B (7:57)

It's eight.

A (8:00)

Four. I can give, like, around about. Sure. Like 120. 120. Okay.

B (8:08)

4, 4, 8, 000.

A (8:16)

Whoa. Okay, Jake. Surrounded by purity here. I feel it rubbing off on me. Now, the point of showing you this, all this stuff, is not to gawk at the destruction of a marriage or to gossip about lurid details of which there are plenty. This case, we could fill a whole show full of those details if we wanted to. We won't. Instead, I'll simply say that Milo Yopoulos has alleged with a substantial amount of evidence that Sarah was, in fact, sleeping with her boss, Elijah Schaer, who runs a small conservative media company called Rift tv, up to the moment that she became engaged to another man named Will. So, in other words, the allegation is that Sarah was cheating on her boyfriend and future fiance with her boss, who was a married man at the time, with children. His wife is now divorcing him, apparently. And the allegation is backed by an audio recording which Yiannopoulos obtained, though it's not clear how. No reason to play that here. There. You know, you could listen to that if you want to online. There are other allegations, even darker and more depraved that have been made and which I. I certainly can't substantiate. In response to all these allegations, Sarah didn't issue any kind of specific targeted denial. She didn't dispute the accuracy of the claims being made exactly. Instead, she posted the following message to her account on X. It says, quote, a lot of what has been said about me is completely untrue. That being said, there are mistakes, unwise decisions I've made that I deeply regret. I have sinned. I apologize to everyone who has been scandalized by this.

C (9:45)

Please.

A (9:45)

Pray. Logging off now. Shortly afterwards, Sarah deleted her account entirely and deleted, I think, her other social media accounts as well. Now, if you follow this scandal on social media, you can see that most people, as expected, are talking about it with a sick kind of glee and satisfaction. But we should never find satisfaction in the sins of others, especially when there are real victims involved, spouses and children. So the point is not to gloat. I have no reason to anyway. I have nothing personally against anybody involved in this scandal. The point is that this story is not the exception. It's not happening out of nowhere. There's nothing aberrant about it. As we talked about yesterday, Elijah Schaefer. Elijah Schaefer's behavior is all too common among some men. And Sarah stock is all too representative of how some women, though Certainly not all think and behave these days. These types of women, they don't see men as potential husbands to whom they will devote themselves or for whom they will be a loyal and loving helpmate. They see men as tools they can use dishonestly for a specific purpose. I consider the fact that as of the most recent data, roughly 70% of divorces are initiated by women. That's according to research from the American Sociological association, but plenty of other sources agree on that point. In fact, the number rises to between 80 and 90% when you only look at highly educated women. Here's a quote from the American Sociological association give you an idea of how they frame the data. Quote. Study author Michael Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, found that women initiated 69% of all divorces compared to 31% of men. In contrast, there was not a statistically significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by unmarried women and men. Women seem to have a predominant role in initiating divorces in the US as far back as there is data from a variety of sources back to the 1940s, Rosenfeld said, I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality. So that's how left wing academics present the data. They blame marriage for being a little bit slow to catch up with expectations. They don't blame men for cheating on their spouses because according to the data, that's not what's actually driving the high rates of divorces initiated by women. But they also know they can't blame women because every academic, without exception, is forced to embrace feminism as a religion. So they settle on blaming the institution of marriage itself. Which I, ironically enough, is exactly the same conclusion that many anti feminist red pillars come to just by a different route. And yet if you ask women, they'll tell you exactly, exactly why they're getting divorced. If you take a look at the data, what it tells you is that the primary reasons that women give for divorcing their husbands include that they feel they aren't getting enough attention, their husband is holding back their career, that they, quote, grew apart. In other words, the woman got bored. And like Sarah Stock, apparently they wanted to try something new and they convinced themselves that there's nothing wrong with, you know, giving another man a try. And there's nothing stopping these women from walking into a courtroom telling the judge they're bored and taking 50% of their husband's assets along with alimony. Even in conservative states, they can get away with that. They can seize your home, they can seize your retirement account. They don't even have to lie about what they're doing. That's where the law is right now. Among other reasons, this is a major problem because marriage is directly tied to the continued existence of civilization. Plenty of data shows, as you might imagine, that marriage is directly linked to fertility rates, which seems pretty obvious. If we want to reverse population decline, then encouraging young people to get married is the way to do it. But it could be a tough sell for young men as long as the law remains so archaic and so obviously rigged against them. So why haven't any conservative states abolished no fault divorce? Or at the very least, why haven't more states abolish the idea that women are entitled to 50% of their husband's assets, even if they've been cheating on him the entire time? As far as I can tell in the vast majority of states, whether they're community property states or not, a woman can cheat on her husband and still receive half his assets. There are exceptions, including Texas. But this is the norm and that needs to change. You know, in most cases, women should get $0 if they initiate a divorce. In most cases they should get nothing. In fact, in many cases, they should be fined for wasting the man's time. That's not a punitive solution. It's, it's one we obviously need because the current system is pathological and how it destroys the lives of innocent young men. In fact, we should really be discussing criminal penalties for adultery. There'd be nothing unusual historically about dispensing prison time or fines or even corporal punishment for adulterers. What's unusual is having no such penalties in place at all. We are one of the few societies in history to not treat adultery as a criminal matter. And I see no evidence that our approach is in any way superior or brings about better results at all. You know, it's tempting to think that reversing this entire system is impossible, but it's not. And more to the point, there's reason to believe that in general, conservative women in general are much less of a danger on this front. Take a look at this data from the u. S. General social survey which was published by, republished by the substack Age of infovores. It shows that the average number of children that are being born to left wing families in the United States is declining significantly and significantly more rapidly than the number of children who are being born to conservative families. In other words, left wing birth rates are falling far faster than conservative birth rates. Conservatives are presumably involved in more stable and fulfilling marriages, the kind that aren't ended early due to an affair or a deceptive spouse or anything like that. So when you hear about falling birth rates and the collapse of civilization, you should know that the people who want to destroy civilization are going to destroy themselves first. And while that's not necessarily an ideal state of affairs, it's, you know, better than the alternative. And when you zoom out even wider, there's some other interesting data in the latest statistics on birth rates. According to preliminary 2025 birth rate data compiled by the CDC, which looks at the mother's ethnicity, white, non Hispanic, birth rates have actually increased over the past year and now account for more than 50% of all known births. Meanwhile, births from virtually every other race and ethnicity have declined sharply, which is a big change from recent years. And that includes Hispanic births, Asian births, black births, Pacific Islander births. You know, the implication of this data is that foreigners aren't replacing the Native American population to nearly the extent that they were under the Biden administration. Closing the border and deporting illegal aliens has had a direct effect. It's reversed the demographic change that Democrats have been trying to engineer. Imagine what these numbers would look like if conservative states decided to actually do something to encourage even more marriages. That doesn't mean providing more welfare or handouts. There's plenty of evidence that, you know, from the Nordic countries, which have a low, lower fertility rate than we do, that more welfare doesn't produce more children, and more welfare definitely isn't guaranteed to provide more stable family units, as the civil rights era demonstrated in this country. What's needed is a rethinking of divorce law and the contracts that young men are being asked to enter into. And now, with all that said, how could I, after acknowledging these serious pitfalls, still promote marriage and family life? What's the upside? Went through all the downsides. Pretty grim. How could it possibly be worth it, given all of that? That's the question, and it's a fair one. I saw a recent clip of Andrew Tate posing this exact conundrum, as he has many times. Here's just the latest example. Watch. How big of an idiot is a guy that doesn't get a prenup?

D (17:59)

How big of an idiot is a guy who gets married?

A (18:03)

Oh, my girl is over there. My boy.

B (18:05)

Yeah, waiting on that.

D (18:06)

Well, I'm sorry, but, like, are you.

A (18:08)

Suggesting that marriage is out of the picture?

D (18:11)

What do you gain? Non emotional. Like, there's men who get married and they go, it's important because I love her. If you want to make emotional decisions, if you want to enter the world of emotional decisions with women, if you want to roll in the mud with a pig and lose, then that's fine. As a man, it's your job to be logical. And I'm sitting here saying, I'm not anti marriage. Just show me what I get. You're asking me to agree to give away half my stuff if I argue with anyone at any point in the future, forever, Right? You agree? I'm sitting here, I'm going to pay a whole bunch of money so her uncle can eat a for dinner, and I'm going to be publicly humiliated over the Internet when her ex boyfriend, who are silly, laughs that I'm walking her down the aisle in her white dress. Okay, cool. So what do I get? And, and, and the answer is. Well, you, you get a wife. I already have a wife. I already have her.

A (18:58)

You get, you get, you get a couple of years of happiness, a risk of divorce, risk of losing your money and maybe some kids.

D (19:06)

Yeah, well, I got kids anyway.

A (19:08)

So it's, it's a fair, it's a fair, logical question, but the premise behind it is not fair. You know, I've already acknowledged that those of us on the pro marriage side can sometimes be too quick to discount the possibility that a young man gets married and winds up humiliated, betrayed and broke because of it. You know, we, we, we sometimes talk about marriage as though the divorce rate were 0%. On the other side though, people like Tate talk about marriage as though the divorce rate were a hundred percent. As if no couple in history has ever managed to stay faithful and monogamous till death do they part. He treats the potential downsides of marriage as guaranteed and the upsides as if they don't exist at all. But they do. And in fact, on second thought, the question what will I get out of it? Or what do I get out of it? Is not entirely fair. Now, I can't say what you will get out of marriage because I can't look into your future. I can't control for every possible factor. I can't force you to choose the right spouse, nor can I force you or your spouse to do all the things in a marriage that are necessary to keep it stable and happy. Most of the time when a marriage falls apart, it can be that there's one clear bad guy who did something destructive and betrayed the marriage. That can happen. Usually when a marriage falls apart, it's because you've got two people and neither of them were doing the things necessary to keep it together. And so I can't control for that, but I can say what you can get out of marriage and what a great many men, billions throughout history, including myself, 15 years in with six kids, have gotten out of it. So what you can get is the love, fidelity, and lifelong companionship of a woman who you love and who is devoted to you and to whom you are devoted in return. What you can get, what billions of men have gotten, are children you love and who love you, who carry on your legacy, your bloodline, and your family name. You can have a family that is stable and whole, one that gives you a sure sense of purpose every single day of your life. A family you live with and share your life with and serve and lead and raise. Okay? So you can get love, meaning, purpose, and legacy. That's what you can get. It's not an emotional argument, because those are not emotions. Those are real things. Those are nothing less than the greatest things life has to offer. So what can you get out of it? I don't know. The greatest things in life is what you can get. There's nothing greater, nothing that can bring you more joy or make your life more worth living. So what you get, or can get, in a word, is basically everything. But it should also be said that as men, our concern should not be only what we get. What do I get? Is a fair question. And if the answer were nothing, then you shouldn't do it. But it's a fair question. It should not be the only question. You know, Tate says he has kids anyway, so he doesn't need marriage. But. Okay, well, what would his kids get out of him being married to their mother? Well, they would get a stable household with a father who's present every day, leading, guiding, and teaching them. Now, it's true that you can have kids without getting married. Plenty of people have done that. But all of the studies, all of the research, all of our experience as human beings show us that children are in a far better position with far better outcomes when their father is married to their mother and present in the home providing not just financial support, but a daily example of how to live. I mean, all of the evidence shows this. That's what your kids get. Well, what do they get out of you sleeping with other women and refusing to be a stable presence in the home, what possible benefit does that bring to them? What do they get? If you want to live a meaningful life as a man, if you want to be a great man, you need to be motivated by more than just a quest for what you get there has to also be a sense of obligation and duty. That's what's driven every great man in history. You know, Tate talks a lot about escaping the Matrix, but the question what do I get? All by itself Will not lead you out of the Matrix, but deeper into it. I mean, in many ways, what do I get? The single minded quest for pleasure and personal gain is the Matrix. So the Matrix is, if you want out of it, you need to ask not just what you get, but also what are your duties, what are your obligations, what's your purpose, what should you do? Now, if we zoom out even further, who else stands to gain from you getting married and having children? Having children with your, with your wife, who you're married to? Well, I mean, everyone does. Civilization itself. You can't pretend to care about the future of Western civilization while making a choice and promoting a choice to not get married, not have children that if everyone made it, would result in the extinction of the very thing you claim to want to preserve. Now I'm not saying that your primary motivation for getting married should be the preservation of Western civilization or the continuation of your bloodline. Like no human being is going to be foremost personally motivated by that. But these are benefits and they're really important ones. Why should we get married and have kids? Well, if we don't, civilization collapses, the human race goes extinct and nothing matters because nothing will exist anymore. That seems like a relevant point. It's not irrelevant and it's one that the anti marriage side of the argument never addresses. You know, if every man. So this is the thing, when you hear these, these, you know, commentators and influencers making this point and they're pointing to things like this scandal we're talking about saying this is why you don't, you don't get married. Well, if every man followed your advice, human society would disintegrate. And that strikes me as a pretty serious flaw in the plan. I mean it strikes me that a plan must be bad if full adoption of your plan would bring about the annihilation of the human race. So it seems like that can't be a good plan. It's like we could talk about what the a better plan is, but it can't be that. It can't be the thing where if too many of us do it, everything collapses and everyone dies and there's no more humans left. And yet, yes, there are still risks. There are risks, I've already acknowledged risk that you can't protect yourself from with 100% certainty. But you can account for these risks to a very significant extent. We could put laws in place to account for them like we just talked about. And in lieu of, of those laws. And we're also, in addition to calling for these kinds of policy changes, changes, you can account for them personally. You know, it is possible that a truly sociopathic, devious con artist could scam you into getting married to them while expertly disguising their true nature. That could happen. But in the vast majority of cases, there are extremely obvious red flags that someone is untrustworthy and disloyal. Flags you can pick up long before marriage. If you're paying attention. You know, things like if she's spending a lot of personal time with her male boss or any other man, for one thing, as soon as you're dating this, this woman, she should no longer be maintaining any kind of, of intimate, personal relationships with other men or spending any one on one time with other men at all. And, and if she's doing that, that's a problem. And if you express that it's a problem to her and she's not willing to give that up for you, leave that, that's, that's your red. That's all you need. You're gone. If she seems to enjoy the attention of men who are not you while you're in a relationship with her, that's a red flag. If she's an E girl begging for attention online all the time, that's a red flag. These are all things that are fairly obvious and, and you can identify them and suss them out if you keep your eyes open in most cases. Okay, which is why a lot of, a lot of cases like this when something happens and someone ends up, you know, man ends up married to woman and she betrays him. You know, you'll find me, since we're always, since we're talking about anecdotes, like, you'll find very often that the man is shocked and appalled, but a lot of people around him are like, yeah, I'm not that surprised by that. It's terrible. I'm not that surprised because, like, even, you know, the people on the outside could tell kind of what this woman's all about. And if they could tell, then you also could have told. And yet, and yet risks do remain, even in spite of that. I acknowledge that. But, but here's the thing. There are also risks on the other side. Risks to rejecting marriage and family life. And I don't just mean the risk of civilizational collapse. You know, Andrew Tate says he doesn't need marriage because he can get any woman he wants and have a bunch of kids and financially provide for all of them. And that may be true in his case. I still believe he and his children would be better off if he were married. But how many men would who take that advice will end up with a life that even vaguely resembles that? 0.1% less. I mean, the reality is that the vast majority of men who don't get married will not end up with a harem of attractive women. They'll end up alone, lonely, no wife, no children, and. And little in the. In the way of financial success anyway. Because most people are not financially successful. Most people who reject marriage will die broke and alone anyway. That's not merely a risk. For many, it's the outcome they're actively choosing. And they choose it because they fear that if they do get married, they might end up broke and alone. And they might. But choosing a bad fate that is almost certain because you fear a bad fate that is merely possible is. You want to talk about logic? Illogical. Now, does that mean that a young man or woman should rush blindly and recklessly into marriage? No. There are risks involved. Again, acknowledged should change laws and put policies in place that reduce those risks and offer greater protections against them. But anything worth doing involves risk. And if starting a family isn't worth doing, then what is? You know, for almost every man, fatherhood and marriage are a vocation given by God to lead, provide for, and love his own family. And you shouldn't let anything or anyone scare you away from it. Now, you can avoid the Sarah Stocks of the world by abandoning the very idea of marriage. And if you're a woman, you can avoid the Elijah Schaefers by doing the same. But years from now, when you're on your deathbed surrounded by no one, with no one to mourn you and no one to carry on your legacy and bloodline or even place flowers on your grave, will you feel relieved that at least you were never divorced? Will you be happy about the chance you didn't take? Or will you wish that you had given yourself to someone and created a family that would outlive you? Because what was any of it for if not for that? Now let's get to our five headlines. You know what holiday our sponsor, Pure Talk, celebrates President's Day because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents, a Jackson and a Lincoln. That's $25 a month for unlimited talk text and plenty of data. That's the cost of one or two meals out versus the hundreds that big wireless charges families every month. No reason wireless service needs to be that expensive. What makes Pure Talk different goes beyond just price. They're an American wireless company that actively supports our veterans and invests in a US based customer service team. Plus, Pure Talk 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 Walsh. You'll get 50% off your first month. Again, it's PureTalk.com Walsh to make the switch to Pure Talk. All right, so real quick. Well, this is, this is pretty big. Kamala Harris teased a big announcement yesterday. Everyone, everyone thought that maybe she was going to announce that she's running for president again. Conservatives wishfully anticipated, hoped against hope that maybe she was running again. But then the big announcement came and that she had teased everyone was on the edge of their seat. And here's the announcement.

B (32:55)

Madam Vice President, what's going on with Kamala hq? Well, I'm so glad you asked. I have good news. So Kamala HQ is turning into headquarters and it's where you can go online to get basically the latest of what's going on and also to meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders. I'm really excited about it. So stay engaged and I'll see you out there. Thank you.

A (33:27)

Wow, that is, I mean, I was, I was expecting a presidential announcement and I was excited for that. But this is even bigger news. I can see why they were teasing this. And this is, this is innovative. The first of all, the handle now on X is at headquarters. Six, seven. You get it? You get it? Six, seven. You know that the, the thing that the kids say, do you get it? You get how they put 6, 7 in the handle? Do you get that? You see how funny that is? Because it's a thing that people say and then they put it in the handle and so then you see it and you're like, that's hilarious. But even more than that. So you have this website now where you would come says, go online to get the latest of what's going on. Wow, that is innovative. You mean it's a website where I can go online and get the latest? No one has thought, who's ever thought of this before? Let's have a website where you can go there and get the latest. The latest of what? Whatever's going on. Finally finally someone has thought of that. So I just thought that was pretty exciting and I want to give Kamala some credit for that. This is why I was shocked. I still am flabbergasted that she didn't win. When you've got someone who's this charismatic, this intelligent, this innovative, this forward thinking and not to mention is able to connect with the youth so much with something like six, seven, how did she not win? I I don't know. I don't get it. Well, I know how. Sexism. Sexism and racism. That's the only way. The only way. Most of us have no idea what phytonutrients actually are, but thankfully our sponsor, Balance of Nature, understands the importance of them. Phytonutrients are naturally occurring plant nutrients in whole foods that actually give fruits and vegetables their color, taste and smell. Feeding something with vibrant color and real flavor, it's a pretty good sign you're getting genuine phytonutrients. Now what Balance of Nature does is take all that produce and run it through a specialized vacuum cold process that keeps everything stable and and powders it down. Their whole health system is essentially a value bundle that combines their fruits, veggies and their fiber and spice supplements. So you're getting 47 different ingredients fruits, vegetables, spices and fibers, along with all those naturally occurring phytonutrients every single day. I personally love the whole health system because of its convenience when I'm traveling for work or trying to keep up with the kids gives me a simple no mess and no stress way to make sure I'm getting all the essential nutrients in my diet. So whether you've been on the fence for a long time or it's the first time you're hearing about them, I recommend that you go to balancenature.com and order the Whole Health System supplement as a preferred customer today. Daily Wire reports the Washington Post cut nearly one third of its workforce on Wednesday, terminating some 300 employees and axing several editorial sections entirely. According to several reports detailing situation, Executive Editor Matt Murray and Human Resources Director Wayne Connell informed employees that they were to work from home on Wednesday and be on hand to attend a Zoom webinar where they were then many of them told that they were getting fired. And then the the tweets started pouring in from people saying that they had been cut. Race and ethnicity reporter Emanuel Felton said among the hundreds of people laid off by the Post claim the move was ideological because his job had previously been labeled a boon for the outlet. This comes six months after hearing in a national meeting that race coverage drives subscriptions. This wasn't a financial decision, it was an ideological one. By the way, talk about, talk about the quiet part out loud. I, I mean, it's such a cliche to say that, but I really. Quiet part out loud. Race coverage drives subscriptions. So what he's telling us is that his, the people that run the Washington Post, his editors and bosses had said to him that, hey, when you go out there and stir up racial tension, it drives subscriptions. Keep doing it. We love it. And he sees no problem with admitting that out loud. So, yes, tragic day. The Washington Post. Hundreds of people fired. Race and ethnicity reporter was fired. Lots of people from the sports section were fired. I just saw a woman that posted that she had been laid off from her job at the Post covering, quote, the way racism and social inequality affects health. Lots of positions in that vein, in the vein of worthless, absurd propaganda nobody cares about, have been eliminated. And of course, these employees and the media at large are treating this like a national tragedy because there's nothing more tragic to the media than when people in the media lose their jobs. And it's been funny to read the reactions because they're all, you know, they're all as, as dramatic as you would expect. Hysterical. It's a travesty. Darkest day. What a dark day. We'll all remember where we were when layoffs hit the Washington Post. Now, of course, even if these were good reporters and journalists doing useful work, which they weren't, the reaction would still be overblown. People get laid off every day. It happens every day. And the media only makes it a national story when it happens to them, you know, which is just the most flagrantly self interested thing that you'll ever see. But more to the point, the Washington Post was losing $100 million a year. $100 million of loss every year. So what are we even talking about here? Even if they were doing the Lord's work, even if they were doing the greatest journalism known to man, they'd still need to be cut because the math doesn't work. It's a business. You have to make money. You can't lose a hundred million dollars a year so you can lament the cuts. I don't lament them. But you could. Being angry and outraged, as so many on the left are, makes no sense. What do you expect? Do you expect the Washington Post to just lose money forever? Well, the answer is yes. They unironically expect that the Washington Post is owned by a billionaire. Jeff Bezos. And so there's a lot of. I just saw another one, another post on X from somebody, like, showing the math. Well, Jeff Bezos is worth this amount of money. So, you know, he could finance the Washington Post, could lose money for 10 years, and he would only lose this much of his net worth. Like, they've worked out all the math. Like, he's supposed to just volunteer to lose money forever in order to keep these grown adults, you know, employed at this. For this media company that no one cares about, writing stories that nobody reads. That's what they expect. That's the kind of fantasy land they live in, as they. They insist the work has great value while also saying that, yeah, it loses money, but you should pay for it anyway. Well, apparently it doesn't have value. Apparently it didn't have value because in order for the content you produce and distribute to have value, it must. It must have value to people. Right? When a tree falls in the forest and. And no one's there to hear it, doesn't make a sound. Well, yeah, it does. But if a tree falls in a. In a. In a forest and somebody writes a report about it, nobody reads that report. Did the report have value? No, it didn't. Nobody saw it. So when you say that it has value. Value to who? To you? Well, you're not being paid to do reporting that you personally enjoy. The public has to find value in it, and they don't. And this is the harsh reality of the world we live in and the world that people in the media live in specifically. I'm in the media, too. I'm ashamed to say so. I know as well as anyone that this is a very tough business. It's only getting tougher. There's so much competition because there's so many options. There's so many voices. And on top of that, everything is free. There's so much competition. Everything's free. Nobody wants to pay for anything, which I don't blame them. I don't want to pay for anything either. So it's like, how do you make money creating content when a million other people and outlets are making similar content and you can't charge for it? That's not easy to figure out. Like, that's a tough egg to crack. And, you know, over here in the commentary space, I'm doing a podcast. There are thousands of other podcasts out there, hundreds that are in the same genre, like news commentary. Thirty years ago, people in my line of work would be in talk radio. If you're a reporter, you would be working for a newspaper like an actual physical newspaper where they drop it off on your doorstep every day. And in both cases the competition that you'd have to fend off is like three other people. Okay, if you worked for a national newspaper, you were competing with a few other national newspapers and maybe one or two local papers in all the various regions. And if you were in radio, you were competing with like maybe two other talk stations, three or four at most. Sometimes no one, sometimes you were competing with, you had no competitors. And now it's hundreds, it's hundreds and hundreds. And the barrier to entry is non existent. Anyone can do it, anyone can start a podcast, anyone can post content on social media, anyone can break news, anyone can report on anything. So you have the many established players in the space that you're competing with, plus all the newcomers, all the new challengers who appear on the scene by the dozens every day. And it's hard, it's hard to have any longevity in this world. But that's the way it is. So I got no sympathy for anyone. Even in my own world are my own industry. You get layoffs and everything else. And there's all this self pitying. It's like this is, this is, this is the business we've chosen the Godfather to. Was it Hyman Roth? This is the business we've chosen. This, this is the world you're in. If you get wiped out, if you wash out, if you get buried and destroyed in the melee, well, you know, that's the way it goes. No sense crying about it. It's just the way it goes. Could happen to any of us. This episode is sponsored by Done with Debt Drowning in credit card and loan debt. Well, you're not alone. But here's something most people don't know. Now is actually the best time to negotiate with your lenders. Credit card companies and lenders desperately need to clear problem accounts from their books before audits begin. This creates a narrow window where they're far more willing to cut deals than at any other time of year. Done With Debt has cracked the code on this timing advantage. They know exactly which companies are most motivated to negotiate right now and use this insider knowledge to get results you can't achieve on your own. In fact, most clients end up with more money in their pocket within the first month because they're no longer drowning in minimum payments. But this window won't stay open forever. Lenders will tighten up again and your leverage will disappear. Let's get started now. But you still have time. Go to donewithdat.com talk with one of their specialists for free Visit. Done with that.com donewithdet.com See, as we discussed this week already, the, the dam is breaking on the trans scam and now the floodwaters are rushing in. The cleansing. The cleansing flood. Here's the post Millennial. In the wake of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons releasing new guidance cautioning against sex change surgeries for minors, the American Medical association has agreed that such surgery should be generally deferred to adulthood. In a statement to the National Review, the AMA said that because the evidence for gender affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement, the AMA agrees with ASPs that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. And so that's, this is very significant, really can't be overstated that now you have these major, I mean, the American Medical association, major medical associations that are backing away from the trans stuff. And keep in mind, this is how we ended up in this situation in the first place, with the normalization of child mutilation and gender butchery. First you had one major medical organization, then another and another endorsing it. And the next thing you know, they all do because one medical organization will endorse something and the re. And they'll use as their reason the fact that this one over there did too. Right. So the, so the, the AMA says, yeah, that's fine. Well, how can you say it's fine? Well, because that organization said it was and that organization could point back to them and then another organization comes out and they agree so that, that's the way it goes. And now the same thing is happening in the reverse. Now we have the reverse domino effect, and before long there won't be any major medical organization or even minor medical organization that endorses these surgeries for children, which is a change. It is a reversal. They're not gonna, they're not gonna admit it, but it is. And of course they're gonna try to do this gradually. So, you know, they're still pretending right now that drugs, chemical castrations are okay. That's not gonna last. Obviously, once you've conceded the point that disfiguring a child's body because he's confused about his gender is wrong, then there's no way to defend the puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and all that stuff. So that's going to go away and everyone's going to pretend, like I said, everyone's going to pretend that they were never in Favor of it. That's where this is headed. This was the ultimate mass hysteria we have, we have all just lived through legitimately the most outlandish, the most out sane, the most insane, the most grotesque episode of mass public hysteria that the world has ever seen. I mean, this, this makes the, you know, the Salem Witch Trials pale in comparison. Actually, in recent years, the Salem Witch Trials are, I think, looking not quite as bad. So this, it's kind of the opposite with the Salem Witch Trials. I mean, when you see some of these women on Tick Tock and some of these women rioting in Minneapolis and the chick yesterday with all the facial piercings talking about how she might kill her kids, because if ice shows up at the door, like, you see that and you think about the witch burnings and you say, okay, I mean, I get it. Like I, I can see where they were coming from. I, I can see how maybe that might happen. But this child mutilation stuff, no, I mean this, this will never be vindicated. And years from now, when our grandchildren hear about it, they will be baffled. You know, it's going to be one of the great mysteries of the future will be how this ever happened and how it was allowed to happen and how anyone was ever okay with it. And this is the, the tragedy of, of kind of the human story, the story of history that, you know, you could always look back at history, look at the things that they were doing or tolerating and kind of scratch your head and say, well, how, how could they, how could that, how could anyone have been okay with that? Right? We do that all the time. You can look back and you look at your ancestors like they're a bunch of barbarians. Oh, they practice slavery. How, how could that have, how could anyone have. I, I would never, if I was around back then, if I was around in 500 BC, I would have known. I would have known they didn't know, but I would have. And you say all that in the meanwhile, while you're saying that you are presently tolerating and even supporting things that are far more barbaric and indefensible. And in the future it's going to be, they're going to be looking back at us like, how in the world did anyone ever go along with that? What? Wait, wait, Grandpa, you're telling me that they thought that it, that you could castrate a child and turn. They thought that if a 14 year old girl says she's a boy, they should cut her breasts off? Grandpa, is that what they, Is that what it was like, how could anyone have ever thought that that's what they're going to say in the future? And meanwhile, there's going to be some other barbarism that's happening that we haven't even thought of yet that they're, you know, they're not going to see any problem with. That's the way it's going to go. Starting something new can be daunting. When we launched the Matt Walsh show, we had all the usual fears. What if no one listens? What if we fail? But I'm glad I took the leap and you can too, with our sponsor, Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform powering millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US including our very own daily wire shop. Getting started is incredibly easy. With hundreds of ready to use templates, you can build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography so you can accelerate your efficiency whether you're uploading new products or improving existing ones. Need to get the word out? Shopify helps you find your customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. What's more, you can tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics, without juggling multiple websites or platforms. If you ever get stuck, Shopify is 24 7. Customer support is always around to help. Plus, that iconic purple shop pay button isn't just recognizable. It's the best converting checkout on the planet, which means fewer abandoned carts and more sales for you. It's time to turn those what ifs into sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.comwalsh go to shopify.comwalsh that's shopify.comwalsh let's see, moving on. Bill Gates is, I think we have this clip finally speaking out, trying to explain his appearance in the Epstein files. And here he is to a lot.

E (52:10)

Of very rich people. And he was saying he could get them to give money to global health. You know, in retrospect, that was a dead end and I was foolish to spend time with him. I was one of many people who regret ever knowing him.

D (52:24)

You've no doubt seen the allegations, including some of them from the last 24 to 48 hours. Are they true?

E (52:32)

No. Apparently Jeffrey wrote an email to himself. That email was never sent. The email is false. So I don't know what his thinking was there. It just reminds me, you know, every minute I spent with him, I regret and I, you know, apologize that I did that.

D (52:50)

The problem is some of the things that he has sent and some of the information about other people that has come up in those files has been true. Why would he do this and say this about you?

E (53:01)

Do you think, you know, it's factually true that I was only at dinners, you know, I never went to the island, I never met any women. And so, you know, the more that comes out, the more clear it'll be that although the time was a mistake, it had nothing to do with that kind of behavior.

A (53:20)

Did that sound convincing to anyone? Are you convinced by that? You know, he's asked about the email where his dalliances with Russian hookers are mentioned, his alleged dalliances and him needing STD medicine that he was going to surreptitiously slip to his wife, all of that. And he's asked about it, and he says, well, that was an email that he wrote to himself, and the email is, you know, false. Sure, Bill. Okay, Bill, just a word of advice. If you're going to deny something, especially something this horrific, don't say, you know, before the denial. That was a very poorly placed, you know, did you do perverted stuff with Epstein? Well, that's, you know, false. That's, you know, false. You know, really, really detracts from the denial. It's like saying, your honor, your honor, I am not guilty of, you know, murder. I am not, you know, guilty. I. I did not, you know, kill people and, you know, bury them in the. In the basement. Doesn't sound right. And, and more importantly, Epstein was already a. A convicted sex offender and pedophile when Bill Gates was palling around with him. He says, I didn't go to the island. It's like, okay, so, man, I don't. I don't even believe you. But now the island has become the. That's everyone's defense now. I didn't go to the island. Oh, so we're supposed to believe that the. This sex offender pedophile, he. He only abused kids on the island? No. And he says that it was a mistake. Well, you know, I'm. I'm sympathetic to people who made mistakes years ago. I mean, not this kind of mistake. Not the mistake of accidentally hanging out with a global sex trafficking pedophile. Not sympathetic to that at all. But I can be sympathetic in a general sense when someone says, hey, I made a mistake. It was a long time ago. But that. That sympathy usually hinges on them, number one, having not done something this terrible, but also them having been young A long time ago. Right. Bill Gates was in his late 50s, early 60s when this was happening. And we're supposed to believe that he was, what, just immature? Exercising immature judgment, Getting caught up in the glitz and glamour of Epstein's luxurious life, even though Bill Gates is way richer than him. So I don't buy it. I don't buy any part of it. And. And I think it's also important to point out that you certainly should not care about respecting Bill Gates's privacy. I have seen some people expressing that sentiment shock, shockingly enough, saying that even if this stuff about Russian hookers and STDs were true, it's private and it shouldn't be out there for public consumption. Well, as I said a few days ago, I have as much respect for Bill Gates's privacy as he has for mine or yours, which is not at all. And also, if you were gallivanting around with. And this is another point about these files and why I'm in favor of them being released. If you were gallivanting around with a convicted pedophile and sex offender, you deserve the scrutiny. I mean, really, it's no different than getting pulled over and you're in the backseat of your friend's car, but he has drugs, and now you're going to get arrested, too, because the assumption is that you were involved. And even if you weren't, well, you know, you need to be smarter about the people you hang out with. Okay? Like, if you're in a position where you can even get there's something wrong with you and you're not, and you're making some bad choices in your own life, if that's even something that could happen to you. Right? So, and I. I think that that applies to billionaires as well, just as much. All right. You know, we've talked about James Talarico before. He's a Democrat representative in Texas running for Senate now, and he calls himself a Christian, a seminarian, actually. But he's a heretic and a blasphemer. And on that note, this clip is going viral right now from what I think is a Joe Rogan episode from a little while ago, maybe a few months ago. But here he is trying to articulate the Christian argument as if there is one for abortion.

C (57:56)

Listen, but I say all this in terms of. In context of abortion, because before God comes over Mary and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if This is something she wants to do. And she says, if it is God's will, let it be done, Let it be, let it happen. So to me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings. But that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And to me, that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that's how I come down on that side of the issue.

A (59:00)

Man. Yeah, that's a really compelling theological point if you're. But for everyone else, you know, there are a million problems. First of all, let's get this out of the way. God does not need our consent for anything. Creation does not require. The Creator does not require consent from his creation. God does not need or require or require our consent at all. You know, God can do what he wants. And, and this is what you get from a leftist degenerate scumbag with his consent based morality. And it's consent based morality in the sense that the only moral law anyone on the left recognizes is consent, when it should be that consent is, that's one of the things in order for an act to be moral consent. But then other things also that should not be the only thing that should not be there should be. The moral law should go far beyond consent. So, but if you're on the left, that's the only moral rule that you pretend to recognize. And even that they don't recognize, obviously they don't actually care about consent because what about abortion? Does the baby consent to that? Is there any consent there? Of course not. I mean, they don't even think that the father should have to consent to the murder of his own child. So they don't. So I say they have consent based morality in that that's the only moral law they recognize. But they don't even actually recognize that because what, what their actual moral law is that they individually should be able to do whatever they want. Do what you will is the whole of their law. That's Satanism. That's, that's what Satanism is. So they are Satanists. And this James Delrico, when I call that satanic, I mean, I mean it in every sense. I mean, in a literal sense. So God does not require consent. Creation is a divine act. And God, God never speaks to us and asks us whether we consent to him creating anything. And in the story he's Referring to, there is no request. So he's wrong about that. The angel appears to Mary and says, says, behold, you have found favor with God. You will conceive in your womb and bear a son. Okay, James Teller. James says that, oh, God comes and says, asks if that's something she'd be okay with, which. So now what? God is like, it's talking about God and, and, and God's like, language as though he's some shift manager, as if, as if he's some, some middle manager in a, in a, in a company somewhere coming up to your cubicle, like, hey, is that something you'd be okay with? Hey, I was just thinking. I. I was just thinking that you could, you know, you could bear the, the son of God in your womb. Is that, Is that something you'd be okay with? What do you think? Yay or nay? Hey, get back at me. Get back to me. Eod. Okay. Shoot me an email. No, it's actually not what happens? He said, the angel says, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son. Not will you, but you will. Pretty important distinction. And Mary responds by saying, let it be done to me according to your will. So she's responding with obedience. Yes, she is exercising her free will, and that is important. But it's also the case that there, There was no request. There was no question posed. And God did not owe a request or a question or even an explanation, though he did provide one. And, and Mary acted out of obedience to the will of God, which, again, yes, is a very important part of the story. That's all totally irrelevant to the point he's trying to make, because what we're talking about in that story is conception. You will conceive in your womb, the Christ child, But abortion by definition is not preventing conception. It is not preventing the creation of life. It is killing life, which has already been created. So even if Mary had responded, had not responded with obedience and not responded with submission, it would not have been analogous to abortion. Obviously, abortion kills a child who has already been conceived, who already exists. That's the whole reason why when they talk about reproductive rights, as I've said so many times, reproductive rights, out of all the dishonest euphemisms the left uses, is certainly the most dishonest and the most destructive because this is not about reproductive rights. Abortion has nothing to do with reproductive rights. By the time the abortion happens, reproduction has already occurred. Okay? Reproduction has already occurred by the time the abortion happens. That's why the abortion is happening. Abortion kills the life that has already been produced, reproduction has already happened. Reproduction. The way these idiots talk about it, it's like they think, they think that the birth itself is reproduction. It is not. There's a reason why when we talk about the reproductive act, we're not talking about birth. You don't engage in the reproductive act in the birthing unit at the hospital, or at least I hope you don't. Now, the reproductive act is the sexual act which results in conception. And as soon as conception has happened, that is reproduction. So, and this is why you cannot be a pro abortion Christian. This is why I say pro abortion Christian Christianity or pro choice Christianity is a contradiction in terms. It's not even that a Christian shouldn't be pro abortion. It's not even that. It's that you can't be. To be pro abortion is to not be Christian because the only way to be pro abortion and Christian, as James helpfully demonstrates, is to absolutely torture the text of the Bible. It's to come up with the most perverse and heretical theological arguments imaginable. To be pro abortion is to be guilty of heresy. That's, it's, it's required. I mean, let's just start with the fact that the pro abortion argument must mean that Jesus Christ before birth was not human, was just a clump of cells. It's also to reject the ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill. It's to reject every Bible verse that explicitly affirms the humanity and dignity of the unborn, such as Jeremiah, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. It's to reject 2000 years of Christian teaching. And it's to suggest. It's to suggest that God makes human life, creates a baby in the womb, and is okay with us deciding to dismember that baby limb from limb and throw them in the trash. That's what the pro abortion Christian is saying, that God performs the miraculous act of creation. But if we decide to throw the creation in the trash, he's cool with it. That that's what the pro abortion Christian is saying is that God sees us, he miraculous acts, child is created, child is killed, thrown in the trash, and God says, hey, cool, your choice, man. Hey, your choice. Cool. Whatever, whatever you want to do. Totally fine. These are not just theologically insane arguments. They are blasphemous, they are heretical, and they are incompatible with Christianity. So if you're a Christian and you're pro abortion, well, you're not Christian, you're a liar, you're a fraud, you're a fake and your faith is not real. And I can say that. I can say that for the same reason. I can say that there's no such thing as a square circle. Finally, before we wrap up, here's a. Let's do a little a fun clip. Actually, speaking of euphemisms in the clip, Pajaro Valley Unified School District Board Vice President Joy Flynn, this is during a school board meeting, is responding to someone who just presented some information. And the information included a benign reference to homeless people, the homeless community, the homeless population. And here's how Joy responded. And here's what, here's what she decided to focus on in a school district that, as N wokeness points out, on X has 82% of students who are not proficient in English. So they've got big problems. But here's what she's focused on.

B (68:16)

Listen, I am personally offended by what was presented on so many different levels. One thing I would like to see updated is the word homeless to unhoused. I'm not, I'm not done. Can I just don't want Mr. Berman to, to. For this to be on him. That's the way our state of California. That's the language that they use, and that's their. That doesn't mean that's the language we have to use. I'm.

A (69:00)

I'm.

B (69:00)

I statement. And I just want to make sure.

A (69:05)

Okay, first of all, why are you breathing directly into the microphone like Darth Vader? Why can I hear your nostril air? Okay, she's like, right up on the microphone, breathing heavily into it, which is annoying. Second, I just, the, the unhoused thing I love. Aside from the fact that she's focused on this nonsense in the first place, unhoused is probably the most arbitrary and pointless PC euphemism that has ever been invented. And obviously there's a lot of competition for that title. But, and I've asked this question so many times, I never got a satisfactory answer, what does the term unhoused convey that is not conveyed by the term homeless or vice versa? In one case, we're saying that you are homeless, you are less a home, you are lacking a home. The other, in the other, we're saying you're unhoused, you're not housed, lacking a house. It's the exact same thing. If anything, homeless sounds more sympathetic. It sounds more human, doesn't it? If the idea is to have a term that's less harsh for the homeless people, well, homeless sounds more human. They're less a home. They're lacking a home. It's sad. You feel bad. Unhoused sounds clinical. It sounds weirdly sort of alien. Okay? It's like a. It's like a term that a Martian would come up with to describe a homeless person. If you were. If a space alien landed on Earth and you. And you took them around a tour of New York City or Chicago, it should be a bad idea, okay? Because they get a load of those places and they're just. They're definitely going to incinerate us with their death ray and that'll be the end of it. You take them, right? You give it. Spend five minutes showing them New York City right now, and they're going to say, okay, you know what? I'm gonna hop back in the spaceship and. And I'll. We'll check back in a. In a few minutes. And then next thing you know, we're all incinerated. But it's like if you're showing. You take an alien around, you show them a house. This is what we call a house. And then you show them people that this is a person who lives in that house. And then you go, you show them people that are living on the sidewalk and. On the sidewalk. And the space alien says, oh, so they're unhoused. Those are unhoused. Those people are unhoused. That's what it sounds like. Unhuman, clinical, weird. I guess it's supposed to sound less accusatory or something. I don't even know what you're going for. I don't even know. Sometimes with the PC lingo, I can at least. It's always dumb, but I can at least tell what you're going for. I can tell. I can see the argument for why this other term is less offensive or whatever. I don't even see the argument here. I don't know what you're going for. Is it supposed to be less accusatory? Is it supposed to take some blame off the hobo? I don't know. Does it even do that? Like I think it does. It kind of does the opposite. You hear unhoused, and it sounds like something that would happen to someone if they're really clumsy. Like you tripped and fell and became unhoused. I lost my house. Unhoused. Doesn't make any sense. But the point. The point, of course, is that it doesn't make sense. That's. That is actually the point. The point of PC lingo is to be arbitrary. It's. It is to make no sense because it's all a Test. That's the point of any of this stuff. All the different. That's why the language changes. That's why it's so arbitrary. That's why they say, you know, people of color is the term you're supposed to use. That'll change soon. They've been doing people of color for five or six years now, so that's going to change. But people of color. But if you say colored people, it's horrifically awful. What's the. People of color, Colored people. It's the same thing. What difference could it possibly make? And it doesn't make a difference. But the point is, it's a test of your fidelity. It's a test of your loyalty. It's a test of your. Are you up to date on the rules? Are you one of us? Because if the rules made sense, if they were intuitive, then, and someone followed the rules and they were intuitive, you're not gonna. That's gonna tell you anything. It's not gonna tell you whether they're on your side or not. Because that's just normal. That's just someone speaking like a normal person. But when the rules don't make any sense, you just are. One day, for no reason, you've decided that unhoused is the term you should use. And homeless is, is so offensive that if someone uses it, even in conversation, you need to stop everything and lecture them. And that makes no sense. But that's the point. And the reason why the guy, whoever it was, was getting lectured is not because he used an offensive term. It's not an offensive term. It's because he revealed himself to be not on the team. And that's what all this is actually about. And we will leave it there for this week. Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed. 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. For 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, blankets, myth, 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. It's time for Real History with Matt Walsh, now streaming only on Daily Wire. Plus LifeLock how can I help?

B (75:33)

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

D (75:36)

One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

B (75:40)

What do I do?

A (75:40)

My refund, though. I'm freaking out.

C (75:42)

Don't worry, I can fix this.

D (75:44)

LifeLock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

A (75:49)

I'm so relieved. No problem.

C (75:51)

I'll be with you every single step of the way.

D (75:52)

One in four was a fraud Paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Special offer terms apply.