The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 149 - The Left’s War on Science Escalates

Episode Date: November 26, 2018

Today on the show: Who is to blame for the chaos at the border? Also, Twitter is now banning anyone who affirms the basic biological reality that men are men. And a bunch of people are mad at me because I advocated contacting uncontacted tribes. I will give a response to their criticisms. Date: 11-26-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the show, chaos at the southern border, but whose fault is it? We'll talk about that. Also, Twitter is now banning anyone who says that men aren't women. Very Orwellian, we'll discuss it. Finally, a lot of people were upset at me over last week because I advocated contacting, uncontacted tribes. I'm going to explain my view on that subject in greater detail. All of that coming up next on the Matt Wall Show.

Well, I am not the first person to say this, and I know I won't be the last. but let me just throw my endorsement behind those people who, over the course of history, have come out to condemn anyone who jogs around the neighborhood on Thanksgiving weekend. I just find it to be an outrageous and offensive thing to do. You see, like many families, we have essentially, in my family, we have like three or four Thanksgiving. It's not just one Thanksgiving meal. It's like we have three or four because we have our, we do Thanksgiving dinner on Thanksgiving with my wife's side of the family.

And then we do a big Thanksgiving dinner with my side of the family on Saturday. And then in between that, you know, on Friday and then also on Sunday, you're eating the leftovers, you're having the pie. And it's a holiday. So you're having beer at like one in the afternoon. And by the end of it, you just, you stumble outside of your house, obese and roeastern. toned and lethargic, your stomach just full of turkey grease. And then what do you see? You see that guy jogging sprightly down the sidewalk, showboating, you know, making the rest of us feel bad about

ourselves. And I just think, I feel like everyone else. I think to myself, well, that should be illegal and it should be. There should be, when I am dictator of the country, it will be, you are not allowed to jog from Thursday, Thanksgiving morning until at least the following Wednesday. There is no public jogging allowed because it makes the rest of us feel bad about ourselves. And you have to think about how other people feel. Okay, it's just simple compassion. All right. So a few things I want to get into as we get back into the week. after the whole. I hope you had a great holiday, by the way. Video surfaced online this weekend of the chaos down south, down at the border,

as people from the so-called migrant caravan are trying to bumrush the border and invade the country illegally. And reportedly, border agents shot tear gas on a couple occasions at some of the illegal invaders. And also, there were rocks being thrown at the border agents. Now, liberals, of course, have been making this, they've been making much of the chaos and blaming it on the U.S. and saying how terrible it all is. But listen, these are people deliberately attempting to break our laws and push their way into the country. This is really a national security issue.

You can't, obviously, you can't have just a mob of people run across the border, even as there are border agents there saying, no, stop. And this is one of those things that if it was in any other situation with any other country, there would be no question about it. You know, nobody would be complaining. So like, imagine if I were, if I were, imagine if it were China, okay? Imagine if I showed up at a Chinese custom post and I tried to run past it, not listening to their instructions to stop.

And I just tried to bum rush and run past them. I think I could expect tear gas at the very least. And probably they would be using methods that are, a bit more aggressive than tear gas, and nobody would feel sorry for me, would they? Everybody would say, well, what in the world were you thinking? You can't just run into China without, they've got procedures and a process and play. You can't just run past them. Why would you even think that you could do that? They would blame me. If it were me trying to get into China, I would be blamed for it. They

would victim blame me. Yet, we're held to a different and extremely ridiculous standard. Now, one other point about this, there are some children who have been mixed up in the chaos, and now the government is being accused of tear gassing children. Well, I think, first of all, the vast majority of the migrants, the so-called migrants in the caravan are not children. These are grown men. But as for the children, and there are some children, I mean, you can look at the photographs and see it for yourself. And I feel sorry for the kids. I am sympathetic to them.

But whose fault is it that these kids are mixed up in this? Parents who choose to take their children, who force their children to accompany them as they go on this dangerous journey and they break our laws and they try to get into our country in this dangerous and illegal way, they're the ones at fault. So I feel bad for the kids, but who do you blame?

You blame the parents or the adults who are putting the kids in this, situation. If you have kids, that's all the more reason to try to enter the country legally in an orderly fashion and not as part of some giant mob. So we have to remember who's who's who we should blame in that situation. The government is doing its job. It needs to, we have a border, they need to be protected and there is a procedure to come into this country. If you're not going to follow the procedure, then you can't, we're not just going to let you in. All right. Something else that was interesting over the weekend. Well, this starts last week. A feminist was banned, apparently permanently, it looks like, from Twitter for repeatedly making the bold and outrageous claim that men are not women. She is one of the rare and I think rather brave feminists, which is why she's rare. It's rare to have an actual brave feminist in America anyway.

but she's one of the rare ones who has stood against the whole idea of transgenderism. She believes that men are invading, appropriating, cheapening womanhood. And she's absolutely right, of course. But she got banned, and Twitter has now instituted some new rules. It has declared that defending biological science is a prohibited offense on their platform. Twitter now says that if you harass a transgender person by simply asserting scientific reality, that's what harassment is now, then you can be kicked off the platform. You're not allowed to question transgenderism on Twitter anymore.

That's the new rule. So what did I do? Well, last night I went on Twitter and I questioned transgenderism, and I still haven't been kicked off for it, but we'll see. But here's what I did. Rather than simply arguing my case, as I've argued a million times, that men are men and women are women, which is, again, a banned statement on Twitter. I figured that rather than simply do that, I figured that I give the other side of this debate a chance to explain themselves.

Because if it's true that a man can actually be a woman, and if that fact is so self-evident and so obvious that anyone who doubts it deserves to be shunned from polite society and kicked off of social media platforms and so on, that in that case, it should be really easy for someone who holds that view, who holds the pro-transgender view, it should be really easy for them to answer some basic questions about it, right? So this is the tweet that I sent last night. I said, I invite anyone on Twitter to explain in clear and specific detail

how precisely a biological male can come to know that he is really a woman. How does he arrive at this conclusion on what basis, with what evidence to support it? Again, I invite anyone to explain. Thank you. Now, this really is the fundamental question, isn't it? You have biological men who at some point come to realize, realize that, or know or understand or whatever, that they are really women, okay? So how does that work exactly? I would think that this question should be really easy to answer.

If you believe that transgenderism is an actual thing, like it's really possible for a man to, to in some sense be a woman and to come to that realization, then I would think it'd be really easy to explain, shouldn't it? And if, in fact, this point of view is not anti-science, that again, you should be able to be able to explain. able to explain it scientifically. Yet I posed this question. It's a fair question, not a trick question, and hours went by without anyone even trying to answer it. Instead, you had liberals just telling me that I was a bigot for even asking the question to begin with. But finally, some people did attempt something like an answer. And I want to go through some of the answers to my question now so that we can, you know, I mean, look, don't take my word for it.

I think, it seems to me, that the leftist position on transgenderism is nonsensical and inexplicable. They can't explain it. It's just a faith-based view. But as I said, don't take my word for it. Let's take a look at their answers, and you tell me if these answers make sense. So we'll go through a few of them here. Laura said, I invite you to provide scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. Other than the Bible, how do you know God exists?

Well, that's not an answer, obviously. That just avoids the question entirely. And actually, ironically, it proves my point. This person seems to be admitting that transgenderism is an item of faith, not a scientifically observable fact. Also, for the record, I can provide scientific evidence for God that has nothing to do with the Bible. formation of life for inanimate matter, the existence of consciousness, the first cause, etc. All of these are legitimate scientific evidences for God, and there are none quite so compelling for transgenderism.

Susan says, why do you care? I don't understand it, but I respect people and respect the decisions they make about their own lives and bodies. That's all you have to do. Again, that's not an answer. And I'm not the one insisting that people care. You know, when Twitter says that you, you're not allowed to simply say that men are men and women are women, well, then that's Twitter insisting that we care about the transgenderism thing. They're the ones insisting on it.

And this has been, this is one of the tried and true tactics of the left that has been for decades. where they take something like transgenderism, they shove it in your face 24-7, they insist that you adopt their perspective on it, they insist that your children adopt their perspective on it, they insist that laws be changed according to their perspective on it, and then when you resist, or when you even ask a question about it, when you even say, hey, wait a second, why should we,

even when you even so much is do that, they'll say, well, why do you care so much? It's none of your business. Why do you care? I care because you demand that I care. So you're getting what you want here. Let's see, what other answers do we have? Someone who goes by the Twitter handle, Resister, said, if someone finds that they naturally think, feel, act, and perceive the world in a certain way, that's what makes a person who they are. There is no deeper what you really are that determines gender. That's it. Okay. Now we get to something that approximates or attempts an answer, but it's not a good answer. Here we are told that a biological man might think, feel, act, and perceive like a woman and therefore be a woman.

Okay, but how could a biological man know that what he's thinking and feeling is, how could he know that he's thinking and feeling like a woman? How could he know what that even means? because he isn't one. So it's circular. Okay? So I ask you, how does he know he's a woman?

And you say, well, because he feels like one. And I say, well, how does he know that he feels like one? And you say because he is one. Well, how does he know that he is one? Because he feels like one. And on and on and on into infinity. The fact is a man cannot feel like a woman because he isn't a woman.

He has no frame of reference. a man has no possible way of knowing that his feelings are the feelings of a woman. There is no way to know that because a feeling is an interior, emotional, private thing that happens within a person. And so you cannot, you just couldn't possibly know it. And besides, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What is a female thought? What is a female feeling? Now, of course, I'm not a woman again, but I think it's, I assume, it stands to reason that women being people, you know, are similar to me. And so I know for, in the sense that for me, I have many different feelings, many different feelings, many different

thoughts, a whole wide range of feelings and thoughts. And I believe women are the same way, right? So how can you seize on any one particular feeling or thought and say, well, that's how a woman feels and thinks. A woman feels and thinks a million different things because she's a person. So it doesn't even make any sense. All right. So that's not a good answer. That's a bad answer. Another answer says, I am FTM female to male, so I can answer how a biological female can think they're a boy. According to my mom, at age four, I said, things would make so much more sense if I could be a boy. At age 13, when she gave the talk, I asked her when my body would start producing semen. My parents are very conservative Christians. It has nothing to do with how I was raised.

They did not encourage it. I didn't transition until I was 22. I honestly think. it's a brain and body mismatch that we're born with. That's just me, though. Okay. Well, here we have the same sort of problem. A four-year-old girl says that it makes more sense if she were a boy, but what does a four-year-old girl know about being a boy? You know, that is one of the great many problems with these parents who say, well, you know, I knew that my son was really a girl from the age of three because he was saying that he was. as a girl. Well, a three-year-old or a four-year-old has no idea what those words mean. A four-year-old girl has no concept of what a boy is, except for the most sort of innocent

and shallow kind of perception of it. And so, and I'll tell you, a four-year-old girl, when she thinks of what is a boy. The first thing she's thinking of is, okay, well, boys like to play with toy trains and boys like to go run around and roll around in the mud. Boys like to play football. You know, that's what a child is thinking. When a child, when a young girl thinks of what constitutes a boy, that's what she means. So when a four-year-old girl says, I wish I were a boy, what she means is, I'd like to play with. with toy trains and I'd like to go play catch outside. That's what she means.

So, okay, get her the toy trains. Let her go play catch. Let her go roll around in the mud. So what? That's perfectly fine. She's a child. It cannot have any deeper meaning because she as a child does not have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl, by the way.

A four-year-old girl has very little concept of herself, let alone of anyone else. She's a child. Four years ago, she didn't exist. She's only four years into existence. She's very new to it. She doesn't have a concept of it. As for the question at age 13,

this, again, just shows confusion. So you have a 13-year-old girl saying, when do I produce semen? Well, this is a girl who's confused. She doesn't understand what a girl is. She doesn't even understand what a girl is. She doesn't know who she is as a girl. How could she make the choice? How could she reject being a girl and come to the conclusion that she's not one when she clearly doesn't even know what one is? It seems that a lot of parents these days, they make the mistake. of confusing confusion with knowledge. So they find that their child is confused about certain biological, basic biological facts,

and they interpret that as, oh, well, my child must know something. My child must have some deeper insight that I'm just not privy to. No, they don't. Your kid is just confused. That's all. Your child needs clarification.

Your child needs help. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side?

Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash spotting. Terms apply. Another answer, ironically, the Twitter handle is biased towards reality. And they said, if you want to know, you'd ask an expert in the field, not Twitter, but gender is a spectrum of preferences, not a thing between your legs. Some humans with penises diverge so far from what we call male preferences that they identify more with what we refer to as female. Okay, well, but according to this, a transgender woman in that case is simply a man who prefers certain things that society typically associates with women. Fine. But in that case, a transgender woman is in no sense whatsoever a woman. He's simply a less masculine man. That's all. If that's what you're telling me, okay, well, just a, just a,

It's a man who prefers things that society associates. Well, fine. Okay. Then that is a feminine man. But in that case, to call him a woman, to change the pronouns, and all of that, that makes no sense whatsoever. Also, by the way, you're only reinforcing gender roles here. Because for the last 50 years, we've been told that preferences and tastes and opinions and all of that, we've been told that none of that has anything to do with gender.

We've been told that there is no such thing as a female taste or a female opinion. That just because you're a woman doesn't mean that you should wear dresses. It doesn't mean that you should prefer any particular color or hobby or anything. That's what we've been told. That was the whole idea here. I thought the whole idea was to basically abolish this notion of gender. They say that gender is a social construct, and it basically tells us what society associates with men and women. And so for the last 50 years, what liberals have been saying is, well, let's get rid of gender.

Men can do whatever they want, women can do whatever they want. but now they have abandoned that position and they have gone way to the other end of the of the argument. And now they're saying that in fact not only do female preferences and female opinions and tastes exist, but they are so ingrained that if a man has a female taste or opinion or preference, then he must actually be a woman. So do you see how the liberals have gone from, they've gone from deconstructing the gender paradigm to actually reinforcing it

and reinforcing it in a way that is far stricter than how it was before? Because, you know, a hundred years ago, you would have more feminine men and more masculine women that existed a hundred years ago. Now, maybe they were frowned upon by society or whatever, but they still existed. Now what we're saying is they can't exist, that if you're a feminine man, then actually you're a woman. Because femininity is so tied to womanhood that if you experience it as a man, then you become a woman. and vice versa. So we see here that transgenderism is an indefensible proposition. It is an indefensible

self-contradicting proposition. It is a belief that cannot be explained. I mean, these were the attempts to explain it. And as you can tell, they're just, they fail. They fail in really obvious, clear ways. So it's just a matter of faith, that's all. It is a faith-based religious conviction where somebody believes, with no scientific reason whatsoever, they just believe, based on their own opinions and their own religious convictions, that a man can really be a woman or a woman can really be a man. And all I'm saying is, look, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, you're entitled to your faith-based beliefs. I'd be the first one to say that,

but at least admit that that's what they are. That's all I'm saying. All right, one other thing I wanted to touch on here, and this is a huge surprise. Last week, I gave an opinion that people didn't like. I know that you'll have to collect yourself and recuperate after hearing the shocking news there, but, yeah, people didn't like something that I said.

I said on my show and on Twitter that I don't agree with the whole concept of uncontacted tribes. And the reason why this came up is because of a story last week where a missionary tried to make contact with a tribe on an island off the coast of, I think, India. And he was brutally murdered by them in the process. He was simply trying to make contact with them. And this tribe, like several other tribes around the globe, has essentially been placed in a protective cocoon by its government.

They're living a thousand years in the past, and nobody is allowed to go there and sort of ruin the illusion. Nobody is allowed to go and even speak to them. Now, my point is that this system is lunacy. We are basically preserving people like museum exhibits or like zoo animals, and I think it's dehumanizing,

and it's ridiculous. A lot of people disagreed with my point, apparently, and over the weekend, hundreds of people were expressing their outrage at me online. I wasn't online at all over the weekend because it was a holiday, so I didn't see any of this. And I only became aware of the reaction last night when I got a few emails from some other websites and media outlets asking me about the backlash and what my reaction is to it. I didn't even know there was a backlash, which by the way, is a nice lesson for all of us,

because all I had to do was just not pick up my phone and it was as if the outrage wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It doesn't matter. All you have to do is not go online and you become like an uncontacted tribe of one, impervious to the pitchfork mob. That's why these online pitchfork mobs, they don't matter. All you have to do is just put this thing down and they're not there. You just live your life. Who cares?

And that's kind of a wonderful thing, that you could have hundreds of people furiously writing emails and tweeting you and I'm so angry. And it just doesn't, I don't care. It doesn't matter. It's all just contained in this thing. It doesn't matter at all. But since I'm back now, I thought I'd elaborate on my point and try to make it more clear. And my point was not that these tribes should be forcibly assimilated.

It wasn't that we should go and steal their land. My point wasn't that we should enslave them or exploit them or abuse them any way at all. My point was not any of those things. I could go on for literally a million years listing all of the points I didn't make because I didn't make all of the potential points in the world. I only made one point. There are trillions of points I did not make. I only made one. I simply questioned the idea that it should be illegal to go and speak to a group of people. I questioned the invisible force field that's placed around these tribes so that they won't even be aware of the outside world. And yeah, perhaps a few of the tribe members are somewhat sort of aware, but most of the children raised inside the force field will not be aware of the outside world.

They won't even know that it exists. They are being consigned to this primitive existence and are not being given the choice of leaving and living like the rest of us. Of course they aren't given a choice. That's the whole point to give them a real choice between living like that or living differently. They'd have to actually be significantly exposed to the realities of the outside world like all the rest of us are, but they aren't. So they're not given a choice. You have generations that are raised in this bubble that the government has created and enforced, and they're just, they're just, They have no option.

They're just, it's just, that's just how they're going to live. They don't have a choice. I think that's crazy. I think it's wrong. And it may sound really wonderful to you, but tell me, is it wonderful to die when you're 25 because your teeth are rotting out of your head and the infection has spread to your lungs and now it's killing you? Is it, is it wonderful to die of diseases that we could cure with antibiotics in three days?

is it wonderful to live without refrigeration? Is it wonderful to be unaware of the existence of germs? Is it wonderful to get horribly sick because you don't know you're supposed to wash your hands after you use the bathroom? People have a right to live that way if they want to, but they should know that there is another option with these things and children should know.

There are, I mean, just that last thing alone about germs. Like, that alone is enough reason, I think, to do away with this ridiculous idea of uncontacted trust. I mean, these are people that they don't know about germs. Do you have any idea? Do you have any idea what it's like to live not knowing that germs exist? Do you have any idea how many people die horrible? and young simply because they don't know they're supposed to wash their hands.

And the government sets this cocoon. Nobody's allowed to go tell them. You're not allowed to go tell them. Hey, by the way, look, live how you want, but just germs exist. These little tiny microscopic things that make you sick, just wash your hands. You're not allowed to go tell them that. You can't tell them. And so they're just going to keep dying.

There are a lot of objectives. objectively good things in modern society that because of this force field, these kids that live in these tribes, as they grow into adults, will never get a chance to benefit from. And I think that that is wrong. Now, if you still disagree, perhaps I can make my point by way of analogy. Let's think about the Amish, okay? The Amish choose, and they really do. choose to mostly reject modern society and to live in a unique way, a way that's unique in 2018, but would not have been unique in 1818, which is the point. And that's fine. They want to live that way. I totally respect it. Completely respect. And it really is a choice because the Amish know that the rest of the world is out there. And the point is they reject modern society, but they know what they're rejecting so they can make an informed choice. But let's imagine something for a moment.

Let's say that the Amish decided that they're losing way too many people. That with the way that they live, their kids are still very much exposed to the outside world, that they're aware of it. And so many of them as they get older decide to leave and live in a more modern way. So let's say the Amish decide that they want to solve that problem. so they want to be uncontact. And they have their plot of land in rural Pennsylvania, and it is their land after all. And they want to be uncontacted. You aren't allowed to go talk to them. You're not allowed to make any kind of contact with them whatsoever. And if you do, they might literally kill you. And let's say the U.S. government goes along with this. And they declare that the Amish are now an uncontacted truck, meaning it would be illegal for you to go and make any sort of kind of with them whatsoever. And again, they're doing this so that their ancient way of living can be preserved

without the slightest possibility of any outside influence and without giving the next generation a chance to choose between living that way or living some other way. Would you be in favor of that? Would you be in favor of a designation of the Amish as an uncontacted tribe where it is now illegal to speak to them? Would you think that such a system is fair? is fair or humane or rational? Or would you say that the Amish should not be placed in a cocoon

where modern civilization is artificially withheld? Would you say that such a system is crazy because it exempts the Amish from the realities of living in a human civilization and it exempts them in a way that none of the rest of us are exempt? I can't declare myself uncontacted where like you're not even allowed to knock on my door. And would you say that it's unfair to their children because it makes it impossible for the next generation to make an informed choice about how they want to live? I think we all know.

We all know what we would say in the case of the homage. Well, why would an uncontacted tribe in a jungle be any different? It's the same idea. And it's wrong for the same reasons. again, I'm not saying they can't choose that. Anyone can choose to live however they want. But what I am raising an issue with is the imaginary force field that's put around them by the government where they are not even allowed to be introduced to the realities of modern society.

Even the really positive good life-affirming, life-preserving realities like medicine, and refrigeration and hygiene. Like, they're not even allowed to know about any of that. Now, there are those who say that it's, you know, doing the whole uncontacted thing, it's totally worth it, even if it means that their children are going to die young and that they're going to suffer miseries that are totally unnecessary. It's totally worth it, though, because it preserves their culture.

And it would be a great shame if their culture was destroyed by exposure to the outside world. Well, why, though? Why do we need to preserve a tribal culture that has held itself in isolation and exactly as it's always been since the year 25 BC? I mean, why does that need to be preserved? Why would it be a great tragedy if that tribe were to, in some senses, modernize and start to take advantage of, some of these great things that I mentioned that we have in my, why would that be, what would be so terrible about that? Like, is it, would it somehow, does it somehow detract from, from, um, the, the great diversity of planet Earth if, if this tribe were to, you know, have electricity and

have telephones? Like, what's wrong with that? And would anyone say, that European or American culture of 1810 or 1790 should be preserved, exactly intact as it's always, as it was back then? Does anyone bemoan the fact that our own culture has developed so much over the last 300 years? No. In fact, most people would say that it's good that our old ancient culture is gone and has changed because that culture included the dehumanization of black people and the subjugation of women. And so, again, in any other case, with any other group, we do not mourn the fact that cultures change over time and over the centuries. We consider it good. We consider it a necessity. But in this case, with these tribes, we say, no, it must remain exactly as it's always been

for the last 3,000 years, and if it grows or matures or changes or develops at all, that is some great tragedy. Why? It doesn't make, I mean, just when you really stop and think about it, that simply doesn't make any sense at all. It really doesn't. Oh, no. Well, if this tribe learns about washing their hands, that's a tragedy. We can't allow that.

Do you realize how you're treating them? Again, you're treating them like zoan. You're treating them like an exhibit. You're not treating them like human beings. You're not. Because if it were any other human, in any other situation, and they were living this really tough, short, painful existence, because they didn't know about some of these basic realities of modern,

you would tell them about it. If it were your neighbor who somehow had been living in a cave or something and didn't know about it, you'd tell him about it, wouldn't you? Finally, one thing that people said when they were challenging my view is that I seem to be implying that our culture, modern culture, Western culture is superior to that of these primitive tribes. And I was told that, you know, that's a terrible thing to say. Well, yeah, guilty is charged. Our culture is, of course, superior. Now, that doesn't mean that we are superior as individuals. It doesn't mean that they're less human. It doesn't mean that they should be killed or enslaved or deprived of their land or anything like that. It just means that our culture is obviously better than theirs. I mean, all cultures are not equal. It is possible to have

cultures that are not as good as other cultures. Our culture is more advanced technologically, philosophically, politically, and in every quantifiable way. So yes, it's a, it is better. It has contributed more to the world that has accomplished greater things, so on and so on and so on. The fact that I even have to explain this and defend it just shows that most, most of what makes our culture better has nothing to do with us individually. So understand that when I say this, this is not an egotistical or arrogant thing. I don't get any of the credit for the fact that our culture is better than some of these other cultures. You don't get any credit for that. We are actually in the process of squandering all of these superior aspects of our culture.

They were given to us by those who came before us. We have added a few, you know, a few positive innovations, I suppose, but we didn't come up with any of the basics. And now a lot of it is slipping away because we're too stupid and befuddled to actually cherish and protect the great

civilization that was handed to us. So this is not about we as individuals are better, anything like that. And as I said, I'm a huge critic of modern society and modern people, myself included. We have a lot of flaws. But there are also a lot of things, again, many of those things that were given already that were handed to us, given to us, there are a lot of things that just make our culture a better place to live and just better across the board.

And that's why it's a good thing to share those things with other people, not forcibly, not at the point of a gun, but just to share them. that's all. And I don't think that anyone should be kept in a bubble so that these things are not shared with them. I don't think that's fair to them and to their kids. So that's my case. And again, I'll just say, if you disagree with me, just to be clear, what you're saying is that it is worth all of, you know, it's essentially what you're saying is, yes, these tribes are on. contact or they're not told about the outside world. Yes, that means that they're going to die in these horrible ways in ways that they do not need to, and they're going to suffer in ways that they do not need to. But all of that is worth it. You're saying that is all worth it because of whatever benefits exist in not contacting them. I just, I find that opinion to be really extreme and radical and bizarre, frankly. And I disagree with it. All right. We'll leave it there. Thanks for watching everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed.