← The Matt Walsh Show
The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1725 - I Was Wrong About Online Gambling. It’s Destroying A Generation Of Young Men. Here’s Why.
01:13:51
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Matt Walsh
They told you America invented slavery. They told you the Indians were peaceful. They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph McCarthy was a bad guy. And guess what? They lied. Through half a century, generations of American school children have been taught to hate our history, hate our country and hate themselves. Time to set the record straight. And since no one else is going to do it, I will. Who sold us the slaves? What were India and Africa like before Europeans arrived? What caused white flight? Some of the most well known stories from American history are designed to demoralize you. Trail of Tears, smallpox, Blanket Smith, the Red Scare. It's all baseless. It's time for a lesson on what they're not teaching in public schools, on the real history of slavery, of colonialism, of the Indians of America and the world. Time for Real History with Matt Walsh, now streaming only on Daily Wire. Plus today, Matt Walsh show doesn't happen very often, but sometimes I get something wrong. Well, we're going to talk about one of those rare cases today. I've been a supporter of legalize online sports betting and even had gambling sponsors on this show, but not anymore. And I want to explain why I changed my mind. Also, new video sheds more light on Alex Preddy, the leftist agitator who got himself shot by ice. Plus, Piers Morgan's wife published an entire op ed in the newspaper to complain about the fact that her husband got injured and now she has to take care of him. This is why you should never marry a feminist. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh. If you watch this show regularly, then you may have noticed that until recently I would occasionally read advertisements for various online gambling companies. Every time I did one of those ad reads, somebody in the comment section would object. They would accuse me of promoting immoral and unchristian behavior, of having no principles, corrupting the youth, and so on. On top of that, I was accused of shilling for products that I didn't use. Now the truth is that I read those advertisements because at the time I supported legalized gambling, including sports betting and I have placed bets myself, especially on NFL games in moderation. My perspective was that sports betting is no different from any other entertainment related expense. As long as you don't turn gambling into a lifestyle, which is something that I've never done or been tempted to do, then I didn't see much of a problem with it. And for people who take things too far, my attitude has been that it's not the government's job to save people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. If you voluntarily take on a financial risk that backfires, well, that's your issue. Shouldn't have done that. And that's genuinely how I felt. And in many ways, in many other situations, I still feel that way. I don't believe that the arguments for legalized gambling are spurious or unserious. But starting today, I've decided that we are not going to have any more gambling ads on this show. All gambling sponsors are banned from the show from this point forward. And that's because I've changed my mind. I think I was wrong and I want to explain why. I think that there is now substantial evidence that gambling has some of the same corrosive effects on young people, on society at large, but young people in particular as legalized marijuana use. And years ago, you've probably heard me mention this before, I also supported legalizing marijuana. And my opinion changed, though, after seeing the impact that it has had on society. My, my view on legalized gambling has evolved in the same way and for the same reason. Now, yes, if one person, you know, smokes a bowl on occasion, it's not going to destroy society. The problem is that a huge preponderance of people will not smoke weed in moderation. It becomes a habit. It affects their development. It dulls their interests in things that actually matter in life at a certain point. For weed smokers, marijuana becomes a way of life. And meanwhile, for everybody else, the weed smokers are, you know, at best, a. A nuisance and, and oftentimes much more than that. They actively degrade our quality of life. It's a clear net negative on society in general. Nobody wants to share the roads with somebody who's high, or eat food prepared by someone who's high, or attend a class full of students who are high. But increasingly, these are unavoidable scenarios. These are the externalities of marijuana use. There are real costs that are inflicted on innocent people. And now you can't walk through any city without smelling the stench of weed everywhere and seeing people walking around like zombies, stoned out of their minds. That is the inevitable result of the mass legalization and acceptance of this drug. And we're seeing it all around us. Gambling presents similar problems. It greatly diminishes the lives of millions of people, especially young men, in a variety of ways that aren't always obvious. And it's scamming people, including experienced gamblers, in ways that aren't remotely apparent. They weren't apparent to me either when I first accepted those sponsorships on this show. Now that it is apparent I can in good conscience continue promoting it. So let's start with the basics on that point, and we'll work our way down. So here's a fairly straightforward but very important question that by most estimates, 90% of Americans cannot answer. So let's say you log on to a major sports betting platform and you want to place a four, a three leg parlay. Let's say, in other words, you want to make three different bets on one ticket. And if any one of those bets doesn't hit, then you lose all your money. That's the way it works. So, for example, the most popular parlay on FanDuel right now is that Kenneth Walker, Jackson Smith and Jigba Ramanre Stevenson and Stefan Diggs will all score a touchdown at some point during the Super Bowl. So that is a four leg parlay. More than 8,000 people have placed bets on this particular parlay. If you bet $100 and all four players score touchdowns, you'll win $2,890. It's an extraordinarily high return for a relatively small investment, which is why the parlay has attracted so many people. But what are the odds that it actually hits? Let's assume for the sake of argument that each of these players individually has roughly a 40% chance of scoring a touchdown during the game. It seems like a, you know, fair enough estimate. Well, based on this information, what are the odds that you'll turn your $100 into $2800? If you had to give a ballpark estimate of your win probability on this parlay, what would it be? In other words, what are the odds that these four players will all score touchdowns? If each player has a 40% chance of scoring a touchdown? The vast majority of adults and people who gamble can't give an accurate response to that question. Certainly the the vast majority of young people who are on these sites have no idea whatsoever. It's a math problem that isn't easy to solve unless you've been taught how to do it. Well, the answer is less than 3%, because you multiply the percents together, 40% times 40% times 40% times 40%, and you get to less than 3%. But actually, when it comes to parlays, the math is even worse than that. And here's why. On a normal bet where you're only making one wager, the sportsbook will almost always add a house edge to the odds, otherwise known as juice. So, for example, imagine a 5050 bet on an NFL game. If you bet $100 and lose. You'll lose $100. But if you bet 100 and win, you only make around $91 instead of $100. That $9 loss is the house edge, or the juice in gambling lingo. Now, in general, sportsbooks bank around 5% of the total amount wagered on any bet, which is known as the hold percentage. On parlays, though, sportsbooks bank far, far more than 5%. The more legs you add to your parlay, the more juice they get. As the Washington Post put it late last year, quote, as each leg is added to a parlay, the house edge is compounded. And by the time a fifth leg is added, the sportsbook's expected hold percentage has more than quadrupled from 4.5% on one leg to 20.8% on five. Even though the potential payout rises as legs are added, the chances of winning are falling even faster. That's why operators love them. Here's an illustration of what that might look like in practice. Imagine a hypothetical five leg parlay without any juice, where you can bet a hundred dollars and earn three, one hundred dollars in profit. Well, when you add in the juice, you're only getting around $2,400 in profit. That's a loss of more than 20% of your profits to the juice, which is far more than than your lost profits on a single bet. As we just discussed. Now, for many people who bet on parlays, none of this math is really obvious because it's just. It's not obvious. That's kind of complicated. And certainly the betting sites don't make it obvious. They're not going out of their way to advertise all this stuff. It's very hard to compute the odds on parlays, particularly when the different legs involve the same game. What lures gamblers is the possibility of a very large payout for a relatively small bet, which is why parlays are by far the most common form of sports betting. Now in New Jersey, according to the most recent data, parlays accounted for more than 80% of all wagers placed by betters under the age of 24. Now, most states don't track that kind of information. It's very interesting information to have. Most states don't track it, but we could probably assume that they have similar numbers as well, which makes a lot of sense because you've got younger people whose brains are not fully developed yet. Their prefrontal cortex is not fully online yet, not until the age of 25. And they're placing These kinds of bets that, that, you know, a more rational, discerning person would realize, it's just not. It's not a good investment of your money. Now, you might be thinking, as I did, well, if the math is confusing and people don't realize that, then, you know, well, no one's forcing them to make bets that they don't fully understand. It's up to you. It's up to you to look into this. It's not like it's. You can find all this out. It might. Might not be information that's put right in front of your face, but it's not hard to figure out if you want to. And that's up to you. Right? Individual responsibility. And that's a fair point. I think it's a compelling point. It was my point for a long time. But here's the thing. Even if you're a competent gambler and you fully understand how parlays work and you math out the odds properly, you're still going to get cheated if you play long enough. The Economist recently ran a lengthy investigation into how sports betting companies identify skilled gamblers called sharps and losers, who are called squares. And they use a series of algorithms to decide in real time if you know what you're doing. And if you're identified as a sharp, then you'll face restrictions on how much you can bet. In other words, the game is literally rigged against you. These limitations don't apply to many gamblers. Only around 0.6% of gamblers in Massachusetts are limited, just for example. But that's only because most gamblers lose money. Most gamblers don't know what they're doing, and the sportsbooks know they're going to lose money almost immediately. Quote the profiling process starts before you place a bet. Are you using a phone like most punters? Good. Or a computer, which makes it easier to compare odds? Not so good. Did you deposit by debit card or via the E wallets preferred by syndicates? Are you a woman? That's suspicious. Far fewer women bet than men, and many sharps get women to place bets for them. The first wager you place speaks volumes. Normal gamblers bet on the most popular spectacles, starting around half an hour before kickoff. They generally bet on who will win, what the scoring margin will be, and which statistical milestone a star player will achieve, paying little attention to the odds. Square players love to combine multiple bets into a parlay. Sharps have the opposite tendencies. They target less popular leagues and bet as soon as odds are published. When they are most likely to be mispriced. They shop around. They like obscure derivative markets such as how many points will be scored in the third quarter. And they bet on lesser known players to perform poorly. They rarely use parlays. They make big deposits and seldom withdraw winnings. Now, this analysis is so reliable that according to consultants who work in the gambling industry, sportsbooks can determine the lifetime value of Your account with 90% accuracy by the time you place your first bet. And Indeed, companies like DraftKings take full advantage of this kind of information. Here's a quote from DraftKings CEO Jason Robbins explaining at a Bank of America event last September about why he believes that sportsbooks have advantages over prediction markets like Poly Market or Kelsey. And here's what he said. Quote it's going to be very difficult to ever have as full featured an offering in a prediction market setup as you could in an online sports book. One of the chief reasons being risk management. When you're putting as a market maker a market up on an exchange, you just have to be comfortable with anyone taking that liquidity. Anyone can fill that order versus we're able to place limits on Sharps and other people. That's the only reason we're able to offer the variety of bets and things that we can. This is a very important admission and anyone who bets on sports should be aware of it. DraftKings is admitting that their moat, their competitive advantage over prediction markets like polymarket is that they will throttle the betting power of their most successful customers. They will shut you down if you start making too much money is the kind of thing that DraftKings investors like to hear because it shows that the company is protecting its profits. But it's not the kind of thing that DraftKings wants its customer base to really know about or focus on. So put simply, sportsbooks are often rigged against you in several different ways. The profits aren't anywhere near what they should be, particularly on parlays, which are much worse, worse bets than most people realize. And if you start making too much money, they just shut you down. Now in that respect, sportsbooks are very different from most forms of, you know, actual investing. No brokerage on the planet will ban you if your portfolio increases. They want your portfolio to increase. And of course, most forms of investing are not all or nothing. You know, if you invest in a typical S P500EFT and it drops by 2% one day, you haven't actually lost any money in a real sense, unless you sell, there's always the possibility you'll regain your money, and based on the history of stock market, you probably will. That might seem obvious to you, but for many people, especially young people, none of this is very obvious. They don't realize what they're getting into until it's far too late. Here's another quote from the Economist on that point. Quote the NCAA survey found that 16% of 18 to 22 year olds engage in problematic sports gambling. A poll conducted by Siena University in January found that a quarter of men who have gambled on sports say a friend or family member has expressed concern about their betting habits. Some 28 of 18 to 34 year old men who use sports betting apps said that they have had trouble meeting a financial obligation because of a lost bet. That's pretty stat. This numbers are staggering. I found this article to be really compelling when I read it for those reasons. There's also this new paper from the University of Oregon which suggests that in states where sports betting is legal and the home team loses, in cases where the home team was a favorite to win, there is a larger degree of domestic violence compared to states where sports betting is not legal. Quote Using Data from the 2011-2022 National Incident Based Reporting System, we document that in states where sports betting has been legalized, the effect of upset losses on domestic violence is about 6 to 7 percentage points larger than in states without sports betting. Furthermore, we find that the effects are driven by home teams on a winning streak, states with legal mobile betting Sunday Sundays right after paydays, and states with a larger betting market. The pattern of these findings confirms that the reaction to gambling loss explains our results. Now the surface this finding makes sense Intuitively. It's logical to conclude that people will care more about the outcome of sports of a game when they're when they've bet on the game and when people lose a lot of money, they're more likely to become upset. And people who are angry are more likely to commit acts of violence against people who happen to be around them. So another reason to ban or at least heavily restrict sports gambling, or at least make it not as readily available as it currently is. But there's another aspect of this research that's worth talking about. You take a look at this chart from the appendix of the data prepared by these data scientists at the University of Oregon, which you can see right here, the purple line is the degree of domestic intimate partner violence, as they call it, in states without legalized sports betting. That's the control. Basically, as you can see, the rate of domestic violence goes down very slightly when the home team wins a game, they're expected to win. And it goes up very slightly when the home team loses a game they're expected to win, which is what you would expect with this correlation. Well, meanwhile, the orange line reflects states where sports gambling is legal. And in those states, as we just mentioned, domestic violence goes up significantly when the home team loses despite being favored. But here's another interesting finding. The rate of domestic violence goes down by a much greater amount when the home team wins a game that they were favored to win. In other words, according to this research, the net effect of sports gambling is that there's actually less domestic violence overall. Men who might otherwise, you know, do this, beat their wives who bet on the home team when they're favored, refrain from committing domestic violence when they get a payout. And that happens more often than the alternative scenario by, you know, some margin. Now, of course, you have to take any kind of data like this with a grain of salt, certainly maybe with a, maybe with a significantly large grain of salt. But in general, these findings are obviously unsettling. And the important takeaway is not really whether sports betting increases or decreases the risk of domestic violence. I'm sure you could start poking holes in this. The takeaway is just really the insane degree of emotional investment that sports betting encourages its users to have in the outcome of a football game or any other game, even aside from domestic violence. Certainly the vast majority of sports bettors are not abusing their spouses, obviously, but it just raises a question about whether it's a good thing for society to have so many people so deeply invested emotionally and financially in watching sports and so focused on it and distracted by it. I mean, I'm a sports fan, but is that making anyone's life better? On this show, we've discussed a lot of academic findings, most of which are nonsense or meaningless, but what we're seeing here is not nonsensical. It's, it's a, it's a picture that is quite grim when you start really looking into it. And again, this is reminiscent of the problems affecting heavy marijuana users and the users of other drugs. Their relationships are destroyed. Their happiness or unhappiness is contingent on the drug. And once that happens, even if things go well for a little bit, inevitably it all collapses in the end. There's also a clear psychological component to gambling addiction, which is similar to what marijuana users experience. It's a compulsion that starts young in many cases. So here's a gambling addiction Counselor describing a 15 year old client who stole nearly $1 million from his grandmother and then spent it on FanDuel. Watch. How old is your youngest client?
- [20:47]
Gambling Addiction Counselor
The youngest gambling client we had was 15. 15.
- [20:50]
Matt Walsh
And are you able to share any other story?
- [20:53]
Gambling Addiction Counselor
Sure. So he came from a orthodox family. He was a great kid, great family support system. Mom called because he had been gambling. They thought that there was some shady stuff going on. So when I first started meeting with him, he was very secretive, didn't want to share anything. Then started to share that he had stolen his parents and his grandparents Social Security numbers. He had four FanDuel accounts, three he got locked out of. When we got into the fourth account, which was under his grandmother's Social Security number, He had placed $887,000 in BET and it was over a 12 month period. And when his mom and I went through that and we were looking, he was betting all day during school, he was betting at night when he was supposed to be sleeping. You know, there was so many different bets and on top of that he had had side bets going on in school with his peers. So then he was stealing the parents credit cards. And the way he would pay his bookies in school was to order Uber eats for everybody and he would pay them off with food. So there was all these, he had all these different avenues to get money forwarded to him.
- [22:04]
Matt Walsh
Now this is an extreme case obviously, but these kinds of cases, even if they don't rise to the level of a 15 year old, you know, stealing a million dollars and betting it over the course of a 12 month period, even if they don't rise quite to that level, these kinds of cases are becoming increasingly common and that is obvious when you start really looking into it. Dave Ramsey, who spends his time helping people manage debt, says it's the single biggest problem he's seeing at the moment. For their part, Vice just ran a documentary on the topic. Watch.
- [22:37]
Dave Ramsey
He's 300, 000 in debt on credit cards. His wife just found out. And it's all sports betting, which is probably the fastest addictive problem that we're running into in the money world right now.
- [22:48]
Matt Walsh
That's right.
- [22:49]
Dave Ramsey
Out of control sports betting. You can bet on whether they're going to dance backwards or forwards after a touchdown. You can bet on anything, right? And they are betting on everything and it's out of control. Some of you are losing your entire futures to betting on watching someone else earn a living.
- [23:08]
Bruce Springsteen
I won't say his name, but I know an individual. He's bet $4.3 million total and he's.
- [23:15]
Matt Walsh
My age, a lot of young men are not just betting on sports, but betting recklessly and are developing a really problematic relationship to gambling and lose a lot of money.
- [23:27]
Problematic Gambler
I need to stop gambling. But are you.
- [23:30]
Matt Walsh
You're joking about it, but do you actually think you need to stop? Yes, 100%.
- [23:35]
Problematic Gambler
The problem is, this sounds bad, but I do have, like, I work a lot, I make good money for my age. It's not ruining my life by any means. I still have enough money to go do what I want when I want. But it's definitely building habits that once I start making 60, 70, 80 plus grand a year, that, yeah, the units are gonna go up, I'm gonna lose more, I'm gonna win more. And it. It's definitely a problem that has been a pattern in my family and that I've been told from a young age to stay away from and for sake. I have dice tattoo on my arm for my grandpa. He was a gambler. So, yes, if we're going to revert to the question, I would say it's definitely becoming a problem, and I would.
- [24:14]
Matt Walsh
Like to stop now. In an ideal world, people could handle sports betting in a responsible fashion. They could bet a small amount of money, handful of times a year, and it would not affect their lives. You know, people would treat it like a game, not a lifestyle, not an investment strategy, not a career path. And they would enjoy the game in moderation, never spending more than they can afford to lose, never being too emotionally tied, you know, invested in it, tied up in it. That's an ideal world. That's how. And there. And there are people out there that. That's how they bet. That's. I said I've placed bets in the past. And that's. There's. There's not even the inclination to become. To. For this to become compulsive. It's like, it's not that fun. It's just every once in a while, just as an amusement, put a few bucks on a game. But that's just simply not what's actually happening at scale. Okay? It's not what's actually at scale. That ideal scenario is not what is really happening. And so we got to deal with what is really happening. The Supreme Court eliminated the federal nationwide ban on sports gambling back in 2018. Specifically, the court, with Justice Alito writing the opinion, struck down a federal law from 1992 that took the power to regulate gambling away from states as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. So it's been almost eight years, and anyone who supports sports Gambling. I have just one question, but I want you to answer it honestly. This is the question I had to ask myself after all that time. Has the mass legalization and ready availability of online gambling improved the country in any way whatsoever? Has it achieved anything positive that anyone can point to? Well, I think it's impossible to answer yes to that question. It's easy to point to the negative effects. The money wasted, the time wasted, the relationships destroyed, lives ruined. All of that is real, only becoming more and more common. So what are the positive effects to counterbalance this? Are there any at all? Well, it seems clear that the answer is no. And therefore we all need to ask, as I had to ask myself, why are we doing this? Why promote it? Why engage in it? Why endorse it? After a lot of thought, I've changed my answers on those questions. And if you're heavily invested in sports gambling, for the sake of your relationships and your livelihood, I hope you do as well. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know what Holiday our sponsor, PureTalk celebrates President's Day because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents. Just a Jackson and a Lincoln. That's 25amonth for unlimited talk text and plenty of data. Think about it. That's the cost of one or two meals out versus the hundreds that big wireless charges families every month. There's no reason wireless service needs to be that expensive. What makes PearTalk different goes beyond just price. They're an American wireless company that actively supports our veterans and invests in US based customer service team. So when you call, you're speaking with someone right here at home who can actually help you, not a useless AI chatbot. Plus, PureTalk uses the same towers as the big carrier, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just $25 a month for talk text and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. Go to PureTalk.com wal and you get 50% off your first month. Again, that's PureTalk.com Walsh to make the switch to Pure Talk. All right. By the way, before we get to headlines, let me shock you with something. Here's a shocking headline that I went to see the extended edition of Lord of the Rings Return of the King yesterday in theaters. It was actually the second one I saw this week. I saw the Two Towers on Saturday and I know I'm known as kind of a Lord of the Rings hater, but that's not exactly accurate. I don't hate the films and so I took my kids. I didn't just go by myself. I took my kids to go see the extent because they have the extended edition re release, like theatrical re release through Fathom, I think. And my kids are, you know, big time Lord of the Rings fans and they have it, they've never, obviously didn't see it in theaters. When it first came out, they weren't, they didn't exist. So I thought it'd be a chance to go take them. And they had a blast. They had a lot of fun. I have to say though, all of my criticisms of Lord of the Rings were vindicated as I'm watching them. I, I, I just, I have to say this, especially after I spent the first 25 minutes of the show talking about something I was wrong about, which happens on occasion. On occasion I get something wrong. Here was something I was right about, which is these movies, I mean, the movies are entertaining. I, I enjoyed them overall. I had fun taking my kids to them. I don't hate the films. I think they're well made, I think they're fun. And yeah, it was mostly cool just watching it in the theater with my kids. But my God, subtlety, subtlety is not Peter Jackson's strong suit. I'll just say that, you know, he pounds you over the head with a cinder block. Whatever emotion he wants you to feel, he just pounds. It's like a, he's got a sledgehammer just pounding you in the head, telling you to, pummeling you to death. If this is supposed to be a sad part, this is a sad, Be sad. This part is sad. That's the entire movie. The score, the dialogue, the visuals, all very insistent, very insistent. Doesn't want to leave anything up to interpretation, which I can respect that. I think sometimes movies these days are a little too ambiguous. They, you know, filmmakers these days are go a little too far with the subtlety. Oftentimes they want to be more ambiguous. You know, they want to keep things gray and open to interpretation. And I, I don't like that when it goes too far because you should have, you know, you should have the, the, you should have the courage to tell your story, actually tell the story and don't leave everything up to interpretation. But I think Peter Jackson just way too far in the other direction. And the extended edition, it's even worse. Like the theatrical cut of Return of the Kings was already 19 hours. And then you watch the extended edition and it's a 19 more hours somehow. And you're watching like all these additional. How much did you film? How long was this shoot? Is the shoot still happening somehow? I mean, how, How. How is. How do you have all these extra scenes? And of course, I already knew. You know, Return of the King is infamous for the. How many times it ends. It has multiple endings and. But I forgot just how egregious that was. And I don't know if I can't remember the theatrical cut versus this one. Maybe they added even more endings. But in the one that I just saw, this movie ends like 12 times. I mean, there's 12 different points where you're like, yeah, that could be the end. Or not there. Okay, what about there? What about there? And the mo. And the most egregious thing is at the very end, right? You got the. What seems like the final, final, final scene where Frodo and Gandalf go off to Elfland or whatever. They board the ship and they go off to Elf. Elfland. And it, you know, and everyone's crying and it's sad and it's bittersweet, and then it fades out and you think, okay, finally, that's the end. The thing is sailing away. The sun is setting, literally sailing off into the sunset. That's it. And then it comes back again. So we can see Sam returning home to his wife and kids. Why did we need to see that, Peter? What was. Why did you decide? How did that make it through the edit? Why does that need to be the last scene? We know he's going to go home. We don't need to see him do it. We get it. Like, he has a home. He's going to go back to it. Have a little fit, have a little faith in your audience, Peter. That's it. Just a little faith that we can kind of piece some of this stuff together. We can fill in some of the blanks. We really can. We don't need every last thing shown to us. Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode. There are a lot of perks to owning a home versus renting from a landlord. But one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home, the expensive repairs that are bound to happen. Regular homeowners insurance doesn't cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures and electrical issues, leaving you on your own to cover the repairs. But now there's another option called HomeServe. For as little as 499amonth, you get backup when things break. Instead of a frantically searching for a contractor in a panic, you'd already be on the phone with HomeServe's 24. 7 hotline getting something scheduled. HomeServe has a lot of different plans to choose from that cover different things. Just pick a plan if it's your budget and when something goes wrong, all you got to do is call HomeServe and they will handle all of it for you. They've been doing this for over 20 years with a network of 2600 local contractors. HomeServe could have been great when my wife and I bought our first home. Instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs, could have just called HomeServe and would have been done in one call and that would have been it. Help protect your home systems and your wallet with HomeServe against covered repairs. Plans started just 499amonth. Go to HomeServe.com to find the plan that's right for you. It's HomeServe.com not available everywhere. Most plans range from 499 to 1199amonth. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs. All right. Post Millennial has this report. Newly released footage shows Alex Pretty confronting federal agents in Minneapolis 11 days before he was fatally shot on January 24. Bystander video from January 13 shows a man identified as this guy approaching Immigration Customs Enforcement agents who were blocking a street. In the footage, he's seen seen shouting at agents and kicking their vehicle. And there's, there was, you know, these, this video surfaced yesterday and there was some people trying to say it's fake. It's AI. It's, it has been confirmed. This is real, is a real video. This is again, is from a couple of weeks, almost two weeks before the fatal shooting. And let's go ahead and watch it.
- [34:35]
News Reporter
This is a moment the news movement filmed on January 13th in Minneapolis showing a man who appears to be Alex Preddy interacting with Federal immigration agents 11 days before border Patrol shot and killed him. Our footage was analyzed by the BBC, whose facial recognition technology confirmed his identity to a 97% degree of accuracy. On the morning of January 13, our team received a tip that federal agents were blocking a street at the corner of East 36 and Park Avenue in Minneapolis. We arrived around 10:15am we saw observers shouting at the agents as they walked back to their vehicles. When they started driving away, the man kicked their tail light. An agent then got out of the vehicle, grabbed him and pushed him to the ground. During the altercation, agents fired tear gas and pepper pepper balls into the crowd. They continue to hold the man down before they retreat and he walks away.
- [35:45]
Matt Walsh
So again, that's been confirmed. And so that is Alex Pretty. Pretty, I guess, is how do you pronounce the name, and he spits at the officers, kicks their tail light out, deliberately instigates a violent confrontation. There's another video, another angle from the same event, the same confrontation. And listen to what Preddy says. Okay, so I don't. Well, with the bleeping, I don't know if you could hear or not. He says, assault me. Assault me, mother effer. And then he spits at the guy, literally asking to be assaulted. So does this change anything? Does it change our view of the incident that got. That got Preddy killed? Well, for me, it doesn't, because I already knew that Preddy was 100% at fault for his own death. I already knew that he was a leftist, degenerate, unhinged thug. And I knew that because I'm not an idiot, because I have a brain, and because we've seen this movie many times before. I didn't need any additional context to immediately recognize who this guy is and what he is. But if you somehow got duped, if you're. If you fell for the propaganda that Preddy was just an innocent, peaceful bystander, yes, it should change your view, because what we know now is that this guy was an agitator who repeatedly went out onto the street with a loaded gun, committing crimes and intentionally provoking violent interactions, confrontations with law enforcement. That's what we know, and obviously that matters. He wanted the confrontation. It was a violent person. I mean, you. You don't kick a tail light out if you're not a violent person, particularly kicking the tail light out of a law enforcement vehicle. And the. And the fact that he was committing crimes, as I've already said, makes the Second amendment argument totally invalid it. It completely erases that argument. Again, you cannot carry a gun and commit a crime. You can carry a gun. Right? You should be able to cut it. Carry gun. You can carry a gun. The laws in different states vary, but you can carry a gun. If you commit a crime, though, and have a gun on you, even if you don't pull the gun out, you still could get more charges just for having the gun. Like, if you go rob a bank and you have a gun on you, even if you never pull the gun out or mention it, that's still going to be an armed robbery. And there's not gonna be any Second amendment defense here. You're robbing the person and doing it armed. Whether you pull the gun out or not really doesn't matter. This is the very definition of armed robbery. Well, what I would say pretty obviously is that these are armed confrontations with law enforcement. How can I say that? Well, he's armed and he's instigating confrontations with law enforcement. Period. There is no such thing as legally carrying a gun while committing a crime. There is no such thing as legally carrying a. In the commission of a crime. And gun or no gun, again, we know that this was a violent person looking to instigate violent confrontations. The other thing that this new information teaches us is that the law needs to be enforced. It's best for everybody, including the leftist agitators themselves. If you come down hard on these people, arrest them all, Throw them in jail cells, charge them with every possible crime under the sun that you can. Right? No bail. Throw them in a jail cell. Alex would be alive today if. If he. If. If that had happened. That's the other lesson. If law enforcement is responsible for this guy's death, and. And they aren't really. But the only argument that I will entertain that places the blame on law enforcement is that they didn't arrest this guy the first time. If they'd done that, he'd be alive. And, you know, the funny thing, of course, is that the left will tell us. They are telling us that Preddy's history, very recent history of violent interactions with law enforcement, that. That history does not matter. And yet these are the same people who will insist that the fact that he's a nurse matters. So look you square in the eye, and they will tell you that, yeah, he's on video having a, you know, kicking the taillight out of a law enforcement vehicle, spitting on law enforcement, physically, violently confronting them. That doesn't matter. That's background. That it doesn't. That doesn't mean anything. And in the next breath, they'll say, oh, but he was a nurse. You're telling me they killed a nurse. A nurse, of all people. What the hell does him being a nurse have to do with it in that case? So him being a nurse is relevant, but the fact that he is. Has a habit now on video that we have seen of him violently, physically confronting law enforcement, that doesn't matter. What are you talking about? And this is the way that it always goes. This is the way that it always goes with the left. This is why I have no patience for the people who. The people on the right who fall for this still. Okay, fall for this still. If you still fall for this. If you're a conservative and you still fell for the. The, you know, they show him. It's the picture of him and the nurse in the scrubs, he was just a. He was a great man. He was a great, peaceful man. Such a nice guy. Such a great guy. Like, you're going around like, how do you know that? Anyway, I saw people, even some people that I previous not now, but had previously respected to some degree saying stuff like this. He was. He was a good man. A nurse. What the hell do you. How do you know he was a good guy? What are you talking about? Well, because he was a nurse. That means he was. Like, there aren't, like, there aren't nurses out there who are total scumbags. Like, being a nurse is a reflection of your character somehow. But this is what they do. So they start by telling us this entirely fictional biographical story where the martyr was this benevolent, humble servant of humanity and of the oppressed. And so they start by telling us that, right, that's the old gentle giant, you know, that goes back to the gentle giant, Michael Brown. They did the same thing with George Floyd, right? And then when it turns out, as it literally always does, always, that actually this martyr was a violent, unhinged weirdo, they immediately pivot and insist that his character and personal life don't matter. Like, you just spent two weeks in incessantly telling us about all the details of his personal life, what he did for a living, his charitable donations, right? His family, his parents, his. What his neighbors thought, right? He volunteered at a soup kitchen, what his dog's name was. He told us all that for two weeks. And then the minute we say, well, you know, actually, here's the real reality of this guy. Well, it doesn't matter. Why are you talking about, oh, that means he deserves to get shot? Well, no, but. Did the fact that he was a nurse automatically mean that it was wrong to shoot him? These people are so. They're just. That's why. Again, I just have. No, it's okay to get things wrong. Once again, started the show with it. You can get things wrong. I get it. But on this kind of thing, at this point, at this point, after all that we have seen, after all that we have all experienced together in the year 2026, usually when people say, oh, I can't believe you would do that in the. In the current year, I mean, usually that's a cliche, but in this case, it matters. Like, in this year, we are six years past 2020, and you're still falling for this. How stupid can a person possibly be? So. And we'll. We'll probably have more on that tomorrow, that point. But. But Any conservative who folded on this issue, any conservative who bought the leftist line on this case has discredited themselves permanently. And I, and I really mean that. From Amazon MGM Studios comes Melania. This new film takes you Inside the 20 days leading up to 2025, the 2025 presidential inauguration, through the eyes of the first lady herself. The briefings, the planning, the private conversations. Witness what it takes to secure her return to one of the world's most powerful roles. Melania only in theaters January 30th. Now, while we're on the subject, Bruce Springsteen at the ripe old age of 112, has just released a new song, a tribute to Alex Preddy and Renee Good. He, he put this, this, this song out. He says that he wrote it in the span of a day. He wrote it and recorded it in one day. And you can really tell, you can really tell it was not a lot of time put into this thing. Here it is.
- [46:05]
Bruce Springsteen
Through the winter, ice and cold down Nicolette Avenue A city of flame fought fire and ice Neath an occupier's boots. King Trump's private army from the dhs, guns belted to their coats, came to Minneapolis to enforce the north law, or so their story goes against smoke and rubber bullets. In the dawn's early light, citizens stood for justice, Their voices ringing through the night. And there were bloody footprints.
- [47:01]
Matt Walsh
There you go. That's good. So there you go. That's a generic boomer slop. I'd say it's kind of sad that 97 year old Bruce Springsteen has to be the one to step up to the plate to make the cringe protest anthem. And it's sad because it goes to show something we've talked about before, that rock music is dead. And it brings me no pleasure to report that, but it is, it is. There are not any current relevant bands around to step up to the plate and make the protest anthems anymore. Not that I think that what's happening with ICE is worthy of being protested, but you know, it, it just goes like protest music doesn't really exist anymore and the only people still doing it are these rock stars that, that have been past their prime for four decades and they're the only ones still doing it because all of it died during the Obama administration. The last gasp of protest music, of rock and roll in general, was the Bush administration. And as soon as Obama took office, it all went away because, because none of the rock bands wanted to be seen as racist. So protest music died and rock music died too. Those things kind of go together. Because the energy of rock music, the animating energy, is all about standing up to the man, right? And then Obama gets into office and none of these people want to stand up to him. So it all just dies. And now even under Trump, there's just nobody around except old Bruce, old geriatric Bruce eating a pudding cup, writing another protest song. But I will tell you one thing. The liberal women on TikTok, liberal women and the cringe liberals on TikTok are going to love this. I'll say that. Not, not because they're normally Bruce Springsteen fans. You know, Bruce Springsteen has no fans that are under the age of 80 at this point. And most TikTok users are considerably younger than that. But they're going to hear this song, they're going to think it's the most profound thing of all time. And they're. And I'm, I guarantee I haven't even checked, but there's going to be a million videos of, of liberal millennial women and men who function basically as women getting ready to go. Here's what we're see. We're going to see the video of like it's a selfie video. This cringe song is playing in the background and we see them suiting up, right? Getting ready, getting their gloves on, getting their jacket on, putting, putting the vest on, getting ready to go protest. We're going to see that time inevitably marches on, which means you get old. It's just a fact. The stiff joints, energy dips those nights where sleep just doesn't hit like it used to. Luckily for us, there's help. C15 from our sponsor, Fatty 15. C15 is the first essential fatty acid discovered in over 90 years. A legitimate scientific breakthrough. Strengthens our cells and helps slow biological aging at the cellular level. And when our cells age, our bodies age too. The wild part, as many as 1 in 3 people worldwide may have low C15 levels and something called cellular fragility syndrome. And to be clear, that's a different type of fragility syndrome than a majority of Democrats likely have. In my opinion, that's just a little joke. A little joke for you in the ad. Read a hilarious one too. Glad that one was in there. That's funny stuff. Fatty 15 repairs that age related damage that we all experience. Protect cells from future breakdown. It helps regulate sleep, cognitive health and our body's natural repair mechanisms. 72% of customers report real benefits within 16 weeks. Better sleep, healthier joints, improved energy. Plus it has three times more cellular benefits than Omega 3. I'm excited to start using it and look forward to some of the sleep and cognitive benefits, especially all the family activities that my kids get me into. We're just, we're just having, we're having fun with this copy with. There's a lot of jokes. This is. Everyone settle down, settle down for a second from the laughter. So I can finish. So I can finish. I want to tell you about this. And everyone's just uproariously laughing. This hilarious ad read. Fatty15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long term health and wellness, especially as you age. You get additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.comwalsh using code walsh at checkout. That's the other thing. The amount of cringe that we have seen from these people is. We're used to it, but it's truly staggering. So I want. This is just one example I think we have of hundreds, hundreds and hundreds. You see his videos pop up all the time. This is a millennial liberal. This is a man, in this case, allegedly, whose handle is fire breather. And here, here's watch. People have been asking, when's the time. After today. The song has been so.
- [52:13]
News Reporter
It's time.
- [52:21]
Matt Walsh
He was, he loved that so much. He was so impressed. You know, he watched that video back a hundred times before he posted. He was so proud of it. The song has been sung. He loved that line. You're so proud of that line. The song has been sung you know how many times he probably shot that, you know, you know how many takes, how many takes went into that? I, oh, anytime I see these cringe TikTok videos, it's the first thing I think about is how many takes. What take was that? Because it wasn't the first take, I'll tell you that right now. And he's in his bathroom, like, at least, at least take the Little Mermaid bath towel down before you do your superhero routine. You're standing right in front of a bath towel. Like no one can be intimidating in their bathroom with a bath towel right there. You know, his kids are out in the living room, his wife's out to dinner with her boyfriend, and this guy's in the bathroom filming this weapons grade cringe. All the kids are looking around like, where's dad? Dad, can I get in the bathroom? I gotta use the bathroom. Sorry. Hang on. I'll be out in a minute. I gotta, I'm, I'm acting like I'm in a Marvel movie. This is what happens when you have this generation of sheltered, scrawny, skinny, fat dorks who grew up on Marvel movies and Harry Potter, and now they want to pretend they're guerrilla fighters. I'm surprised they're not out there wearing capes. I really am. I mean, maybe some of them already are. I'm surprised they're not out there in capes. I'm surprised they're not out there in rubber suits. I mean, you do see some rubber suits, but that's usually a different context, like in an LGBT type of thing. But I'm surprised they're not. I'm surprised they're not like taping. You know, when you're in fifth grade, you tape pencils to your knuckles like your Wolverine. I'm surprised they're not doing that. Total cringe. And yet these people have been allowed to just run roughshod over the country, do whatever they want. Here's a story you probably didn't hear about. ABC News. A New York school district is erasing its Native American heritage and violating civil rights law by changing its name from the Thunderbirds to the T Birds, federal education officials say. U.S. department of Education said Thursday that the Konet Quack Central School District can voluntarily reserve or rather resolve the federal law violation by restoring the rightful Thunderbirds name. The Long island district, like others in the state, changed its name in order to comply with state regulations banning Native American sports names and mascots. But federal education officials argue the state mandate violates civil rights law because it allows schools to continue using names derived from other racial or ethnic groups, such as the Dutchman and the Huguenots. So aside from the specific specifics of this one name, Thunderbirds versus T Birds, the point here is that, and I didn't know this, though I'm not surprised that New York has a law, apparently an actual state law, banning Native American team names. No other ethnic team names are banned, only Native Americans, just Native American names. And the great thing about a law like this is that it's so bad and so dumb and so counterproductive that it's. It's fundamentally racist against everybody somehow. Like it manages to. You're not sure which group is it's more racist against. I mean, it is a legitimately racist law that somehow manages to be racist against everybody. Now, most obviously, it's racist against all the races and ethnicities that it isn't trying to protect. Not that anybody really needs to be protected from a mascot or a school team name. But the premise of the law, the claim, is that it is harmful somehow to base A team name on an ethnic group. But then the law says we are only going to protect one group from this kind of horrible harm that they're being threatened with. And that's obviously racist. But on the other hand, the effect is that it just further erases references to and appreciation of Native American culture, because that's obviously what these team names represent. You know, you name your team after something that you admire, something that you revere. So the. This has been our point all along about this, this dumb Native American team name controversy all across the country. The whole point is that this is a. A sign of respect and admiration, okay? If you hate a group or you think they're pathetic or beneath you, you're not gonna. You're not gonna march under their banner, you're not gonna put them on your jersey, you're not gonna name your team after them. So all in all, it's just the dumbest kind of law imaginable. And just as the overall nationwide campaign against Native American mascots has been incredibly dumb and self defeating, that's what happens when you come up with laws and policies that are grounded in a sense of guilt and a deeply, cartoonishly skewed view of history, which is what this is all really about. That's what any discussion of Native Americans is wrapped up in. It's wrapped up in guilt and historical nonsense. Which is why our second episode of my new series, Real History, I must mention, deals with this subject. And as you know, we launched my new documentary series, Real History, a couple of weeks ago. And this is an effort to confront and clarify, tell the truth about the real truth about some of the most important episodes in American history and in world history. And we'll tell you the things that the schools don't teach you and that the media doesn't tell you and Hollywood doesn't tell you. Our first episode, which is available now on Daily Wire, was about slavery. The next one, which I'm excited about, deals with the real history of the Native Americans. On the morning of June 14, 1786, Captain James Moore's family woke up on what seemed to be a normal day in southwest Virginia. But as they left the family's cabin to tend to their farm animals, the fearful war whoop was heard, and a raiding party of Ohio Valley Shawnee Indians rode down a ridgeline and attacked them. Captain Moore was shot seven times before being tomahawked and scalped. The Indians then murdered three of his children, leaving only his family members who were locked inside the cabin. Much like the Barbary Pirates The Indians broke into the house, shot the dogs, plundered and burned the home, killed the livestock, and took Moore's wife and surviving children captive. The raiding party stole horses and embarked on a journey to Detroit, which was then an open air market for humans captured by Indians. Okay, so that was. I was wrong. There's actually a clip from the first episode, not the second one, which is not yet, but deals with the. Deals with the subject. And if you want to see that episode about slavery or the next one, which is going to be about the Native Americans and it's going to, you know, give you a. I hate to use the term because it's so overused, but it is an actual nuanced view of the topic. Because what we don't want to do is replace one cartoonish view of history with a nut with a different competing cartoon. We're not going to do that either. And when it comes to, you know, the history in this country with Native Americans, it's not true that the Native Americans were these noble savages. It's not true that they were helpless victims. It's not true that there was a campaign of genocide waged against them. None of that is true. We'll get into that. However, there were examples of savagery against the Native Americans that, that did occur, just as there were exam many examples going the other way. And we'll get into all that. And if you want to see that and you want to get more of these kinds of episodes, you need to subscribe to the Daily Wire, which you should do right now, or at least after. After we're done here. Finally. You know, as, as a happily married man, I very often come across things that make me think, wow, I'm glad that isn't me. I very often come across that sort of thing where I see what's happening in the personal lives and relationships of other people. And I think, thank God, I'm just glad I'm not that person. And which I. It's not a gloating thing. It's more of a gratitude. It's a, it's an actual. It's actual. It's a sense of gratitude that, wow, okay, glad I'm not in that situation. And I had that experience when reading this op ed in the Telegraph written by Celia Celia Warden, who happens to be apparently the wife of Piers Morgan. Piers recently fell and broke his hip. And that was about two weeks ago that this happened. But already his wife is fed up with the relatively minor inconvenience that this has caused in her life. And she wrote an entire editorial complaining about. About this. Here's the headline. Caring for my invalid husband peers is the biggest test of our wedding vows. I signed up to in sickness and health. But it's almost two weeks since he broke his hip, and my patience with my patient is wearing thin. Wow. Now granted again, two weeks. Two weeks now. I think this article, granted, is supposed to be funny to some extent. It's not really funny, but I think that's some of what she's going for. It's always hard to tell when women try to, you know, write something funny. You can all you. It's because it's not gonna actually be funny. So you have to think, like, I think that it's a translation thing. It's like listening to someone speaking a different language and they're gesticulating wildly and you're just trying to interpret, I think, what he's trying to say. So when a woman's trying to be funny, you're like, I. I think what she's attempting here is comedy, I think, but I'm not sure. So I think there's supposed to be some of that. But what it is is just one very long, very public complaint that a wife is making about her husband who committed the sin of getting injured. And so here she is describing her thought process when she found out that her husband broke a sip. And that's when the doom montage started up in both our heads. You know, the little horror movie that plays out in an emergency when all the forthcoming miseries and complications are spliced together in a chilling fast forwarded sequence. The general anesthetic, the operation itself, the crutches, the rehab, the massive hit to your professional life, the canceled holiday, very few things live up or down to the doom montage. As challenging as the aftermath of accidents are, they don't tend to be quite as bad as we think they'll be in the moment of diagnosis. This, however, so much worse. Certainly the biggest test of the vows we've had to endure so far. I signed up to in sickness and health, but there was nothing in the small print about shower stools. And once I'd assembled the most hideous piece of piece of furniture in existence, I sent Piers a picture of it. Captioned, this is what the end of a marriage looks like, followed by a laughing emoji, his reply came seconds later. Way too soon. I had wanted to be a selfless wife, Jennifer Connelly, and a Beautiful Mind and an endlessly tolerant nurse. But as the days have worn on and Piers's snappiness has increased. My patience has worn thin. It's possible that I have on occasion, left the remote control just a centimeter out of reach. With Love island on telly, the portion sizes may have been reduced a little, the carbs eliminated and the treats withheld, as I have more from Florence Nightingale into Nurse Ratched. And we'll get through this. Of course we will. But I'll be honest with you, right now I'm 1 4am fallen crutch away from Kathy Bates in Misery. I just want to remind you that she wrote this after two weeks of helping her husband. Two weeks, and she's completely fed up. And on top of writing this article, she also appeared on some British morning TV show or daytime show, I don't know where. She did a whole interview about the injury and how it's affected her and complained that Piers is snappy and impatient and said that she's just looking for an excuse to get out of the house because he's so miserable to be around. So two weeks in and this woman's doing a media tour about why the real victim of her husband's injury is her. This is what you get for marrying a feminist. I mean, this is where it leads. This is why it cannot work. This is why it never works. Marriage requires a level of self sacrifice that feminists are constitutionally incapable of and fundamentally opposed to. Like they're not only selfish people, but they're actually opposed in principle to the idea of selfishness or of selflessness. Rather, they're opposed to selflessness and they have made a virtue of selfishness, especially in the context of a relationship with a man. So this is what you get. And I'll also say, you know, even aside from feminists, and we know that feminists are awful and if you married one, then it was the worst mistake you've ever made in your life and it's probably going to destroy your life. I mean, I don't know else to play like, I, I don't want to be the. I hate to be Debbie Downer, but if you married a feminist, then you've basically ruined your life. But even non feminist women still, I think, have a kind of. And that's some of what's coming through in this. Still have kind of an innate propensity to get a little bit annoyed at their husbands for being sick or injured. And you know, that is kind of a thing if we're being honest. But. But when you take it out of the feminist context, it comes from a natural place. It comes even from a Good place, which is that, first of all, the husband is supposed to be a protector and provider. And, and you know, obviously if they get injured or they're sick, it's not their fault. And so that's the way it is. But it's, it's, you know, unsettling and difficult to see the protector and provider incapacitated because men are the captains, men are the pilots. And it's like if your pilot on the plane is sick or incapacitated, that's going to make you kind of upset. And I remember once I saw a pilot. We were, we were, it's before we took off and, and I could see into the cockpit and I saw the pilot, his. All this is all I saw. Okay? Just, I saw him do this just like, just a real rubbing the temple briefly. The universal sign of a headache. I just saw him do that. And he might not have even doing that. He might have just scratched, but it looked like that it was enough to. That I caught my eye. I'm like, what, what are you doing? You have a headache? You're not allowed, you can't have a headache. You, you have to fly this plane. You cannot have a headache. That's not okay. Like, I'm not at all concerned about your health right now. You, you got to fly this plane and you're not allowed to have a head. You cannot have a headache. Have a headache when you get home. Not right now. And so I think there's some of that with women when their husbands are kind of out of commission. And the other thing is that women are naturally empathetic, so they, they, they will feel whatever you are feeling. And if, if you're really stressed out, then they get stressed out. This is one of the reasons why I, I, you know, people get annoyed at me when I talk about it. But this is why I say with men that we should, you know, men should not complain very much. They shouldn't unload their emotions. They shouldn't cry in front of their, their wives. Now, again, if you're sick or injured, then you can't help that. That's, that's just the way it is. But to the extent that you can keep this stuff internalized to any reasonable extent that you can, you should, because whatever you're feeling, your wife will start to feel that also in a way that as a man, it doesn't really work as much the other way. So if you're stressed out and your wife feels stressed out, if you're in pain as a man, they feel that too. And that's not a bad thing in and of itself. Like, it's good. That's. The men and women are different. And my wife is extremely empathetic. Extremely. And that's great because I. That's not exactly my strong suit. It may shock you to learn empathy is not exactly. Not exactly my strongest trait. And. But she's gotten more than enough for both of us, and that's fantastic. But, you know, these two things can, together can sort of create tension when a man is sick or injured in some way. But this is where it goes back to. You need your wife to not be a feminist, because no matter what frustration you might feel as a wife, you know, you have to recognize your obligation, your duty to your husband, as husbands must recognize their obligations to their wives. But a feminist rejects the idea that women have any obligation to anyone at all, least of all their husbands. A feminist will more readily accept that they have an obligation to anyone else on the planet. I mean, a feminist will say, certainly will. Will accept obligations from their boss at work. A feminist will feel greater obligation to, like a random third world Somali con artist living down the street than they will to their own husband. And, you know, they're fundamentally opposed to the idea of wifely and motherly obligation. So opposed to it that they, you know, feminism encourages women to kill their children to escape the obligation. That is how opposed to this obligation they are. And so if you marry someone like that, then this is what you get. You marry someone like that. Not a good idea. But if that's already happened, then, I don't know, never get sick or never need anything, because ever. Because your. Your wife, who is a feminist, will resent and hate you for it, which. Which, in fairness, your wife, the feminist, if she's a feminist, she's going to resent and hate you anytime, all the time anyway. So I guess it's really not going to be much different. All right, we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
- [70:48]
Bruce Springsteen
What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God?
- [70:57]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
Is that who you think I was alone with?
- [71:03]
Matt Walsh
Martin, I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was.
- [71:07]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
Not of this world.
- [71:11]
Matt Walsh
Or all men know of the great Taliesin.
- [71:14]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
You are my father. That the gods should war for my soul.
- [71:18]
Bruce Springsteen
Princess Garris, savior of our people.
- [71:24]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
I know what the bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And there is a new pirate work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are each given only one lifesinger.
- [71:40]
Gambling Addiction Counselor
No.
- [71:41]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
We're given another. I learned of Yazu the Christ.
- [71:47]
Bruce Springsteen
And I have become his follower.
- [71:49]
Matt Walsh
He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one.
- [71:52]
Voice Actor/Character in Audio Drama
Trust in Yezu. He is the only hope for men like us. Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the great light. Great light. Great darkness. Such things mattered to me then. What matters to you now? Mistress of lies. You, nephew. The sword of a high king. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield? So clinging to the promises of a God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great life, forgive me. The time has come to be reborn.