a necessity to get through the long work days. The energy boost Everyday Dose offers lasts a lot longer than the standard cup of coffee. And the other highlight here, more important to me, is that tastes great. It really does. It's finally a solution that doesn't require choosing between your morning routine and not feeling terrible. Get 61% off your first coffee plus starter kit, a free A2 probiotic creamer with over $100 in free gifts by going to everydaydose.comwalsh or entering Walsh to checkout. It's everydaydose.comwalsh for 61% off your first order. Everyday Dose is available also at your local target. All right, a couple of things here. Let's just start. We'll start with this just, just for, just for fun. Protesters outside of an ice facility in Portland showed up over the weekend to do whatever this is exactly. But here it is. Five, six, seven.
- [38:58]
C
Now do the grapevine.
- [39:01]
A
Good job. Stay here. Lift up. Routine you choreographed.
- [39:10]
D
Good job.
- [39:11]
A
Grade five again. Okay, well, if you're listening to the audio podcast, you were, you were deprived of the visuals there. And I'll just tell you that they're doing some kind of a protest aerobics thing. I don't know what it is exactly. Outside of the ice detention facility, they all, they all woke up that morning, I think this is on Saturday, and they said, you know what, I'm gonna go, I'm gonna get into my spandex and do an 80s style aerobics workout outside of an ice facility. And then. And that's what they did. And somehow this is probably the most normal thing that anyone in Portland did over the weekend. If you were to stop anyone in Portland on Saturday morning and ask them where they're headed off to, you would be the least disturbed by the people that were on their way to antifa aerobics at the ice facility. So that's the bright side. The other bright side is that they're all clothed. They are all admirably clothed, which is, is, you know, you got to take the silver lining wherever you get it and it's there. I do wonder though, when I watch that, that looks to be about 20 people doing this antifa aerobics protest class. Here's a fun riddle. How many showers total do you think this group has taken over the past month? I don't mean like taken together, although you never know with these people. I mean, if you add up all the showers taken individually by every member over the past month, how many showers total, I'm going to put the over under at like 9. 9 or 10. Basically a little fewer than half of them have taken one shower this month. That's my. Which again, again, above average for this demographic. So even more silver lining. And you know, it's, you see clips like this, it's, it's easy to laugh at these people. It's easy and enjoyable and that is the appropriate response. But really the joke is on us if we cannot beat these people. I mean, we all laugh at these videos of leftist protesters because it's always like the cringiest collection of crusty boomer hippies and sexual degenerates and furry costumes. And you laugh at it. But the joke is on us if we cannot completely destroy this movement, if we cannot destroy this movement, this compilation of the most pitiful out of shape weirdos the world has ever seen, then that's really on us. The joke is very much on us at that point. But there are things preventing us from doing that effectively. And that brings us to the second thing here. And you know, as I mentioned in the opening, I, I've been calling for unity on the right. My point has been that we should train our fire metaphorically on the left. But. And many people on the right have just flat out rejected that. No interest in it. Made that very clear to me. Not only no interest, but were have been angry at me for even suggesting. And they're still mad. I sent out a tweet about it a month ago and there are still people angry about it, like really angry. So okay, But I've also said, if you listen to the show, you know this, you heard me say this from the start, that this kind of no enemies to the right idea cannot apply to politicians, at least not totally. Because politicians, our elected representatives, need to be held accountable. I mean, these are, these are people in, in public office. They've been elected, they've been put there, and we need to keep them accountable. Our unity with them is entirely conditional. It's conditioned on them doing what we need and want them to do. They work for us. At least that's how it's supposed to be. And I've always said this about politicians. Loyalty, people talk about. Loyalty is important. And I've, and I've discussed that. Loyalty is very important. Loyalty to your friends, to your family, to your nation, very important. Loyalty to politicians, on the other hand, is not a thing or shouldn't be. Loyalty should go the other way. They need to be loyal to us. We aren't loyal to them. And they got to keep proving themselves. And look, if, if that, if you don't like that idea, if you don't want to have to keep proving yourself, if you're the kind of person that feels offended when you, you know, you do a few things that your constituents like and then you do something they don't like and they start yelling at you and you get offended, it feels ungrateful. If that's the way you feel about it, then don't, then just don't run for office, because that's the gig. You get graded every day, and if you get a bad grade, you're going to find out about it. And if you don't like that, then don't. No one forced you to be a politician. That's the gig. That's the job. So with that in mind, we turn to Marjorie Taylor Greene. And she's been in a war of words with President Trump. And I don't really care about that, frankly. I also have, I also like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Usually I think she's done, I think she's done some great work, but she's, she's moving in a direction right now that again, as a politician, as an elected representative, I just can't abide. A couple of weeks ago, she was on the View and had a nice conversation with the ladies on the View. And that was, that was odd. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't call it out at the time. I found it disappointing. I didn't think it was necessarily worth hitting her over. But, but there was no, you know, she sat down with a nice conversation, didn't call him out. No fireworks. No. No rhetorical punches thrown. They just had a nice, nice little talk. Kind of strange, but, yeah, you think, okay, well, whatever, maybe I let that slide. It's all, it's also, I take it, like, personally, on a personal level, I don't like, because, as you know, I have been auditioning for the View. I put on my audition table, like, a month ago when they claimed they were looking for more conservatives. And I, I, I, you know, I, I sent out my appeal, which is very heartfelt and genuine, as you know. And I've been waiting for my chance to get on that show. Finally, they have someone from the right on the show. And, and we get. No, we get nothing. Nothing interesting happened at all. They got along and enjoyed each other's company. So, okay, fine. But then this happened. So she appeared on CNN over the weekend and listen to this exchange.
- [45:56]
D
You posted on X that President Trump is, with his comments fueling a, quote, hotbed of threats against you. Obviously, any threats to your safety are completely unacceptable. But we have seen these kinds of attacks or criticism from the president at other people. It's not new. And with respect, I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
- [46:25]
C
Dana, I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say humbly, I'm sorry, sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's very bad for our country. And it's been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, is that we. I'm only responsible for myself and my own words and actions. And I am going, I am committed. And I've been working on this a lot lately to put down the knives in politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another. And we need to figure out a new path forward that is focused on the American people. Because as Americans, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we have far more in common than we have differences. And we need to be able to respect each other with our disagreements.
- [47:20]
D
So, just to put a button on this, you regret the things that you have said and posted in the past. The Facebook post that was taken down of you in 2020, holding a gun alongside the squad, encouraging people to go on the offense against the socialists, Liking a tweet of somebody calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi and former President Obama. Just examples.
- [47:46]
C
Well, Dana, as you know and many people know, I addressed that back in 2021 and of course, I never want to cause any harm or anything bad for anyone. So that that was addressed back then. And I very much stand by my words. I said then, and I stand by my words today. I think America needs to come together and end all the toxic, dangerous rhetoric and divide. And I'm leading the way with my own example, and I hope that President Trump can do the same.
- [48:22]
A
Amazing. Okay, so just to review here, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The left spent weeks celebrating in the mainstream, not on the fringes, celebrating en masse across the country. Then they proceed to elect an attorney general, openly fantasized about killing his political opponents and their children. This is on the heels of years of political violence and making excuses for political violence. BLM antifa attacks, on Tesla dealerships, on pro life organizations, so on and so on. And after all that, Marjorie Taylor Greene goes on CNN and apologizes to them for her toxic rhetoric. CNN is responsible for running cover for this violent rhetoric from the left. CNN is one of the worst offenders. CNN gave us the fiery but mostly peaceful line. Okay? The infamous line, fiery, most, mostly peaceful came from cnn. They've never apologized for that. They've never acknowledged it. There's never been any walk back at all. But when this smarmy anchor brings up toxic rhetoric, Marjorie Taylor Greene doesn't bring that up, doesn't call him out, doesn't throw it back in their face, doesn't take the opportunity to boldly stand up to the corporate media, which is responsible for about a million times more toxic rhetoric than any Republican. Doesn't do that. Instead, she apologizes on cnn, groveling before this snide, gross news anchor who sits there smirking. She's loving every second of it. She can't believe her luck that she's talking to a Republican. And she makes this point where, like, as a CNN anchor, you are so vulnerable making a point like that. There's a. There are a million comebacks that Marjorie Taylor Greene could have used. And instead she says, you know what? You're right. I'm so sorry. It's like, what, what, what are you doing now? There is not any flattering interpretation of this, I'm afraid to say. This is not, this is not leading by example, okay? This is not. And this is one of the, one of the, many problems with all the, all the, all the fighting, all the infighting on the right. Is that now because Marjorie Taylor Greene and President Trump are having a thing and some people are on her side and some are on Trump's side. And so the people that are on On Marjorie Taylor's green side, some of them are trying to defend this. Well, we all know, like you what, you went on CNN and apologized for toxic rhetoric on cnn. I mean, we all know that's totally unacceptable. It's insane. We all know that. And there are even some people on the right that are trying to say, well, you know, but I don't know. I mean, I think that this is. Oh, stop it. Stop. What are you doing? Please, what are you doing? This is not leading by example, okay? You are setting an example, but it's horrendous because the example is allowing yourself to be used as a stooge. Allowing yourself to be humiliated by people who despise you, okay? Not in a self effacing, Christlike, humble sort of manner, but in a cowardly way. This is not Christlike. Jesus would not do this, okay? Entertaining hypocrites, which is what cnn, that's what they are, hypocrites. And hypocrites in the, in the actual definitional sense. Not hypocrites in the, in the sense of saying one thing and doing another. Hypocrite in the sense of claiming to believe something you don't really believe. That's what a hypocrite is. And when CNN gets up there and says, well, weak. All this toxic rhetoric is very troubling. They are hypocrites, okay? This is not Christ. Like, Jesus would have called them out on that. It's all over the Gospels. Jesus did not suffer hypocrites. And when the hypocrites want him to play a game, he's not going to play it. He's not going to sit there and say, well, you're right, no. He would have said, no, you're a hypocrite. I'm not going to play this game for you. Absolutely not. I don't need to speculate about what Jesus would do. Read the Gospels. It's all over it. So this is not Christlike. This is not anything. This is not setting a Christian example. This is, this is cowardly. This is. This is. This is someone who wants to keep getting invited onto cnn. I mean, there's just no other way to explain it. There's no other possible way. Because if Marjorie had called Dana Bash out on her nonsense, if she'd said something like, oh, toxic rhetoric. Well, have you asked every Democrat in the country why they still haven't denounced the Attorney General of Virginia who wants to murder conservatives and watch their children die in their arms? Have you, have you gotten that? Let's talk about that first. Okay, let's talk about that. If she'd done that, she never would have been invited on CNN ever again. And the only way to interpret this performance is through that lens. She wants to go on cnn. She wants to go back on the View. And look, that is, that's, that's intoxicating, I guess. I mean, I've never been in any of those. I don't get invited on CNN at all. Okay, that's the first thing. They don't make invitations to me. I don't, I don't, I don't get to go on cnn. And even though I've made my audition tape for the View, I don't think there's going to be an invitation forthcoming. But I can see, as anyone can, that, yeah, being in these kind of mainstream places, even on CNN where they have got like 10 viewers now still, it's kind of mainstream. It's got, its certain, it's got a certain whatever appeal because of that. And yeah, you want to keep going on. And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene has started getting a little bit of the strange new respect from the left. And, you know, she went a couple places, she's attacking Republicans. She goes on the View, has a nice time. Next thing you know, CNN's calling her up and I'm sure they're saying very fragile, flattering things also behind the scenes. And so she wants to lean into that. I mean, that's the only way to interpret this. Because if you really feel called to apologize for things you've said or done in the past, well, go ahead and do it. I mean, no one would tell you not to. I don't really think she has anything to apologize for. But if she really feels called to do that, then go ahead and do that. But to do it on cnn, to dance like a monkey for that audience, to go on CNN and have them say, okay, monkey, dance. Yeah, apologize. And then to do it, to debase yourself and the movement you're supposed to represent in that form is just inexcusable. This does set an example. That's true. But the example is the one CNN wants to set. Okay, the example is not, oh, we should all come together as Americans. No, CNN wants to set the example that Republicans are responsible for the toxic rhetoric and they need to apologize. That is the thing that CNN is trying to communicate. That's why you're there. And so you can either give them what they want and say, okay, I'll be used by you, sure. Or you could say, no, I'm not going to give you that. So this is. She confirmed and boosted their narrative which is. I mean it's like the unforgivable sin. I can't going on CNN and apologizing. There's there look, I can. I could try to overlook a lot of things, but groveling public apologies. You know, I've always said this. Groveling public apologies, that's one of those things. I just can't. I can't. That's unforgivable. It just is. And doing it on CNN of all places, to that woman of all people, it's just unforgivable. It won't surprise you to learn that I'm not the guy who keeps up with the best holiday sales and plan out all the stores to visit for gift giving season. The fact that I don't have to plan any of this out is actually one of the many perks of marriage. That's the main reason you should get married married actually, if you're a man so you don't have to worry about Christmas anymore, let your wife do it. But there is one sale I've been made aware of that I think is worth sharing with you. Bol and Branch is having their best sale of the year right now. 25% off everything on the site. If you've been thinking about upgrading your bedding, this is definitely the time. Their signature sheets are a great place to start and they're a great gift for anyone in your life. My wife and I upgraded all of our bedding to bowl and Branch a while ago. Quality difference is noticeable. The sheets are made with 100% organic cotton which makes for a great night's sleep. Whether you are a hot or cold sleeper, it doesn't matter. Plus Bowlen Branch has a bunch of other items to check out including blankets, throws, pillows, duvet. We actually ended up getting their waffle blanket last month and it's become the favorite blanket in our house. I'm not worried that you won't love it, but if for whatever reason you don't, you can rest easy knowing that there is a 30 night money back guarantee. Give yourself and your loved ones the most extraordinary feeling of sleep with 25% off site wide plus free shipping and extended returns during Bollen branches. Best sale of the year shop now@bolanbranch.com Walsh with code Walsh. That's Bolenbranch B O L L a n d branch.com Walsh Code Walsh for 25% off exclusions apply. This is.
- [58:13]
B
If you used Babel you would Babble's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200, hundred language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com Spotify spelled B A B-B-E L.com Spotify rules and restrictions may apply.
- [58:41]
A
This is your last chance to win my personal Lifetime membership. If you didn't hear it when I told you this 35 minutes ago, one winner will get all access for the rest of their life. Every benefit we offer now, everything we build next, Yours for life. Here's how to enter Download the free Delaware plus app on iOS or Android and tap follow right under my face. That's your entry. And if you don't want to gamble on winning my personal membership, you can still claim one of the original 10,000 yourself. Fewer than 1500 remain and once those are claimed, it's over. Go to dailywire.com lifetime and get all the details or to secure your place in Daily Wire history right now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Recently we discussed the new concept called man keeping. It's a new concept that really is just a new and quite stupid term for a very old concept. It's the concept that women in a romantic relationship should care for and about the men that they are in a relationship with. And for as long as human relationships have existed, this has always been a feature of them. Indeed, it's caring for and about the other person isn't just a feature of a relationship, it is the relationship. But in our self centered, misandrist feminist dystopia, women caring for and about their own husbands is considered controversial. It is no longer the very essence of the relationship itself, but a sign that somehow the relationship has gone wrong. If you're a woman in a relationship and you find that your relationship feels like a relationship, then that is unfair to you. You are the victim of man keeping. Over the weekend, Vice tweeted this caption along with a link to an article about man keeping. And the caption says, quote, managing his stress, interpreting his moods, holding his hand through feelings he won't share with anybody else. All of it unpaid, unacknowledged and often unreciprocated. Is it any wonder women are fed up? Yes. Interpreting moods, listening to them talk about their feelings, dealing with their stress. Well, it's A good thing. Men never have to do any of that for women. You know, women, of course, are famously stoic and reserved about their emotions, so men don't have to deal with this. I wish I had a dollar for every time a male friend has said to me, man, I wish my wife would just open up about her feelings a little bit more. You know, she never tells me how she feels. And her mood never fluctuates either. Just stone cold, totally even keel all the time. I've heard that from so many men, and by so many, I mean none ever at any point. Because of course, men have done this for the women in their lives every day, all day, since the dawn of humanity itself. Yet the term woman keeping was never coined, and if it had been, it would have been condemned as horrific sexism by precisely all of the women who are now using the term man keeping. This double standard has not occurred to them. Or if it has, they don't care. Vice explains. Quote, researchers at Stanford have finally given a name to something many women have been dealing with for years. It's called man keeping. And it's helping explain why so many women are stepping away from dating altogether. Man keeping describes the emotional labor women end up doing in heterosexual relationships. It goes beyond remembering birthdays or coordinating social plans. It means being your partner's one man support system, managing his stress, interpreting his moods, holding his hand through feelings he won't share with anybody else. All of it unpaid, unacknowledged, and often unreciprocated. Now you notice there. And just, just a side note, you notice how the word unpaid so often comes up in these feminist lamentations about the alleged unfairness of heterosexual relationships. But this is many times we talk about this sort of thing in the daily cancellation that that word comes up unpaid. Now, a sane person who does not suffer from a psychotic level of bitterness and narcissism would not even think to complain that the emotional support they offer to their spouse or their girlfriend or boyfriend is unpaid. Even at their most selfish, their most self pitying, the thought, I can't believe my spouse isn't paying me to care about them, wouldn't cross their mind. And if their spouse did offer such a payment, they would be shocked and appalled and most of all, like really confused. I'm trying to imagine how my wife would react if I had a heart to heart talk with her. And then after our conversation, as it concluded, I said, so what's your hourly rate? Is it a hundred dollars? Is that fair? Here you go. Now she might laugh but more likely she would probably cry because she would realize that I'd finally lost my mind. The point is that this unpaid labor thing, when applied to marriages and parenting, which is the other context where feminists often use the term is, is total insanity. And it also reveals perhaps the deepest truth about the left wing feminist, which is that, just to be totally frank about this, the left wing feminist aspires to nothing so much as to be a whore. She wants her husband to pay her for paying attention to him. She wants to be a prostitute. Now with onlyfans, many of them actually do become prostitutes. The rest of them choose other careers, perhaps because they've decided, rightly in many cases, that they're not physically attractive enough to prostitute themselves in the most literal sense. But prostitution in some form or another remains the great dream of every liberal feminist. Here's a little more from the article. The root of the issue is tied to what experts are calling the male loneliness epidemic. As more men report having fewer close friendships, romantic partners are expected to pick up the slag. Instead of processing with friends, many men offload everything onto the women they're dating. She becomes his entire emotional infrastructure. Plenty of women are no longer interested in that dynamic. According to Pew Research, only 38% of single women in the US are currently looking for a relationship. Among single men, that number jumps to 61%. The gap says a lot. Women aren't opting out of love. They're opting out of being someone's therapist with benefits. The Guardian calls man keeping a modern extension of emotional labor, one that turns a partner into a life coach. This isn't about avoiding vulnerability. It's about refusing to carry someone else's emotional weight while getting little to nothing in return. And there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. Well, actually there is. There's a lot wrong with feeling that way. And look, the last time we talked about this man keeping nonsense, we established, as we have again in this segment, that the women who use the term or complain in any way about having to show the slightest concern for the men they chose to marry or even to date, are selfish, horrible cretins. And that is the primary and most obvious takeaway. Yeah, from any story like this, the first takeaway, and the first one that most people go to, rightly so, is, oh well, this is feminism is terrible. Because it is. Feminism has made women, not all women, but the women in its grasp into selfish, entitled, resentful, greedy egomaniacs who demand financial compensation for performing their wifely and motherly duties so that's that's, that is the, the most important point. But there is something else going on here that I don't think we really got into the first time we talked about this. Women are also complaining more about men being emotionally vulnerable because a lot more men are emotionally vulnerable. For many decades, men have been encouraged. Not just encouraged, but harangued, nagged, to soften and open up and be more honest about how they feel. And this has been going on for a long time. It was always a trap. And there were a lot of us who were saying, this is a trap, guys don't fall for it. And unfortunately, a lot of men didn't listen to us, and they've fallen into it. It's undoubtedly true that all of the women complaining about man keeping are despicable feminist harpies. But this is also undoubtedly true. No woman on the planet actually wants her husband to be as emotionally vulnerable with her as she is with him. And so there is a double standard here. And I'm not talking about the feminist double standard. I mean, there's another, like, deeper double standard that, that is hardwired. It's ingrained into us biologically. Any woman whose husband leans on her emotionally to the same degree and in the same way that she leans on him will feel exhausted and overwhelmed and ultimately resentful because of it. And that's not her fault. It's nature. Men and women are different, okay? This is the revelation that we always come back to. Men and women are actually different. A woman with an overly sensitive and emotionally frail husband will feel like she's carrying a disproportionate amount of the emotional weight in the marriage, when in fact it's technically equal weight. Right? It's. It's. So he's doing with her what she does with him. So technically it's equal. She's not going to feel like that. She's going to feel like she's carrying way more of it for the same reason that, like, if I ask my wife to help me move a couch downstairs, she will strain under the weight of the couch much more than I will. It will feel like an unequal burden, even though we're both carrying the same amount of weight. The difference is that I'm a man. I was built to move couches. She was not. And so it's harder for her. And that's not because she's selfish or flawed in some way. It's not her fault. She's just different. She's a woman. It's harder for her to move the Couch and emotional weight is the same sort of thing. You know, if your wife unloads all of her fears and anxieties onto you and you unload all of yours onto her, she will feel like she's carrying an undue amount of the burden, even though it's equal. But it's not really equal, because, again, she's a woman and you're a man. You're supposed to carry an unequal amount of the fear and worry. You're supposed to. You're built for that as a man. You're not supposed to go home and tell your wife about every last thing you're worried about and stressed about. There are supposed to be things that you just keep to yourself and you carry as a man. That's what men are supposed to. That's what men have always done. That's what women expect men to do, even if they won't say it because they feel bad saying it, or they don't even know that. Even if they don't, at this point, know that they want that because they've been. Their minds are so frayed by feminism. It still is. It's biological. Now, I've used this example a few times because I think it illustrates the point effectively. Because anytime I say this is always people objecting, of course. So how could you say that men are supposed to. Men should open up, and why can't they open up and say, you know, be honest about how they feel? Well, here's the example I think kind of illustrates this. If you're a married man, you have probably seen your wife cry. You've probably seen her cry many times in general, but you've probably seen times when she's cried because she had a stressful day. And I don't mean that it's because anything traumatic occurred to her. We're not talking about that. Okay. Trauma is one thing, but I mean, she just had a stressful day. Like, nothing really terrible happened. It's just a stressful day, and there's nothing unusual about this. Right. And as the husband, it's not difficult for you to deal with. You know, she wants to be comforted, so you comfort her. She's looking for someone who's, you know, she just wants you to be a solid, you know, presence and. And a strong presence. And so she's just kind of offloading the stress that she has. All of that is normal. Now, on the flip side, we all understand on a visceral level that it would be bizarre and upsetting for your wife if you came home from work and started crying over the stress that you're feeling and not because something actually traumatic happened. I don't mean that. Okay? You're a cop and there was something horrible and someone died. And, you know, we're not talking about that. I just mean you had a tough day at the office, like normal stress, okay? If you came home and started and you were crying and your wife said, what's wrong? I just had a really hard day. It's just a tough day. There's a lot going on and you're just sobbing on your couch in front of your wife and your children. I think we all understand viscerally that that's. You shouldn't do that as a man. Are you saying it's okay for a woman to do, but not a man? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. And this display of weakness and emotional dysregulation will be a burden on your wife in a way that the same scene in the reverse would not be for you. Why? Well, again, men and women are different. And this is one of the reasons why the 5050 approach doesn't work in a marriage. There is no way to judge what constitutes 50% of the work in a marriage because all of the work is weighted differently depending on whether a man or woman is doing it. And I'm certainly not saying that all of the hard tasks in a marriage or in a family are easier for men. Sometimes it goes the other way. Right. For example, my wife is very good as. As wives should be at managing the house. And that means, like, keeping everything clean and orderly, making sure the kids are fed, schedules are kept, everyone gets where they need to go, and everyone's going, we got six kids, everyone's going to a million different places. And, you know, they're all wearing the appropriate attire for whatever thing they're going to be going to and everything, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Right. She's much better at that than I am. And if we were to split that task 50, 50, maybe one week she plays the role of household manager, the next week I play it, it would not be the case that the burden is equally shared because it would be much. I would be much more burdened by my 50% than she is by her 50%, because she's more suited to that than I am because I'm a man and she's a woman. And a lot of marriages are struggling and both spouses feel resentment and anger, anger they don't even understand because they refuse to accept this basic truth because the culture has told them it isn't true. But it is. Men and women are different. And that's why your wife can and should be more emotionally vulnerable than you. It's unequal. Yes, well, men and women are unequal. And that's okay, just as long as she doesn't use the term man keeping, which is definitely not okay because that term is today once again, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, President Trump finally slams Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene after the congresswoman's anti Trump freelancing. The Trump administration promises affordability, but how can they achieve it? Plus, Michelle Obama still thinks America is awful. All that on today's Ben Shapiro Show. Give it a listen.