0:00

Substrates at Wall Show, a New York City courthouse

0:02

adorns its building with a satanic monument

0:04

to abortion. The statue was creepy and depraved

0:06

and also hideous. In fact, our whole society

0:08

is plagued now by hideous and creepy artwork.

0:11

It's all part of a larger agenda I'll explain today.

0:13

Also, Project Veritas caught a Pfizer executive

0:15

on camera and what he reveals is truly explosive

0:18

Stick around to hear about that, plus Eric's wallwells

0:20

traumatized after being kicked off of the intelligence

0:22

committee for sleeping with a Chinese spy.

0:25

And Google has massive layoffs leading

0:27

to some unintentionally funny TikTok videos. Take

0:29

a look at those today. All of that and more today in Matt

0:31

Walsh. One

0:40

of the great tragedies of my life is that I wasn't

0:42

doing a show last week when Boston's

0:45

MLB pay statue, the news cycle

0:47

came and went and passed me by.

0:50

The thing that motivates me to get up every

0:52

day and host this show is the very hope that

0:54

one day I'll be able to deliver a monologue

0:56

on something as hilarious as a statue

0:58

that's meant to honor Martin Luther King

1:00

Junior, but instead looks like a disembodied pile

1:02

of limbs that arranges itself into a

1:04

different sex act depending on the angle you

1:07

view it from. It's supposed to be

1:09

memorial to king, but the sculptor accidentally

1:11

made memorial to pornhub. Well,

1:13

I I assume it was an accident. Whether he meant for

1:15

the thing to be sexualized, to be sort of

1:17

a sexualized three-dimensional Rorschach test,

1:20

is anybody's guess, but we do

1:22

know that what he created,

1:24

whatever the intention was, is a

1:26

giant ten million dollar hunk of

1:28

garbage. There's a lot to be said

1:30

about the subject, not just to simply point

1:32

and laugh at it. I mean, mainly

1:34

to point and laugh, but also to discuss the

1:36

continued and rapidly increasing uglification,

1:40

if I could coin a term of our society. This

1:42

is process that is deliberate

1:44

and systematic. Beautiful art

1:46

is taken down and replaced by

1:49

hideous, vomiting, nonsense. Why

1:52

is this happening? What is the end game?

1:54

These are the important questions, but I missed my

1:56

chance or so I thought to talk about them.

1:58

That is until New York City came to

2:01

the rescue. Only a week after the

2:03

MLK sex culture revolted

2:06

and amused us all. NYC has made

2:08

their own contribution to the conversation

2:10

They are attempting valiantly, I might say,

2:12

to recover their crown as the

2:14

ugly statue capital of the country.

2:17

And with this latest eyesore, they may

2:19

have succeeded. Here's the article from

2:22

a time out, which is a New York City

2:24

news site. It says statues

2:26

of nine men from history and religion

2:29

perch atop the courthouse near Madison Square

2:31

Park. Now for the first

2:33

time, the representation of a woman

2:35

has joined their noble rooftop plinths.

2:38

Havah to breathe air life,

2:40

an exhibition by artist

2:42

Shazia Sicander, focusing

2:45

on things of justice, has brought

2:47

stunning golden cultures to Madison

2:49

Square Park and the nearby courthouse at twenty

2:51

seven Madison Avenue. Inside Madison

2:53

Square Park sits witness a monumental

2:55

female figure measuring eighteen feet

2:57

tall and wearing a hoop skirt inspired

3:00

by the courtroom's stained glass ceiling

3:02

dome. The figure's twisted arms and

3:04

legs tree roots, referencing

3:06

what the artist has described as the self

3:08

rootedness of the female form. It

3:11

can carry its roots wherever it goes.

3:13

You can even use your smartphone to bring

3:15

the figure to life through AR technology.

3:17

Adorning the nearby courthouse, now

3:20

an eight foot tall female figure resembles

3:22

the park sculpture. But a lotus

3:24

symbolizing wisdom replaces the hoop skirt

3:27

where horns indicates sovereignty and autonomy.

3:29

A delicate collar nods to the late supreme

3:31

court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often

3:33

wore detailed collars with her traditional

3:36

black robe. The statue, the only

3:38

woman, represented, sits

3:40

next to figures including Confucius,

3:43

Justinian, Moses, Zohraster. At

3:45

last, this this work puts a female

3:47

figure a level playing with the traditional

3:49

patriarchal depictions of justice

3:51

and power? Well,

3:54

not quite a level playing because

3:56

those other sculptures are

3:58

legitimate works of art. This one

4:00

is a satanic monstrosity. It's

4:03

a woman with tentacles for arms and

4:05

horns on her head resembling like

4:07

a doodle that a very disturbed ten year

4:09

old might draw. It's the kind of thing that the

4:11

child in the horror film sketches at his notebook

4:14

right before his parents realize he's possessed.

4:16

And on top of all that, it looks cheap

4:18

as though it was sculpted out of plastic. It

4:20

looks like it was made of the same material

4:22

they used for those little green toy soldiers

4:24

that you buy in bag at the dollar

4:26

store. This is modern art in a

4:28

nutshell, cheap, ugly, stupid,

4:31

and vaguely or not so vaguely, in this

4:33

case, demonic. New York

4:35

City by the way is no stranger to ugly

4:37

statues. Just a couple of years ago, they confused us

4:40

all with a monument sculpted

4:42

by a, quote, conceptual artist

4:44

and placed outside the Rockefeller Center

4:46

that looks like a giant cartoon head,

4:48

like something that a not very talented caricature

4:51

artist might sketch. Really, it looks

4:53

like a parody of African

4:54

art. Though the artist is black, so he

4:56

escaped the racism charge, I guess.

4:58

But he certainly cannot escape the charge

5:01

of being a talentless hack, which is what he

5:03

is. Now to add insult to

5:05

injury, While New

5:07

York litters its streets and buildings

5:09

with these unsightly lumps,

5:11

it's also actively removing

5:14

its good art. Just a few

5:16

days ago. The city finally removed

5:18

the statue of Theodore Roosevelt that has

5:20

adorned the outside of its museum

5:22

of natural sit history for nearly

5:24

a century. The stated reason

5:26

for removing this statue

5:28

is that the depiction of a black man

5:30

and a Native American man walking

5:32

alongside Roosevelt makes

5:35

the whole scene somehow inexplicably

5:38

racist. No one

5:39

ever explains why, by the way, just the fact you've

5:42

got a white man and then there's a black man there also.

5:44

That's racist. But the

5:47

real reason was taken down is that the work of

5:49

art commits two unforgivable sins in

5:51

a modern age. One, it memorializes

5:53

AAA heroic white man,

5:55

which of course you can't do. And

5:57

two, it's beautiful. Now

5:59

it's a beautiful work of art. And

6:02

beautiful art is no longer

6:05

allowed. Of course, you don't need

6:07

to live in New York or Boston to have your

6:09

eyes assaulted by these memorials

6:11

to ugliness. Every American city is

6:13

plagued by these sorts of modern art mutations

6:15

popping up everywhere like tumors.

6:18

A while ago, I

6:20

mentioned this art display sitting

6:22

outside the Tennessee welcome center right

6:24

off of of Interstate eighty one.

6:26

So when I'm driving, if you're

6:29

coming down from Virginia into Tennessee

6:31

and you stop off, because you

6:33

gotta use the restroom, you'll be forced to look at

6:35

this. Now, in times past,

6:37

they may have welcomed you with a glorious

6:40

sculpture representing the state's unique

6:43

culture and history. Instead,

6:45

they give you this weird orgy of

6:47

malformed, ambiguously humanoid

6:49

shapes. And again, you find this

6:51

stuff everywhere. We were visiting

6:53

Nashville, Nashville, North Carolina,

6:56

not to be confused with Nashville, Tennessee.

6:58

Not long ago, and we found ourselves gawking

7:00

at this towering pile

7:02

of shapeless scrap metal, which the

7:04

artist calls passage. But

7:07

should have just been called tetanus. And

7:09

we could go on with examples. In fact, a Twitter

7:11

follower, this might be the worst one. A

7:13

Twitter follower sent me this photo that I

7:15

I had to look this up because I didn't

7:18

quite believe that it was real. This

7:20

is a a photo of a recently installed

7:22

statue in Carmel and Indiana. And

7:25

the statue was titled Rising Sun, but

7:27

instead it looks like a hairy

7:29

potato or perhaps like something

7:32

more anatomical in nature,

7:34

perched on a miss shaped platform

7:36

of some kind. Has the aesthetic

7:38

quality of like a Nickelodeon cartoon

7:41

from the nineties except a lot more

7:43

explicit. So

7:45

what's going on? I mean, why are they making

7:47

this ugly nonsense? Why are

7:50

our city's pockmarked with these

7:52

hideously sculpted abscesses.

7:54

Why are we all forced to live in towns with the

7:56

artistic equivalent of skin cancer?

7:59

I think there are a few reasons.

8:02

And the first is pretty simple. Great

8:04

artists have skill and

8:06

they have training and they have proper

8:09

education. Our artists

8:11

have none of those, so they're not capable

8:13

of making anything that rises to the level of

8:15

classical art. I mean, they they

8:17

couldn't produce a sculpture that could

8:19

pass for something sculpted two hundred years

8:21

ago, even if they wanted to. One

8:24

thing is, like, notice the lack of detail in

8:26

all of these statues. This is the thing with all modern go

8:28

to modern art museum. It's the same deal.

8:30

There's no detail in anything. The

8:33

demon statue on the New York courthouse is

8:35

mostly just smooth and featureless, which gives it

8:37

that kind of cheap flavor.

8:40

And the artist didn't even attempt to make

8:42

arms or hands because those are the

8:44

most difficult to get

8:46

right. And so instead they

8:48

Look, when I was an art class in, like,

8:50

seventh grade, I I used to do the same thing.

8:52

I couldn't I didn't know how to draw arms and hands

8:54

because they're difficult. And so I would do

8:56

something like, oh, you know, I'm using my imagination. This is a

8:58

person with, you know,

9:02

tentacles for arms instead. Easier to

9:04

draw. The sculpture

9:06

in Boston did make arms and hands, but

9:08

that's all he made because it requires great

9:10

skill to sculpt tens and faces.

9:13

So he simply left them headless. Meanwhile,

9:15

the other statues didn't attempt to resemble

9:18

anything at all so that there's no standard they

9:20

can be judged against. You

9:23

know, if you try to make

9:26

something that looks like

9:28

something, then everyone

9:30

can look at your art and say, well,

9:32

they can they can judge it against what you're

9:34

trying to capture. If they, you know,

9:36

this thing, if you make art and you're trying to

9:38

capture something, or or

9:40

actually say something, then

9:43

then that gives people a frame of

9:45

reference that they can judge your art against.

9:49

And so all of this in part is a cover

9:51

for the fact that these artists have no talent,

9:53

but then even if they could make

9:55

something beautiful, they probably wouldn't.

9:57

Modern art is ugly

10:00

because modern artists can only

10:02

produce ugliness and also because

10:04

they only want to produce ugliness.

10:06

We are witnessing, as I noted, at

10:08

the top, the systematic uglification

10:10

of society. They make

10:12

ugly things on purpose because

10:14

to

10:14

them, to make ugly thing is to commit

10:16

a revolutionary act. They

10:19

despise tradition. They despise all

10:21

that came before us. And their

10:23

ugly art is an attack on tradition. All

10:25

of this garbage is the diametric

10:27

opposite of the sort of art that our ancestors

10:29

produced and celebrated and passed down

10:31

to us. And that's

10:33

reason enough for our cultural elites,

10:35

those in charge of facilitating our

10:37

cultural decline to prefer the garbage.

10:41

But most of all, they make they make

10:43

ugly things because they hate beauty.

10:45

The artists of antiquity made

10:48

beautiful things objectively beautiful.

10:51

Things that all human beings can

10:53

recognize as beautiful. And

10:56

they did this in order

10:58

to lift the viewer up to bring

11:00

them up and into the

11:02

experience of beauty, whereas the

11:04

modern artist clouded by his own ego

11:06

obsessed with his own hang up and

11:08

preoccupations and anxieties creates things

11:10

with the purpose of dragging the viewer down,

11:12

sinking them into a state of

11:14

anxiety and confusion. A

11:16

man named Jeremy Wayne Tate on

11:19

Twitter made this point very well. He wrote,

11:21

quote, Renaissance artists aimed to

11:23

uplift the viewer and draw them into beauty.

11:25

They were primarily interested in their

11:27

subjects. Modern artists aim

11:29

to shock and confuse their primarily

11:31

interested in themselves. And

11:34

that is the truth. No doubt.

11:37

And truth ultimately is the enemy

11:39

here, as always. Modern

11:41

artists hate beauty because

11:43

they hate truth. The left

11:45

in general hates beauty because it hates

11:47

truth. And as the English poet John

11:49

Keith said, truth is beauty. Beauty

11:52

is truth. And that's all you need to know on

11:54

this earth. They know it and they

11:56

hate it. And so they give us this

11:58

ugliness instead. Now

12:01

let's get to our headlines. Our

12:08

friends at Genucell skincare have exciting

12:10

news to celebrate in twenty twenty three. They're

12:12

introducing their new micro bio

12:14

moisturizer, which uses the power of

12:16

probiotics to target skin redness,

12:19

pesky wrinkles, fine lines, patchy blotches,

12:21

and other signs of premature aging. These

12:23

are the same probiotics that are in your yogurt. As

12:25

it turns out, these super ingredients can

12:27

have the same nourishing benefits on your

12:29

skin as they do for your tummies. you've

12:31

ever been yogurt and you thought yourself, I want this on

12:33

my skin. This is for you. Probiotics

12:35

extracts target bad bacteria

12:37

and and it restores balance to your

12:39

skin's protected barrier. Now every

12:41

Genucell most popular package includes

12:43

their new probiotic moisturizer free

12:45

with your order. My talent manager,

12:48

Tessa, uses Genucell under eye treatment

12:50

to help get rid the bags under her eyes

12:52

and she swears by it every

12:54

day when we talk about it. Right now,

12:56

you could get Genucel's most popular package for

12:58

seventy percent off. Visit jennucel

13:00

dot com slash walsh and get your probiotic

13:02

moisturizer today. Use code walsh

13:04

to check out for an extra ten percent off your

13:06

entire purchase. That's jennucel dot com

13:08

slash walsh. Genucel dot

13:10

comwalsh. We begin

13:12

with this news, major news. I'll read

13:14

the post millennial report because I don't

13:16

know how well audio will translate if you can't see

13:18

the subtitles, but you should go and watch the full

13:20

video after the show. This is the report though

13:22

from PostNL. So as Project Veritas

13:24

released a new video Wednesday, which a Pfizer

13:26

executive claim the company is attempting

13:28

to mutate COVID via

13:30

directed evolution in order to

13:32

preempt the development of future

13:34

vaccines. As a result,

13:36

hashtag directed evolution trended

13:38

worldwide, Jordan Tristan

13:40

Walker, Pfizer's Director of Research

13:42

Development, strategic operations and an

13:44

mRNA scientific planner

13:46

claim that direct evolution is not the

13:48

same as gain of function research, which according to

13:50

the outlet is defined as a

13:52

mutation that confers new or enhanced activity

13:54

on a protein, meaning that the virus in

13:56

question can become more powerful depending on the

13:58

mutation or scientific enhancement. Walker

14:01

told an undercover project Veritas journalist,

14:03

quote, one of the things that we,

14:05

Pfizer, are exploring is

14:07

like, why don't we just mutate

14:09

COVID ourselves so we could create

14:11

preemptively new

14:13

vaccines, right? So We

14:15

have to do that. If we're gonna do that though,

14:17

there's a risk of like, as you can

14:19

imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma

14:21

company mutating ethane viruses.

14:23

He added. From

14:25

what I've heard is they the Pfizer scientists

14:28

are optimizing the COVID mutation

14:30

process. But they're going slow because everyone is

14:32

very cautious. Obviously, they don't want to accelerate

14:34

it too much. I think they're also just trying to

14:36

do it as an exploratory thing because you

14:38

obviously don't want to advertise that

14:40

you're figuring out future mutations. And

14:43

then Walker pleaded, don't tell anyone,

14:45

promise you won't tell anyone. The way the experiment

14:47

will work is that we put the virus in monkeys

14:49

and we successfully cause them to

14:51

successfully, successively cause

14:53

them to keep infecting each other and we

14:55

collect serial samples from them.

14:57

You have to be very controlled

14:59

to make sure that this virus that you mutate

15:01

doesn't create something that just goes everywhere,

15:04

which I suspect is the way that the

15:06

virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It

15:08

makes no sense that this virus popped out of

15:10

nowhere. It's BS. Okay.

15:12

Like I

15:12

said, you could watch this whole I think it's

15:14

about ten minutes. You see

15:16

this whole conversation where

15:19

Pfizer executive is saying that they

15:22

intend to do the same thing they

15:24

did in Wuhan. But we gotta be really

15:26

careful. It's like

15:28

that that the The

15:33

safety of the human race is at stake,

15:35

and we're just gonna trust that, you

15:37

know, Pfizer is careful. Like,

15:40

they can do things that if it goes

15:42

wrong, millions will die.

15:44

But it's alright because we could just trust

15:46

them to be careful. Because

15:50

we know that these people historically have been very

15:52

careful. Right? Now,

15:55

I mean, this obviously should be

15:58

breaking news in every media outlet. We have a high

16:00

ranking official adviser admitting that they're

16:02

working on mutating the virus admitting

16:04

that it's the same kind of thing they do on

16:07

pleading that that nobody finds out about

16:09

it. Like, how many how much more explicit can

16:11

you be? Yes, we're doing this

16:13

dangerous dangerous thing. Please don't tell

16:15

anyone we're doing it. What

16:17

else do you need to hear? Big

16:21

pharma must be

16:23

stopped. And I'm I'm not interested in

16:26

voting for any Republican who isn't serious

16:28

about holding these psychos

16:30

accountable. They've been operating

16:32

with impunity for way too

16:34

long. Way before COVID. Way

16:36

before COVID. Okay,

16:38

before COVID came along, and before the

16:40

vaccines came along, how about

16:43

turning half the country into drug addicts?

16:45

Inventing diseases to treat

16:47

and profit off of. Conducting

16:50

dangerous experiments that

16:53

imperil the human race injecting

16:57

whatever they want into our bodies, lying about it

16:59

the whole time. It's

17:01

got to stop it. We need leaders with the wherewithal

17:03

to stop it. Now, I've

17:05

already told you we talked yesterday about

17:08

the the penalties that I would prefer to

17:10

see for drug traffickers. You

17:12

know what I would like to do with drug traffickers? Well,

17:14

let's start here. I mean, let's start with the ones

17:16

who wear suits and have offices on the

17:18

top floor of fancy sky

17:20

rises. I mean, after we try them for

17:22

their crimes and convict them in a

17:24

court of law, because that has to

17:26

be the first step. We're way past

17:28

the point of congressional hearings

17:31

and investigations. We

17:33

need both of those things. They

17:35

don't mean anything they don't lead to trials

17:38

and criminal

17:39

charges, convictions, punishments.

17:43

And there are

17:45

other actual policy changes too that could

17:47

be made if we really wanted to rein in

17:50

big pharma. And some

17:52

of this might seem slightly indirect,

17:54

but really it's not and we need

17:56

to be doing it. Reining in big pharma, right,

17:59

means Either it means

18:01

it's simply a talking point, something that you

18:03

say. But if it's more than talking about, it means

18:05

it means cutting off the funds. It

18:07

means taking money away from these

18:09

people. how you do it.

18:11

Or that is

18:12

at least a major part of any effective plan

18:14

to reign them in.

18:16

Another big part is

18:18

Again, criminal charges, trials, punishments. You gotta

18:20

take the money away. And I'll tell you one way

18:22

to do that. We've talked about this plenty of times on

18:24

this show, ban the pharmaceutical companies,

18:28

from their products directly

18:30

to consumers. Whether

18:33

it's a pill that they're pushing

18:35

or a vaccine or anything,

18:38

they should not be allowed to advertise

18:40

it directly to consumers. And that's that

18:42

is already the policy in almost every country

18:44

in the world. Almost

18:47

every country in the world, most countries, they don't

18:49

let the pharmaceutical companies advertise directly

18:51

to consumers. That was the policy in this

18:53

country until I think it was the the mid nineties

18:55

when the FDA changed it. The

18:57

fact that this

18:59

policy was changed and has not been

19:01

changed back, the fact

19:03

that we we still allow them to

19:06

advertise to consumers, only show shows

19:08

you that our politicians are in

19:10

their pockets because there's no good

19:12

argument for allowing this. I

19:15

just wrote an article a couple days ago

19:17

and I'll I'll pull it up maybe tomorrow we'll talk

19:19

about this in more detail because it's very

19:20

important. But basically, you

19:23

know, according to this this article, the

19:26

drugs There's kind of an

19:28

inverse correlation here because the drugs with

19:30

the biggest ad budgets have

19:33

the lowest therapeutic value.

19:35

And why is that?

19:38

Because drugs that work and

19:40

are safe, are actually safe

19:42

and actually effective, they don't need to

19:44

be advertised. Doctors will

19:47

prescribe

19:47

them. Because they work.

19:49

There's no reason to advertise it.

19:53

Okay. If the drug works and it's effective and

19:55

all that, then you don't need to go to your doctor

19:57

and ask about it. Can I have this

19:59

drug? No. It's supposed to go to the doctor

20:01

with your symptoms and

20:03

then your illness

20:05

is diagnosed and treated. But

20:10

drugs that don't work need

20:12

advertising because they need you as the

20:14

patient to go to your

20:15

doctor. And ask for

20:16

them. And then they

20:19

need

20:19

to incentivize the medical industry

20:21

to distribute these drugs whether they

20:23

work or not. And the

20:26

other thing that they do with these

20:28

with these advertisements,

20:31

the drug adds they're not

20:34

just selling drugs that are ineffective

20:36

and potentially

20:36

dangerous. I mean, they're doing that, but

20:38

they're also selling the disease

20:41

they sell the disease. Right? That's why

20:43

all the ads are the same. They say, do you

20:45

have this XYZ symptom? Well,

20:47

talk to your doctor about this

20:50

drug. They're not

20:52

even asking you, oh, well, if you already have this

20:54

disease, here's a drug for you. It's like,

20:57

let's convince you that you have this

20:59

disease. A disease that you might not actually

21:01

have, diseases that might not even exist

21:03

because big pharma, they also invent diseases

21:05

that don't exist so that they can treat

21:07

them and profit off of them.

21:09

And then once

21:12

they've toyed with

21:14

your hypochondriac mind,

21:16

and convince you you have this

21:17

thing, you go to the doctor and you plead for

21:20

the pills that that you

21:22

want, and then most of the time you

21:24

get it. There

21:27

is no good reason to allow this. There is just no

21:29

good reason to the only reason to

21:32

allow the drug companies to advertise directly consumers

21:34

is if you're very concerned about making

21:36

sure that the big pharma executives

21:38

make a lot of

21:39

money. That's the only benefit. The only benefit is

21:41

that they make tons of money doing this. If

21:43

you don't let them do it, they make a lot less

21:46

money. There

21:47

is no benefit to the to the population. There's

21:49

no benefit to me or you.

21:52

It's only harm. Bring

21:55

all that up because,

21:57

again, this is one way you ran in big pharma,

21:59

but also if you're wondering why

22:02

nothing is being done by the powers that be.

22:06

To hold

22:08

big pharma accountable, when

22:11

it comes to COVID and the vaccine and the lies that

22:13

we're told, if you're wondering why, well, all you

22:15

need to look at is

22:19

this. I mean, direct consumer, banning

22:21

direct consumer ads, that should be a

22:23

bipartisan. This should be one of those very rare

22:25

bipartisan issues because it should appeal to

22:27

both sides. The right pretends to

22:29

be skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.

22:31

The left pretends to be skeptical of

22:33

corporations and corporate greed in general.

22:36

Well, here you go. Here's an issue that both sides should agree on.

22:39

And they don't, at

22:41

least not in Washington. Because

22:44

obviously they're in the pockets of these

22:46

of this industry on

22:48

both sides. Alright.

22:53

I'm sure you recall a few weeks ago when

22:55

there was great panic across the land

22:57

because Republicans couldn't agree on

22:59

who to appoint as the new speaker of

23:01

the house. was a source of tremendous

23:03

heartache and fear and misery in

23:05

the population. And I mean, specifically, the

23:08

population of corporate media offices

23:10

in DC Nobody else really gave the

23:12

slightest damn about any of this nor should they

23:14

have cared about it. But for

23:16

those, particularly on the right

23:18

who are surn that, you not handing the speakership over

23:20

to Kamad Bhakti automatically, concerned

23:22

that if we didn't just give it to him,

23:24

that it would somehow have disastrous disastrous

23:27

effects. I think those people should check

23:29

out what Kevin McCarthy now the speaker of the

23:31

house has been doing over the last

23:34

several days. One of his first acts

23:36

as speaker of the house was to to kick

23:38

Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff

23:40

off of the house intelligence committees.

23:42

Which is a very good thing. But

23:44

the fact that he's doing these

23:46

good things is not evidence

23:48

that we shouldn't have resisted his speakership

23:50

but rather it's evidence that it's a very good thing we

23:53

did because it's clear that McCarthy's

23:56

resistance from the base has

23:58

resonated with him. We

24:00

we

24:00

do have some power and control

24:02

here, but we have to use it.

24:07

And even if it didn't provoke an

24:09

authentic conversion experience for Kevin McCarthy,

24:11

it at least is forcing him to act

24:13

like something other than an

24:15

establishment shield for right now. And

24:17

that's just as good as far as I'm concerned. I don't

24:19

like, frankly, I don't care if these people mean

24:21

it or not. I don't care. I

24:23

don't care what they actually think in their I don't

24:25

care about any of that. I don't any difference to me. Who cares

24:27

about

24:27

that? All I care about is what they

24:30

do. The policies they

24:32

implement. Even if they do it by grudgingly.

24:34

If they do it and they wish they didn't have to do

24:36

it, but they're only doing it because they're being held

24:38

accountable by the base and they hate us and they're muttering about

24:40

us all the time. Fine. I

24:42

don't care. Just do it. If

24:45

they're doing it to appease us, good.

24:47

That only shows the power that we have.

24:50

So McCarthy kicked him off the intelligence committee, and then

24:52

he had this really fantastic

24:54

exchange with the DC journalist who

24:56

challenged him on it, And again,

24:58

what what you're about to hear from him, you you would

25:00

not have heard had we not challenge. If the

25:02

base had not challenged him, you

25:04

wouldn't hear this. And we never we

25:06

haven't heard anything like this from Kevin McCarthy until now that's not

25:08

a coincidence. But we'll watch a little

25:11

bit of this exchange. He's

25:13

gone elected by his district.

25:16

So

25:17

Okay. Let let me be very clear and

25:20

respectful to you. You

25:22

ask me a question. When I answer it,

25:24

it's the answer to your question. You don't get to

25:26

determine whether I answer your question or

25:28

not, okay, in all respect.

25:30

Thank you. No. No. Let's

25:32

answer her question. You just

25:34

raised a question. I'm gonna be very clear with

25:36

you. The intel committee is different. You know

25:38

why? Because what happens in the intel committee? You

25:40

don't know. What happens in the intel committee,

25:43

although the secrets are going on to the

25:45

world, other members of

25:47

Congress don't what did Adam Schiff do as the chairman

25:49

of the intel committee? What Adam Schiff

25:51

did use his power as a

25:53

chairman and lied to the American public, even the

25:55

expector general senate. When

25:57

Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was

25:59

false. When we had a laptop, he

26:01

used it before an election to be politics and

26:03

say that it was false and said it

26:05

was the Russian. When he knew different. When he

26:07

knew the intel, if you talk to John

26:11

Radcliffe, DNI, he

26:13

came out ahead of time says there's no intel to prove

26:15

that, and he used his position as

26:18

chairman. Knowing he has information, the

26:20

rest of America does not and

26:22

lied to the American public. When a whistleblower came

26:24

forward, he said he did not know the

26:26

individual, even though his staff had met with him and

26:28

set it up. So, no. He does not have

26:30

a right sit on that, but I will not be like

26:33

Democrats and play politics with these, where

26:35

they removed Republicans from

26:37

committees and all They're here to come behind

26:39

us.

26:39

So yes. He gets Okay. Good. Yeah. And then he goes on top

26:42

of Eric Schwab. I mean Eric Schwab was

26:44

involved in a in a romantic affair with a

26:46

Chinese spy. So, yeah, should he

26:48

be on the Intelligence

26:50

committee. I mean, he's involved in a romantic

26:52

affair with Chinese body. He also has chronic

26:54

flatulence. So those are two good reasons why. I mean, it's not

26:56

fair to other people in the committee to have them in

26:58

there. For really both of those both of those

27:00

reasons. And that's the

27:03

point that Kevin McCarthy made. Well, he didn't bring up the flatulence

27:05

thing. wish that's the that's the only criticism I have of

27:07

this moment, Kevin McCarthy, a moment that

27:10

once

27:10

again, I I do not believe we would have

27:12

if we hadn't challenged and what

27:14

we did. Now, Swallwell, for for his

27:17

part, is very upset about not

27:19

getting his committee assignment. It's

27:21

another one of those things. Right? The DC shows

27:25

how how terminally out of

27:27

touch they are. With

27:29

any normal American that they think

27:31

we care about, like,

27:33

they can come to us. They think they can come to us with

27:35

a with a SAB story

27:37

about not getting a committee assignment, and they think

27:40

that we'll care about that. They

27:42

think there's anyone in the country who's sitting

27:44

around going, Hi.

27:46

I really feel bad for Eric Swalwell not getting

27:48

his committee assignment. So

27:51

he's

27:51

he's addressing the media about it and

27:53

holding back tears. He's very upset.

27:55

So this is

27:58

purely about political tensions. The

28:00

cost is not only removing us from the

28:02

committee. On the intelligence committee, the cost is

28:04

not only breaking shattering

28:06

the most precious glassware in

28:08

the cabinet, a committee that's always been bipartisan.

28:10

The costs are the death threats

28:13

that miss Omar and myself and

28:15

mister Schiff keep getting because mister McCarthy continues

28:18

to aim and project these

28:21

smears against

28:21

us, even though we have said publicly,

28:24

These smears

28:24

are bringing death threats. He continues to do it, which makes

28:26

us believe that there's an intent behind

28:29

it.

28:29

But we will not be

28:31

quiet. We're not going away.

28:34

Think he'll regret giving all three of us more time

28:36

on our hands. Ollie

28:38

made a threat

28:40

there himself. That's a threat, isn't

28:43

it? Yeah.

28:46

Actually, I am worried about Eric Swallow having

28:48

more time on his hands. How

28:50

many other foreign

28:53

spies can he sleep with in a

28:55

given year with all that extra time. So I

28:57

am a little bit concerned. About

29:00

that. By the way, nobody is making death

29:02

threats to Eric Schwab. I don't think anyone's ever

29:04

made a death threat there Eric Schwab. No

29:06

one would take him seriously enough.

29:08

To make to actually a death threat. He's not a

29:10

serious enough figure in politics to warrant

29:12

that to begin with. But also,

29:15

wants him to believe that people are making death threats

29:18

because he because of

29:20

him not being appointed to the House

29:22

Intelligence Committee. No

29:25

one is even aware of that or

29:27

cares. And the kinds of

29:29

people who would send random angry

29:31

death threats to politicians These

29:33

are not the kinds of people who are paying

29:35

attention to what the committee assignments are.

29:38

So that's all. All

29:40

very good stuff. Alright. Demar

29:45

Hamlin, after his cardiac emergency

29:47

on the football field a few weeks ago,

29:49

we're we're we're told He

29:51

spent several days in the hospital, but he's

29:53

now out. Though still in need of

29:55

lots of physical assistance, including oxygen,

29:57

is what we're told, Now

29:59

Hamlin showed up to the Bill's

30:01

playoff game on Saturday or Sunday, whatever it

30:03

was. And they lost, but the big

30:05

story was Hamlin's presence. At least according to

30:07

the media, this is a big story. And he was up in a box. He it

30:09

wasn't he wasn't on the field. He was up in a box. He was

30:11

watching. And the announcer referred

30:13

to him frequently throughout the game.

30:15

Cameras kept showing

30:17

him and and the TV Production made a

30:19

really big deal about him being

30:21

there. The weird thing is

30:23

that Hamlin Though he was on

30:25

camera a lot, he never we never saw

30:27

saw his face. They never showed his face. He wouldn't show

30:29

his face, and there are a few times where they

30:31

showed him up in the box. Seat,

30:33

but it was like you you it was at

30:35

such an angle that you couldn't really see anything all you

30:37

could see is

30:37

silhouette, that is face covered,

30:40

and all that So

30:42

so he showed

30:44

up, but they didn't wanna show him,

30:47

and he

30:47

didn't wanna be seen. It's a kind

30:49

of bizarre. And then any kind

30:51

of bizarre thing will lead to theories on

30:53

the Internet. The Internet

30:56

theorists, some of them, speculated about

30:58

or wondered whether Hamlin wasn't

31:00

actually at the game, but rather was

31:02

represented by some kind of body double.

31:04

And then from there, you know, from

31:06

that theory, then it branches off and then it could get,

31:08

you know, even more implausible. But

31:11

So maybe he's alive, but they sent a body

31:13

double to the game so they could get the the storyline

31:15

of him being there, maybe he's dead, you

31:18

know, and and this is a body double to it.

31:20

But so all kinds of theories like that. As you can

31:22

imagine, the media does not like

31:24

any of this one bit, very upset about

31:26

the theories. As this just

31:28

one example, this NBC sports article makes very

31:30

clear headline, crazy disturbing Lamar

31:33

Hamlin conspiracy theory emerges.

31:36

That says, in many

31:37

respects, the modern world has lost its damn mind,

31:39

conspiracy theories abound over everything.

31:41

And it was unavoidable we

31:44

that some conspiracy theory would emerge regarding Bill's safety

31:46

to Marhamlin. Original plan was to

31:48

ignore it, to give it no attention, no credence, no

31:50

oxygen. Sometimes however, it's important for

31:53

the rational to expose the

31:55

irrational so that some of irrational aren't

31:57

tempted to swallow the crazy ass

31:58

cheese. What? Who

32:01

wrote this? I wish I had to

32:04

swallow the What kind of writing is this? So they're

32:06

not tempted to swallow the

32:08

crazy ass First of all, is that what

32:10

do we do? The crazy ass cheese

32:12

or the crazy ass cheese?

32:16

Which one are we talking about? And it both are

32:19

disgusting, but one is particularly more disgusting.

32:21

Anyway, how does

32:23

how does the phrase Crazy

32:25

ass cheese, make it into an

32:28

article that is then published by

32:30

NBC News. How

32:32

does that make it through the editing

32:34

process? What is your editor doing? If they allow

32:37

if if they're not gonna flag you down and say, hey, you know

32:39

the part about crazy ass, cheese?

32:41

I don't know if we maybe would at least

32:43

take out the ass. Anyway,

32:48

as it relates to Hamlin, there's actually a theory

32:50

complete completely unsupported by a shred of

32:52

evidence that Hamlin died from the COVID vaccine and that

32:54

he has been replaced by a body double. Think

32:56

about that one. The person who attended Sunday's game

32:58

between the bangles and bills isn't to

33:00

Hamlin. It's someone else disguised as Lamar Hamlin and presumably his

33:02

family and his teammates are in on it. And

33:04

then it goes on

33:04

and on and on and he you

33:08

know, scolding the people that

33:11

have spread this conspiracy

33:13

theory around. Now a few things

33:15

about this fur the first thing is that as

33:18

always, actually, the media,

33:21

while they complain about these

33:23

conspiracy theories, and they pretend

33:25

to be very offended. I'm upset by it. They

33:27

actually like them and they want more than they want to

33:29

encourage them. That's the only reason to report on

33:31

this. I didn't

33:33

know that this theory existed until

33:35

I read some of the news articles

33:37

condemning it. Like so many

33:39

other people, I only found out about the

33:41

theory because of the left

33:43

wing media scolding those who

33:45

were propagating the theory. But really, they

33:47

themselves are the ones propagating it.

33:50

Because they like it. They want that. Now,

33:53

I don't think the Marhamlin is dead and

33:55

replaced by a body double. Okay. I don't think that.

33:57

For a lot of reasons, I mean, for one thing

34:00

just a sheer number of people who have to be involved in a conspiracy of

34:02

that sort. We're talking about family and friends and

34:04

doctors and teammates, the NFL, the media, like

34:06

all of them would have to conspire to remain

34:08

silent for what forever. You'd have

34:10

to keep it going forever and pretend pretend

34:13

this guy is still alive. And

34:17

doing that so they can cover up what? That he I

34:19

guess, the idea is that he died from the vaccine.

34:21

Well, they already gave their version of why he

34:23

was in the hospital, so they If he died,

34:25

they would've just blamed that. They would've said he died from the football injury. And if

34:27

you think that there's some sort of cover up going on, then that

34:29

would be the cover up. It's a lot simpler and you

34:32

don't need

34:34

to enlist hundreds of people across multiple

34:36

industries to cooperate in

34:38

this conspiracy, to pretend someone

34:40

is alive for the next several

34:43

decades when he's actually not.

34:46

Anytime you're theorizing a massive

34:48

elaborate scheme involving thousands of people

34:50

who all must stay perfectly in line and

34:52

silent, And this scheme is, like, hatched in order

34:55

to achieve some extremely negligible benefit

34:57

or whatever. Anytime there's a

34:59

theory like that, it demands a lot of evidence to believe. And otherwise,

35:01

you should be extremely skeptical. It doesn't mean that those those kind of

35:03

theories are always wrong. It just means that I don't

35:06

need to see some real good evidence

35:08

for that. Especially in this case, when there's a much more plausible

35:10

explanation, which is that Lamar

35:12

my theory would be

35:14

that Lamar Hamlin's face cut kind

35:18

of messed up from a a stroke related to the incident, and he doesn't want people

35:20

to see. Like, that's my that would mean my theory.

35:22

So that's the most plausible sort of explanation.

35:28

Which brings me to if there's a

35:30

if there's a scandal here. You know, the

35:32

real scandal, if there is one, is that the

35:34

NFL insisted on

35:36

making Hamlin

35:37

they wanted the story.

35:40

That's the thing. That's what the NFL cares about. They care

35:42

about the ratings, obviously. That's what the media

35:44

cares about. They care about the ratings,

35:46

they care about the story, they care about that up more than

35:48

anything else. And

35:51

so, at the moment, this

35:54

happened to Demar Hamlin. The

35:56

parasites in the media and NFL

35:58

corporate offices, they

36:00

were like, you

36:03

know, they were they

36:06

they saw the money signs and being able

36:08

to capitalize on this storyline now.

36:11

They wanted a storyline And so that's

36:13

why they wanted to trot them out at this

36:13

game. You know, insisting

36:16

on making Hamlin into some kind of

36:18

hero, some sort

36:20

of like marter and and and and

36:22

and, you know, and they really wanted that

36:24

story line of it. And and in reality,

36:26

Tamar Hamlin suffered

36:28

something very terrible. Feel very sorry for him.

36:31

And that's it. Like, that's that's

36:33

There's not much else to

36:35

be said about it. But

36:37

they wanted to make it a lot more than that because they

36:39

wanted the ratings and they wanted the story lines so

36:41

they brought them out when he clearly was not

36:44

ready to be out there and they

36:46

exploited the whole situation throughout

36:48

the entire broadcast by going back to

36:50

again and again and again. And the fact that

36:52

he didn't wanna show his face just makes the whole

36:55

thing all the more bizarre and weird

36:57

and and just, you

37:00

know, gratuitous, I think. But,

37:02

you know, also, as I've

37:05

said before, I don't the

37:07

people that indulge in elaborate

37:10

conspiracy theories

37:11

oftentimes, I don't believe those theories are the reasons

37:13

I've said. But I don't blame people

37:15

anymore for it. I I just

37:18

don't because

37:20

there's been a total collapse

37:22

of trust. People simply don't trust

37:25

any of the supposed

37:30

authorities that are supposed to be in charge

37:32

of, you know, disseminating information and telling

37:34

us what's going on. The public

37:36

doesn't trust any of those people anymore. For good

37:38

reason. Now because they don't

37:40

trust anyone, then everyone is left to kind

37:42

of make their own assumptions about everything. And

37:46

some people tend to

37:48

make more kind of cinematic assumptions

37:51

than others, but I think the

37:53

blame ultimately goes with

37:56

the people who have lost our

37:58

trust and have created the situation.

38:03

Alright. Let's get to the comment section. Can

38:06

you imagine it's required that

38:08

you go a bit. We're

38:10

the sweet baby gang. Lai

38:15

Kraft of coffee company is on a mission to build

38:17

a support network for veterans, first responders,

38:19

and law enforcement by serving you the best coffee

38:21

you've ever had. And thanks to your support, that dream

38:23

has become a reality year alone, BlackRock

38:26

Coffee donated over a hundred and twenty thousand bags of

38:28

coffee to veterans and first responders, while

38:30

expanding their own team of active duty, service

38:32

members veterans and veteran family members. If you wanna supporting

38:34

this incredible company, go to black rafflecoffee dot

38:36

com, use promo code walls, a check out for

38:38

ten percent off your purchase and your first

38:41

coffee club order. truly of a kind, but it's your

38:43

support that gets gear funding and supplies into the

38:45

hands of those on our front lines. Go

38:47

to black raffle coffee

38:50

dot use promo code walls for ten percent off. You can also find black rifle coffee

38:52

in grocery convenience stores near

38:53

you. Black rifle coffee,

38:56

America's coffee.

38:58

LFTR says, steep and highly

39:00

socialized penalties work. It's called a

39:02

deterrent. As society has backed off and reduced

39:04

penalties for crime, our cities have become graffiti tag, crime ridden

39:06

hellscapes. This is not a coincidence. It's a

39:08

direct result of choosing not to punish criminal

39:10

behavior. Right. And of course,

39:12

it is.

39:14

That's Obviously, what's going on. Anyone who

39:16

claims that, oh, punishments are not a deterrent for

39:18

behavior. This is someone who is denying

39:21

one of the most basic

39:24

realities of human psychology,

39:26

including their own psychology.

39:28

Okay? Everybody is motivated

39:30

by incentives and disincentives. That

39:34

which isn't to say that people are

39:36

directly, perfectly controlled

39:39

by such incentives. Now you can incentivize a certain

39:41

behavior and there will be some people who still do not engage in

39:43

that behavior. You can disincentivize certain behaviors and there

39:45

are people who still will engage in

39:48

that behavior. So that

39:50

that will happen. But still,

39:52

people are highly influenced by incentives and

39:54

disincentives. That's everybody is. So

39:56

to deny it outright as

39:58

people do, that to to claim

40:00

that, you know, no matter how much

40:02

we clamp down on criminal

40:04

behavior and how much no matter how

40:08

much we punish it no matter how

40:10

severe the punishments are, it'll have essentially no effect

40:12

on the frequency of

40:15

that criminal behavior That

40:17

claim is not credible

40:21

at all. Let's

40:23

see. Jay Anderson says From

40:25

a historical perspective, drowning women as normal just because it was normal

40:27

in history is no justification for the

40:29

same actions today. Obviously,

40:32

I hope. Yeah,

40:34

which is why my

40:36

argument for corporal punishment and

40:38

and the increased use of capital

40:41

punishment my argument is not simply based on the fact that

40:43

people have always done it. That's not

40:45

my only reason, though it

40:48

is true that when it

40:50

comes to accruing unusual punishments. Well, these

40:52

punishments are certainly not unusual. They

40:54

are probably the most usual punishments

40:56

in the

40:58

world historically. That's not

41:00

the be all and end

41:02

all of the argument, but that is a

41:04

reality and it's worth

41:05

pointing out. Because, yes, the

41:08

fact that something has always been done a certain way

41:10

is not in and of itself

41:13

a sufficient reason necessarily to keep

41:15

on doing. What it does

41:18

mean is that if you are suggesting that

41:20

we do things in a radically

41:22

different way, then

41:24

you need to have a good reason for

41:26

that. It does shift to a

41:28

large extent the burden of proof over to

41:31

you. K? If human society has always

41:33

done something a certain way, and we've

41:35

got the testimony of our ancestors going

41:37

back to the ages

41:38

saying, this is the way to do it, this way works.

41:41

It could be that that we

41:43

need to change courses and not do it

41:45

this way anymore. Sure. But if you're coming along

41:47

and saying that, you're saying, no. Let's cut no.

41:49

We're up. Let's Let's cut it off right here and go

41:51

in this radically different direction because all those people are wrong.

41:54

Okay? I'm I'm open to hearing your

41:56

argument. I really am, but you gotta make

41:58

the argument. You

42:00

have now assumed a burden of proof

42:02

that in so many cases,

42:04

the people who are demanding

42:07

that we sever ourselves from

42:09

our ancestors never meet. They never meet

42:11

that burden of proof.

42:14

Instead,

42:14

they try to go the other way the other way. It's almost

42:16

like, For a lot of people,

42:18

the fact

42:19

that our ancestors did it is reason

42:21

enough to not do it.

42:23

And that's supposed to be self evident,

42:25

which it isn't. And these days

42:28

we do have, many people

42:30

have anyway, a radically different concept

42:33

of what constitutes justice. And

42:36

what and and and and,

42:38

you know, how we should deal with

42:40

and punish crime. We have a radically

42:42

different notion of it today. An

42:45

ocean that would have been totally foreign to most people

42:47

who've lived on Earth.

42:52

That in

42:52

and of itself doesn't make it wrong, but you gotta be able to defend it.

42:55

And defending essentially by just

42:57

saying, well, corporal punishment for

42:59

thieves makes me squeamish. I don't it doesn't

43:01

make me feel weird.

43:04

That seems to basically be most people's argument, and I

43:06

don't find it

43:08

particularly compelling. B. Reese says

43:10

I once spoke to a woman who was

43:12

against the death penalty. She had bumper stickers that

43:14

mocked the death penalty one tie. One one said,

43:16

why do we people who kill people to show that killing people

43:18

is wrong. I said, we don't do that. I said,

43:21

we kill people who kill people so they

43:23

don't kill more people. Her response, I

43:25

hadn't thought about that. I said, well, think about it.

43:27

After death penalty is executed, the person will never have a will

43:29

never be a repeat offender. Never. Have

43:31

a nice day. We're right about that.

43:33

That is one of the benefits of the death penalty is that

43:36

the recidivism rate. Okay. So we talk about

43:38

the deterrence rate, but certainly the recidivism rate

43:40

for the death penalty is zero. So that is a

43:42

benefit of it. But, you know, I

43:44

wouldn't

43:44

I also wouldn't surrender to

43:47

her

43:47

argument in that way. Like,

43:50

it's Yeah, you can. It is a valid

43:54

method to communicate the severity

43:56

of a

43:58

crime through the through the death penalty. So

44:00

I I mean, look at it this way,

44:04

kidnapping someone

44:07

Right? If you if I were to take

44:09

someone and lock them in a cage in

44:11

my basement, I would be kidnapping them, and I'd go

44:13

to jail for that. But

44:15

I'm going to

44:16

jail and they're locking me in a cage. So would

44:18

this woman say, we shouldn't lock people in cages

44:20

to show them that locking people in cages

44:24

is wrong? Now the answer to that is, yeah, that's exactly

44:26

what we should do. What are you talking

44:28

about? That's actually a

44:30

great way to show someone that what they've done

44:32

is wrong. Okay?

44:34

If you don't know that locking people in the cages are wrong, probably

44:36

that the best way to show you that

44:38

it's wrong is to put you in

44:41

a cage. How else? What what's a better

44:44

way? Is a better way if you really wanna

44:46

show them a lock and do the cages wrong, is a better

44:48

method to keep them out of a cage

44:50

and just sit them in a

44:52

classroom and, you know, and give them

44:54

instruction, maybe have them talk to a

44:56

therapist who tries to

44:58

convince them by the force of argument

45:00

that they shouldn't lock people in cages? Now,

45:02

the best way to communicate it is, okay, here's what

45:04

that feels like. Here you go. And

45:09

so yes, it is entirely valid

45:12

to make a societal statement

45:14

that that killing is

45:16

wrong by killing people

45:19

who kill. As an entirely valid method.

45:24

And let's see what

45:26

else. Finally, Kenny says,

45:28

let's well, I end up one person

45:30

who agrees with me anyway. I was a career

45:32

criminal. I was in prison. Guess what? Mr.

45:35

Walsh speaks truth. And I have to tell you Kenny that I that I I

45:37

hear this a lot for people who've actually been in

45:39

prison and who have lived to criminal

45:41

life and have come out on the other end

45:43

of it and have reform themselves they

45:46

tend to be

45:48

bigger fans of law and order

45:50

and criminal justice and punishment.

45:52

Than the people who have never experienced this.

45:54

And I think that probably tells you something. Yesterday,

45:57

I told you about how YouTube

45:59

removed an app of our show because

46:01

my comments about men who wanna have uteruses

46:04

implanted in their bodies were deemed too

46:06

offensive and hateful. Well, these

46:08

restrictive speech policies exist because the world is on a mission to make you

46:10

woke. But our good friend, Dennis Prager,

46:12

is on a mission to make you

46:14

wise. Instead, And

46:16

thankfully, Dennis has created a brand new series with Delaware Plus called the

46:18

Masters program to do just that. We've had

46:20

a longstanding relationship with Dennis Prager for

46:22

good reason. He's been leading the

46:24

charge against stupidity for longer than I've been alive with content like

46:27

Kroger used five minute videos and and so many

46:29

other things as well. The master's

46:32

program takes forty years' worth of wisdom and experience for one of the most influential

46:34

conservative thinkers in America's Day that stills it all down

46:36

in a way that is relevant and accessible

46:38

to everyone. Episodes explore

46:40

topics like is human nature basically

46:42

good? I think we could say for certain

46:44

that I'm obviously good, but I

46:46

can't speak for anyone else. We'll see what

46:48

Prager says. The series also covers the consequences of

46:50

secularism, which by the way are so dire.

46:52

It needed two episodes to explore, and

46:54

those two episodes of

46:56

Preggar You master's program

46:58

are available to stream right now, but only on dailywire

47:00

plus. So head to dailywire plus dot com

47:02

to become a member and watch Kroger U

47:04

Master's program and more. That's

47:06

dailywire plus dot com today. Now let's

47:08

get to our daily cancellation. What

47:11

a while ago

47:13

when Elon Musk took over Twitter

47:16

and began making sweeping layoffs. He was

47:18

condemned as a heartless profiteer, a

47:20

man who took over a company and

47:22

gutted it out of spite or just for fun. But recent events would

47:24

suggest that Musk was was only ripping the band

47:26

aid off. He was doing what needed to be done, but

47:28

doing it in much in a much, you know,

47:30

quicker fashion.

47:32

A few months after those layoffs, the rest of Big Tech now involved in its

47:35

own purge of its workforce. The Daily

47:37

Y reported this week, quote, Spotify

47:40

revealed plans to cut head counts by six percent

47:42

due to macroeconomic turmoil following similar

47:44

moves from other prominent technology firms.

47:47

Spotify CEO Daniel Eek or

47:50

Eek, informed staff members on a Monday note

47:52

that the music and audio platform will reduce

47:54

headcount to

47:56

streamline operations Announcement implies that six hundred of the company's nine thousand eight

47:58

hundred employees will lose their position.

48:00

Spotify is one of the several technology companies to

48:02

announce layoffs in

48:04

recent weeks as a response to overzealous

48:06

hiring in the sector and broader economic woes, Microsoft revealed that the

48:08

company would dismiss some ten thousand employees

48:10

while Google will reduce its headcount by

48:13

approximately twelve thousand positions and Amazon plans to dismiss

48:16

eighteen thousand employees. More than

48:18

forty six thousand workers have been discharged from

48:20

prominent American technology companies in the first

48:22

month of twenty twenty three. According to report

48:24

from Crunchbase, even after firms in

48:26

this sector dismissed a hundred and seven thousand

48:28

positions last

48:30

year. So perhaps as it turns out, the

48:32

most successful businessman in the world made those layoffs because it was the right business

48:34

decision. Maybe he didn't become the

48:36

richest human in history by doing things

48:39

cap haphazardly or without good reason? There's

48:42

an interesting thought. And what's even more

48:44

interesting is that Big Tech

48:46

employees themselves while still complaining

48:48

about layoffs have in the past

48:50

inadvertently revealed why the layoffs were

48:52

necessary. Case in

48:54

point, Nicole Sai, who's a partner services program

48:56

manager at Google or I should say,

48:58

a former partner services program manager at

49:00

Google. Sai, like several infamous examples

49:02

from the

49:04

Twitter ranks, enjoyed posting these insufferable day in

49:06

the life videos to TikTok where she

49:08

documented her exploits throughout the day,

49:10

which mostly consisted of bragging about all

49:12

the perks that she enjoyed as a

49:14

big tech minion. I still

49:16

remain per you know, personally perplexed

49:18

as to why or how these day in

49:20

the life videos become

49:22

so popular. I can understand watching such a video about somebody who lives an

49:24

interesting life and does

49:26

interesting things like maybe a day in

49:28

the life

49:30

of scuba diver who explores shipwrecks or of a scientist

49:32

on a remote research station

49:36

in Antartica. Are you one of those

49:38

guys who repairs power lines a hundred fifty

49:40

feet up? Like, I'd watch that. That a

49:42

day in the life of that guy, I

49:44

wanna see. These are

49:46

impressive jobs that would make for

49:48

fascinating content. A day in the

49:50

life of a Silicon Valley pencil

49:52

pusher doesn't exactly MEASURE

49:54

UP. YET EVEN SO,

49:55

THE KOLSAI POSTED THIS, HERE IT

49:57

IS.

49:57

Reporter: A DAY IN MY LIFE WORKING FROM

50:00

THE GOOGLE L. A. OFFICE I always grab

50:02

some candy from the reception before heading

50:04

in. This used to be an old aircraft

50:06

hanger, so the decorations hang from the

50:08

ceiling kind of looks like an aircraft

50:10

flying in. Before it was a Google office,

50:12

this aircraft hanger belonged to Howard Hughes. So

50:14

there's tons of memorabilia. Next,

50:16

I'm gonna a past five, these art installations, they're a really good

50:18

photo op, or you can sit in there and get some work done.

50:20

I'm gonna head to the coffee shop to grab some

50:22

coffee and

50:24

a fruit cup since I missed breakfast, and then I'm heading over to this

50:26

butterfly themed room to take my first meeting, then I'm

50:28

gonna head over to the confetti room to take my

50:30

next meeting. It's so sparkly and

50:32

beautiful in here. I love that a lot of our

50:34

rooms are themed. Then I'm gonna grab my two

50:36

favorite drinks, which is the green tea and

50:38

coconut water. Next,

50:40

I'm gonna go upstairs and grab some lunch, they always have

50:42

pizza in a variety of different

50:44

vegetables and meat. The food is always really

50:46

good and course, everything

50:48

you see in the office is free. On my way

50:50

out of the cafe, I ran into a doogler, which

50:52

is a dog googler, and ran

50:54

into some ghost When they were

50:56

renovating the office, there were a lot of spooky

50:58

stories from the crew. So there's

51:00

a whole area in the office where you can listen to

51:02

them. Then I got more work done and headed

51:04

over to the massage Cheers to wrap up

51:06

by day. Let me know what you wanna see

51:08

next. Well, it's important

51:10

to get that massage in after a grueling

51:12

day of eating candy, drinking coconut

51:14

water, taking selfies, bruising art installations,

51:17

heading the dog

51:20

googler. Not in fairness, she did take

51:22

two meetings. Okay? So they were two meetings. That and

51:24

and and that was her entire day. She had two meetings

51:26

and the rest of that mostly just hobnobbing

51:29

around taking it

51:30

easy. Attending a meeting or

51:32

two. The one thing missing

51:34

from her day or

51:36

from her day is is

51:38

work or anything that we might call

51:41

work. She didn't, like, do

51:43

anything or create anything or make

51:45

any important decisions from the

51:47

looks of it. It's not clear from that

51:49

video why Google needs her in the building. And it apparently

51:52

wasn't clear to Google either, which led to

51:54

this unintentionally hilarious follow-up

51:55

video. Here

51:58

it

51:58

is. A day in my life getting laid off at Google. So I

52:00

woke up to this really ominous text for my boss and

52:02

I honestly had no idea what it was gonna be about.

52:04

So I called her the minute I woke up

52:07

and saw this and she told me to check the news and my email.

52:09

So I rushed downstairs to find out that I

52:11

had lost access to basically everything. I

52:14

couldn't log in to my email or even check

52:16

my calendar. I called my boss back, and

52:18

we just sobbed over the phone because she

52:20

was also finding out about my layoff for the first

52:22

time today too. We started getting calls from a

52:24

bunch of my coworker occurs and started

52:26

finding out who else was let go on my

52:28

team and some neighboring teams as well. But I

52:30

think the worst part is that it

52:32

seems like no one was consulted

52:34

on this and everyone was just finding out about the layoffs at the same

52:36

time. It just felt like a really bad game

52:38

of Russian roulette and there was no

52:40

consistency around who was

52:42

let go It was also not performance

52:44

based, so it just felt really random. I opened up LinkedIn, which honestly

52:46

was not great for my mental health. There

52:48

were so

52:50

many people who were in the same boat that were both equally as

52:52

shocked and blindsided, but it did help

52:54

me feel a little less alone. Honestly, I spent

52:56

so much of the day crying that I

52:59

just felt being sad and wanted to

53:01

do something that would just make me feel

53:03

better. Luckily, I have an annual pass, so

53:05

I headed over Disneyland because

53:07

I wanted to go eat my feelings. So

53:10

I started off with a cinnamon

53:12

galaxy churro and then went to the

53:14

Teriaki Church like, this is a special limited edition item for the New

53:16

Year celebration at Disney California Adventure.

53:18

I had some rice crispy, a

53:22

corn dog, did some drawing and even had another churro. I don't really

53:24

know what's next for me, but I'll be vlogging my

53:26

journey and posting more content about it, so

53:28

feel free to

53:30

follow along.

53:30

I, you know, I have

53:32

a sick sense of humor, so I I really want

53:34

someone with an even sicker sense

53:37

of humor to make a

53:40

video, parody video of,

53:42

like, what would have if one of these people was on,

53:44

like, death row and

53:46

had to do a day in

53:48

the life of their

53:48

execution. I just think that'd be fun. Here's a

53:51

day in the life when

53:52

I'm being executed. I woke up, had

53:55

my last meal, A couple of

53:57

things. First of all, she says the layoffs were a really bad game of

54:00

Russian roulette, which seems to

54:02

suggest that there's such a thing as a good game of

54:04

Russian roulette.

54:06

Whole point of Russia realizes that someone dies at the end, so it's gonna be a very

54:08

bad day for someone at least. Although, maybe

54:10

not for you. So, okay. Second, she

54:12

she just got laid off. Lost

54:15

her source of income and her first reaction was

54:17

to run down to was it Disneyland

54:19

to blow her discretionary funds

54:21

on Carnival Snacks? Doesn't seem like

54:23

a great strategy. Third, listen,

54:26

I don't have anything against this woman.

54:30

I'm predisposed to dislike her because she works for big

54:32

tech. But for all I know she's a very nice and

54:34

delightful person. It's probably not.

54:36

But my ability

54:38

to feel sympathy for your tears is severely limited when you take out

54:40

your phone to capture your tears

54:42

on video. I have been

54:44

sad in my life. I've experienced

54:46

setbacks like

54:48

we all I've never once felt the urge in the midst of that sadness to

54:50

document it with my phone.

54:52

That's actually the last thing I would I

54:54

would want

54:56

is I'm very sad about something and then I have a phone in my face.

54:58

So last thing I want, the instinct to pull

55:00

out your phone while you're crying is

55:02

not one that I can

55:04

begin to understand. And it automatically makes your sadness at

55:07

least partially performative because you're

55:09

using it for content. You're

55:11

using it for clout. You're

55:13

not taking your own misfortune

55:16

seriously, and so why should I take it

55:18

seriously? Finally, there's

55:20

a lesson here that I hope Nicole learns and

55:22

all younger people learn. It's

55:25

not fun, but it's

55:27

the truth. In the

55:29

working world, everyone

55:32

is expendable. Everyone is replaceable.

55:34

Now, you're not expendable as

55:35

a human being. I'm not saying that you as

55:37

a human are

55:40

expendable. You're not expendable in certain context, like the in the context

55:42

of your family, you're not an expendable

55:44

person. But at your

55:46

job, you can be replaced.

55:49

And eventually, one way or another, you will

55:51

be. Whether you quit, fired, light off,

55:53

retire, I mean, one way or another

55:55

eventually get replaced. And that's the

55:58

case for all of us. But you can greatly mitigate your replaceableness.

56:00

You can you can

56:02

make yourself much less expendable You

56:07

can make it so that though you can still be replaced, there

56:09

are not that many people who can replace

56:12

you. Your

56:14

own vulnerability in this regard. The reality that you will

56:16

never be entirely indispensable, that that

56:18

shouldn't be a cause for despair, but rather

56:20

it should drive you and

56:23

make you more ambitious, and innovative, and

56:25

propel you to work harder.

56:27

Not in a paranoid way, but just in a

56:29

like staying humble and working hard kind

56:32

of way. And if it does, if it does

56:34

motivate you that way, then then even if and when

56:36

you are replaced, you're

56:38

nearly certain to

56:40

continue on path to success

56:42

though by the way of a

56:44

detour. We will always be

56:46

to one degree or another expendable at

56:48

our jobs, but you can become virtually

56:50

undeniable in suit of your larger

56:52

goals. If you hone your abilities,

56:54

if you never become entirely

56:56

complacent, if you work harder than everybody

56:58

around you, you will be successful. It is

57:00

virtually guaranteed. I have never known

57:02

in my life a hard working, talented person who

57:04

was not by some measure

57:08

successful. Maybe not

57:10

Rich, but Rich is not Rich is

57:12

is potential manifestation of

57:14

some forms of success. He does not end up

57:16

itself success. So maybe I'm not

57:18

saying that every hardworking talented person is is a millionaire, but they are all

57:20

successful at the same time.

57:24

So here's your problem, Nicole. And it's a problem shared by many.

57:27

You don't seem to be doing

57:29

anything or even attempting to

57:32

do anything, that cannot be done by virtually

57:34

anyone. That that is the most

57:36

vulnerable position you can put

57:38

yourself in. When

57:40

you are contributing in a way that

57:42

could just as well be emulated by

57:44

nearly anyone who walks in the door,

57:47

In fact, your contributions can

57:49

be absorbed by other people

57:52

without anything really

57:54

being lost. You've made yourself highly, highly

57:56

replaceable, and you've deprived

57:58

yourself of any leverage.

58:00

Further down the professional lab,