The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 251 - Even Socialists Don't Want To Live Under Socialism

Episode Date: May 2, 2019

Today on the show, as socialist Venezuela falls apart before our eyes, it is disturbing to note that so many young people in America want that system in our country. Yet if socialism is a good system, why has it destroyed every country that tried it? Also, a Democratic state rep makes at once the most horrific but also must honest argument for abortion you’ll ever hear. Date: 05-02-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the show, as socialist Venezuela falls apart before our eyes, it is disturbing to note that so many people in my generation, young people, want that system in our country. Yet if socialism is a good system, why is it that it's destroyed every country that's tried it? We'll talk about that. Also, a Democratic state representative in Alabama makes something that is at once the most horrific, yet also most honest argument for abortion that you'll ever hear. We'll look at that. And what are democracy dollars? Well, they're very stupid, but there's more to it than that.

And we'll explain that today as well on The Matt Wall Show. All right, thanks for being here. Thanks for tuning in. By the way, my wife keeps telling me that my bookcase that you see behind me looks cluttered and ugly on video, and I need to stage it properly. But I tried to explain that I am a cluttered and ugly person. So it just, it kind of fits the overall theme that I'm going for. Plus, I think that bookcases should be cluttered and chaotic.

They should look like that, just a total disaster zone. Because bookcases that are too organized, then you know that they're just there for show. It means that nobody's actually pulled a book off the shelf and read it. So that's a bookshelf that you know is used. We actually have, though, a decorative bookshelf in our house. I'm ashamed to admit. Now, I didn't choose this. My wife made this choice.

But it's not my fault. but my wife staged a bookshelf downstairs with like these antique books that she went out and she bought antique books somewhere. I don't know where you buy. And they're just decorative books. Like we don't, you don't read them. We're not supposed to read them. They're just there on the shelf to look at. And so you can say, oh, those are pretty books. They're real books. I mean, you could read them. There are words inside the book, but you don't read them. It's just, it's all decorative. So, but this is not, this bookshelf is functional. It serves a purpose. And so I, I, feel like it's, you know, in that sense, it's quite, it's quite beautiful. All right.

So a lot to talk about today, or I could just talk about my bookshelf for another 30 minutes. The, let's talk first about socialism. The socialist country of Venezuela is, if you've been watching the news, is falling apart before our eyes. It was once the wealthiest country in South America, and now after, not all that long ago either, but after a couple decades of social, It is a failed state now. And it's disturbing then when you see what's going on to Venezuela. It's disturbing to think about how many people in my generation and the generation after ours want to adopt that system in our country, the system that led directly to the chaos that we're seeing in Venezuela. They want that in our country.

polls show that almost half of when you combine the millennial and I guess it's Generation Z, they're the ones after us. How did that happen, by the way? We got Generation X and then Millennials, and then we went right to Generation Z. How do we skip a letter? I don't understand that. But if you combine those, and when they've been pulled, we find that 50% of the combined forces there want socialism in this country. And of course, they're being herded in that direction by the

avowed prominent socialists in the Democratic Party like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So following demographic trends, you know, it's not inconceivable that in 2030, maybe 40 years we could have our own Venezuela moment in this country. But, you know, if you're still a little bit on the fence about it, and you can't decide whether or not you are in favor of socialism. I think there's a very simple test that should clarify things for you, okay? And I know I'm not the first person to make this point. I won't be the last person either. It's an obvious point. It's obvious because it's unassailable, and people bring it up all the time because it is, it's just, it's just true. And the point is this, you would never want to live in a socialist country.

Now, you might say, I want socialism in this country, yet it's interesting to note that although you want socialism in this country, you wouldn't actually want to ever live in any of the countries that are socialist right now. Shouldn't that tell you something? Take a look at all the socialist countries in the world today. I mean, think about any socialist country, and there are several of them. Would you want to live in any of those places? Because you could, I mean, you could get on a plane and go. to any of those places. If socialism is a good idea, if it's even a path to utopia, which is how Ocasio-Cortez presents it, then there should be in existence today a number of socialist countries that you, a socialist, might consider moving to. So which one would it be? Venezuela, North Korea, China, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua. I mean, which of those would you want to move to. Of course, the socialist sympathizer in America will, when you talk about socialist countries, the first thing they'll say is, well, what about Sweden? What about Denmark? And they'll say that those are socialist successes. The problem with calling, you know, the Denmark or Sweden,

the Nordic countries socialist successes is that they aren't socialist. So it's hard for them to be a socialist success when they aren't socialist. In fact, the prime minister of Denmark, address this question in a speech, I think I had an American college a few years ago. And here's what he said. He said, I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Okay, so you heard it from the horse's mouth. The guy who runs Denmark, it's not, it's not socialism. So if you want to live in a socialist country, it seems that a cottage in Copenhagen is out of the question.

So where else are you going to go? The closest, you know, if you want to talk about a real socialist success story, I mean, the closest thing you might have is like Bolivia or something, which isn't really a social success story either. But at any rate, would you want to live in Bolivia? Would you prefer Bolivia to hear? Now, we could expand this hypothetical search to include historical places. Let's say that, so I give you all, as many options as possible, let's say that in this hypothetical,

you could take either a plane to your destination or a time machine, and you could go to any socialist country that exists or has existed. Which state-controlled wonderland would you choose to go to in the past? Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, which was socialist, Cambodia. I mean, where are you going? Socialism and communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century and counting. So if you do decide to go to one of those places, I would say, you know, just be very, very careful when you get there. So we can, you know, we can sit here and talk about the economic and philosophical problems inherent to the socialist model.

We could do that all day. But to me, it seems like the proof is in the pudding. It seems like this is really it, right? And this is a pudding that is made with misery and starvation and tyranny and death on a scale previously unknown to mankind. And that is not a good pudding. That's not how, that's not the recipe I use for my pudding. I'll put up, I could tell you that.

So maybe we should just take the hint. One or two examples of socialism failing would not be enough to discredit the entire system. I admit that. But we have now over a century of chaos, bloodshed, and poverty directly brought on by this system of governance. And I think that that's a pretty good sample size. I mean, we have dozens of countries who've tried it over the last 100 years. and not only has it not worked for them, but very often it has resulted in genocide and mass starvation. So it's just maybe take the hint, is what I'm saying.

And so all that's left for the socialist proponent in America is to say that, well, none of that is real socialism. It's not the real, all of that, none of that is real. The real socialism isn't that. Well, you know, if dozens of countries have had it over the course of 100, 120 years, and all these countries have tried it, and none of them could do it right, according to you, maybe that means that it seems like there are two possible explanations. Either you're wrong about what you consider to be real socialism, and those are real examples of socialism,

which is the correct answer, by the way. Or best case scenario, if you're looking to defend socialism, well, it's not real socialism. Well, then that means that socialism is just something that doesn't work in the real world that can't be brought to fruition. It's an idea.

It's a philosophy. It's a utopian dream. you know, best case scenario for you, that's what it is. So that's the best you could do. But actually, it's not even that, you know, because I know that there are people who say, well, communism and socialism, great ideas, but when you try to put them into practice, that's when it all goes to, goes to hell. Well, yeah, they're not great ideas.

Because if it's a great idea, but every time you try to put it into practice, it kills tens of millions of people, that probably means it's not actually a great idea. And socialism, communism, these are not great ideas. Because they are ideas that at their core are antithetical to liberty, to freedom, and thus to human flourishing. And that's why it always works out the way it does. Yeah, look, Venezuela, you know, Soviet Russia, all these. North Korea, that's real socialism. That's what socialism is. And that's what happens with socialism.

I was talking about this yesterday on Twitter. Someone, and you get this response all the time. Someone emailed me and said, said, oh, you don't like socialism. How well? So I guess you don't like when the government builds roads. No, you see that? The government building a road is not social. That's not a socialist act. It's not like the only other alternative to socialism is for the government to do nothing. I'm not saying the government should do nothing. I'm saying that the government shouldn't control everything, which is what happens under socialism. Yes, there are certain things in a free country. There are certain prescribed roles that the government takes on and it does not go beyond those roles, ideally. One of those is sometimes build roads, but that is not socialism. All right. So we've discussed before on the show, moving on here, another topic. We've discussed on the show what happens when pro-abortion people, speaking of horrible ideas, the pro-abortion position, you know, what happens when pro-abortion people are accidentally and momentarily honest about what they believe? You know, the pro-abortion

position usually comes to us cloaked in euphemism, cloaked in code words, propaganda, dishonesty, obfuscation, misleading talking points and rhetoric. That's usually the way it goes. But every once in a while, someone from that camp will take off the mask and let their true faces show. And it is a hideous face indeed. That actually happened twice this week. So let's take a look at both examples, both caught on tape. So first we've got Alabama State Representative John Rogers. he is railing against a wonderful bill in Alabama that would criminalize almost all abortion, which is just awesome. But John Rogers doesn't like that very much,

and this is the case that he makes against restricting abortion. All I said to you, it all be a woman's choice. I'm not about to be as a male tell a woman what to do with her body. She has the right to make that decision herself to break their headset. Some kids are the unwanted. So you kill them now, I kill them later. You bring them in the world, unwarranted, unlove.

You send them to the next to the chair. So you kill them now, I'll kill them later. But the bottom line is that I think we should be making this decision. All right. You can kill them now or you can kill them later. there are uh those is his quote right um so there are a few interesting things happening in this clip the first is that a rambling unintelligible psychopath was apparently elected to office as a democrat in alabama in fact uh i i looked this up he's been reelected many times he's been in office since

is 1982. So 37 years for a man whose argument for abortion is we got to kill kids now or kill him later. So what does that tell you about the Democrat Party? Also, what does that tell you about how easy it is to be a politician? That you can have an IQ of 12

and be a bloodthirsty psychopath and still get along swimmingly in your career as a politician for 37 years. The second interesting thing, thing is that Rogers admits that these are kids. He admits that it's killing. And of course, those facts are completely self-evident and unavoidable, so you don't get credit for admitting them, but most pro boards will not admit that. Yet he does. And it's kind of like socialism. Like I said, what does it tell you about socialism that whenever you get a good look at it, it's horrific.

Well, it's the same thing with the pro-abortion position. What does it tell you that any time a pro-abortion person is just frank and direct and honest and doesn't try to get around it? It's not really a baby. It's a fetus. It's a clump of cells. It doesn't use any of that. It just says, yep, here's what it is.

Here's my defense of it. What does it tell you that anytime someone does that, the results are nightmarish and bone-chilling? Speaking of bone-chilling, and there was another random act of honesty by pro-oborts this week, also caught on video. This is from the University of Texas, San Antonio. Actually, the incident, I guess, happened sometime in April, but it just went viral this week. Pro-Life students on campus had set up a display called Cemetery of the Innocence, which is a display, looks like a cemetery, which is meant to remember and memorialize the innocents who are killed by abortion. Some feminists got wind of this, and here's what happened.

I have someone explained things just in case. And you're proud of it? I'm the new... Yes, I'm super proud of it. I am extremely proud of it. I exercise my right to choose. Okay, it looks like we have an officer, a couple of officers on site. Apparently I can't stand in grass and get the cops called.

I love advocating for abortion. My uterus loves advocating for abortion. All right. Well, as I, as I watched that again, I guess I should amend the way that I set that video up. I said that it's honesty, but it's not. It's honesty in that it reveals the dark and depraved heart of pro-abortion advocacy. So it is honesty in that sense. But these women.

who are acting proud of their abortions, these women acting so flippant about it, joking about it, they are not being honest with themselves or with us, not at all. You know, what you're watching here, what you saw there were broken human beings, trying to convince themselves, not convince us, trying to convince themselves of what they're saying, trying desperately to stave off the guilt and self-loathing that they feel by, pretend by way overcompensating. That's what's going on there. You know, pro-aborts like to pretend that getting an abortion is basically, you know, it's just like getting a filling at the dentist or something. But a normal procedure,

no big deal, nothing to freak out about. That's what they say. Well, it's weird because if there were some whack jobs out on a street corner screaming that it's immoral and evil to get a dental procedure. Would you bother going up to them with a sign and screaming, I got a dental procedure and I'm proud of it. I got a filling. I'm proud. No, you wouldn't. You would roll your eyes at these people and say these people are crazy and you would go about your day. You're not going to, you're not going to argue with them because you know there's nothing wrong with getting a filling at the dentist. You know there's nothing wrong with getting your cavity taken care of. You know that You don't need to argue with someone about it.

You don't need to defend it. You'd have no interest in doing that. But with abortion, what you find is that these women feel the need while claiming that the pro-life position is crazy and it's just as delusional as somebody railing against getting a cavity filled while they say that. But yet they take the time and they feel the need to grab the side. and march around, saying, I'm so proud. Well, here's the thing.

Pretty much 100% of the time, when someone is making a point of declaring how proud they are of themselves, of something that they did, it means they aren't proud. It means, what it really means is they want you to be proud of them. But they want you to be proud of them

because they're not proud of themselves. You know, they, they're, they are not confident. You know, being, being, being prep, pride is confidence. And a confident person doesn't go around shouting, whoa, look what I did. Isn't this great? Everyone, look, see, see how great this is, this thing that I did.

Confident people don't do that. Because a confident person, they don't need other people's approval. And if you know that you did the right thing, you don't need other people to know about it. You don't need to convince them of it. You just know that it was right. So that's what's going on here. These are pitiful figures, pitiful, sad, desperate, guilt-ridden people. And let's not be fooled by the charade, by the game they're playing, because it's not very convincing.

All right. Finally, before emails, this is a report from The Daily Wire says, Kirsten Gillibrand told NBC News that her first major campaign plan would be called the Clean Elections Plan, and it would give every voter $600. She called it democracy dollars to donate to the federal candidates of their choice. She explains, okay, under the plan, every eligible voter would register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle. either all at once or in $10 increments, each participant would get a separate $200 pool

for House, Senate, and presidential contests for a maximum total of $600 for those federal offices. All right. I just wanted to mention that because I think it's a great idea, and I really like it, I have to say. In fact, I would just make one small tweak here. Just one little thing. I mean, the idea of the government giving everyone $600,

that they would then give to someone else. I like that idea. The small adjustment I would make is, in my version of the plan, everybody would give me $600. And so we would call it Matt Walsh dollars. They'd be real dollars, of course, so I can go out and spend them. But earmarked for me.

And, yeah, I mean, that's the plan. So that's my suggestion. I'm just throwing that out there. You could something to think about. All right. go to emails, Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Matt wallshow at gmail.com. This is from Georgia, says, Matt, thank you for your insightful analysis of the causes of the civil war and racism and context of the generation.

As you were explaining how it was once commonly accepted to be discriminatory to people who don't look like you, but now that idea has been eradicated from our society, I couldn't help but think, or actually couldn't help screaming into my phone, that we still are far from healed in this area as abortion is still legal in many countries. I know you understand the similarities there, and I think it should be pointed out that in future generations, people who are pro-abortion today will someday be thought of as barbaric scumbags. You are absolutely 100% correct. It won't surprise you that I agree with you there. And as we've been talking about these kind of moral blind spots that cultures have and that many

culture, maybe all cultures have had throughout history, well, this is ours. This is our blind spot. And I agree that in, who knows, 50 years, 100 years, 150 years, someday, if the world doesn't end before that, someday people will look back on abortion, the way they look at slavery, and they're going to see all these things. Because as I have detailed in the past, the arguments for slavery are pretty much identical to the argument. arguments for abortion. And the reason is that it seems like in every time in history, in every civilization, there have been people trying to claim that some other group of people are not people. And the people who make that argument always use the same arguments.

There's always the same arguments, repackaged, reheated over and over and over again. and yet they can never see they can't see that they're doing exactly while they are using the argument that people in the past made even as they condemn those people in the past for making those arguments

it's just it's remarkable that people could be so blind this is from Andy says I found myself in a The company I worked for has decided to sponsor the Pride Parade in Salt Lake City. Frankly, I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, they aren't actually hurting me. On the other, they are distributing rainbow ally badges. And literally everywhere I go, I encounter a rainbow

flag enlisting me to volunteer for the Pride parade. Honestly, I'm all for tolerance, inclusion, and diversity of thought. The problem for me is that this feels like it goes beyond these things into a celebration of something, a large portion of your employee base. tolerates and includes, but thinks celebrating is sinful. I asked HR if they knew they were alienating a significant portion of the company. They told me that if I wanted to discuss this, I would have to schedule a meeting with the company's directors. Should I schedule the meeting, or is this simply self-sabotage with nothing to gain? On another note, I'm surprised wild turkey rare breed is amazing and wasn't on your bourbon recommendation list. Yeah, that's a

tough situation, Andy. I don't think I'm in a position to tell you what to do. You're going to have a much better feel for it than I do. I will say this. If you assess that there is zero chance that you're meeting with them would change their mind, yet a significant chance that it will hurt your career, then no, I don't think you're morally obligated to go and jump on a grenade with no hope of it doing anything but blowing you to smithereens, right? We aren't required. We aren't required to go out of our way to martyr ourselves. We're not required to do that, especially if we have a family to support. And it's okay to take that into consideration. I mean, you have to take that in consideration. That's your job if you do have a family. And even if you don't, you got to support

yourself. So I would exercise caution and prudence, and I would take the path that seems wisest and best for your family. That's just my thought. But if there's a particular moral stand that it has no chance in that context of resulting in any actual change, but could significantly hurt you for taking it, then, no, I don't think you need to take it. Which isn't the same thing as now if you were, if they came to you and said, we need you to go to the Pride Parade and take part in it and volunteer or something. Well, that's different. Now you're in a position where you have to say, no, even if it means you get fired, right? That's, that anyone in that position, that's, we would be required.

But, um, there's a difference between that and just kind of remaining silently opposed. And sometimes silence is okay. It's not like it's always cowardly. Um, I get questions like this all the time with people saying, with people with these kinds of, um, in these kinds of situations. And it's always the same thing. You don't have to go around shouting your opinion all the time, basically begging to get fired. I think you've got to kind of choose your spots.

All right, this is from Lee. Says, Matt, if you were stranded on an island with a group of people and there was nothing to eat and someone died and you were starving, would you eat the dead person? That is a good question. Of course, this has actually happened before. There was a famous cases. There was a famous case of the rugby team in the, I think it was the 1970s that they went in the Andes on a plane and they were stranded.

They ended up eating the dead to survive. So there are two separate questions here, it seems. One is, what would I do? And then the other is, what's the right thing to do? And those are not necessarily the same question. Because as for what I would do, well, you know, you don't know what you would do in a desperate situation where you're starving to death and your survival is on the line and death is imminent. and all of that, you just, you don't know how you would respond.

So that's a different question from objectively, what's the right thing to do? How should we react in that situation? As for that, obviously, assuming that everyone agrees that it's wrong to kill someone in order to eat them, I think we can all agree on that. But dealing with, for instance, the plane crash in the Andes and people, some people survived, some died and the others were starving to death. Is it okay to eat the dead in that case? it's weird because my my visceral reaction morally is to say no it's not okay even if they're

already dead even if you'll die if you don't seems like it's not morally okay but then in trying to come up with arguments to justify my visceral moral reaction i really can't think of any good arguments um my argument is basically it's gross but that's not an argument right It's a reflex, not an argument. I guess the serious argument against it is that it's the desecration of a corpse and it's wrong to desecrate a corpse. But if the intent is not to desecrate but to survive, then are we really saying that someone has a responsibility to die for the sake of respecting the body of someone who's already dead?

Is it better to have two dead bodies than one dead body and another living by using the dead body. I guess it's hard to say that it's better for a person to die than to survive by eating the dead. And besides, as I think about it, is it really that much different from, say, using a dead person's heart or kidney or liver or lungs or whatever for survival in an organ transplant? If it's desecration of the dead to use a body for sustenance, wouldn't it be desecration to carve their heart out of their, you know, chest cavity and put it into another person. So I can't think of a good argument that rules out eating the dead in a desperate situation, but allows for organ transplants. It seems like very similar sorts of things, where you are, I mean, to put it crudely,

you're harvesting the dead for the sake of the living. Seems very similar. So, I suppose my answer is, my answer is, although my instinct is no, it's not right, I think intellectually, upon further reflection, in a desperate situation, when death is the only alternative, it would be okay, it seems, to eat the dead. So, bon appetit. Sorry, that was an appropriate way to finish that discussion. Let's see, this is from Lindsay, says Matt. I just wanted to tell you that although you aren't, although you aren't as ready for prime time as some of the other personalities on the Daily Wire, I think you're by far the most interesting person on the site. Now, that felt like a backhanded compliment, Lindsay. I, or maybe just a backhand straight up because here's the thing. Interesting means bad with women. I know that. I've learned a few things about women in my life, just a few. And one of them is that.

Interesting is bad. And I've learned that for my wife. Like I remember a few years ago on Christmas, I got her a, I think it was like a bracelet that I thought was a nice bracelet. I don't know. But she didn't seem that enthused by it. So I said, oh, do you like it? And she said, yeah, yeah, it's interesting. And I said, okay, I dropped the ball on that one. I did. I know that I did because interesting is not. Now, interesting for me is good. When a man says interesting, it means, oh, that's interesting. I'm interested in it. It's a good thing.

But with women, it's not. And so that's another way of saying, how dare you insult me? Thanks for the email, though. All right. Finally, from Brian says, Dear Mr. Powerful, Just and Supreme, Glorious, Bearded, incredibly intelligent future king and overlord of the known universe, Matt Walsh. finally someone addresses me the way that I need to be addressed.

That is my correct pronoun, by the way. I have been a longtime listener and reader of your work. I have been following you since The Blaze, and I think I've heard every one of your podcast. I am a current law student with an undergraduate degree in etymology, entomology, through which I took a beekeeping class. I think it's very cool, and I'm a little jealous of you for having a beehive. I want to clear some inaccuracies that you said on episode 246 about bees.

You just said that I'm future king and overlord of the known universe. Now you're going to clear up inaccuracies. Seems like a little bit of an inconsistency there. Bees are more radical feminist than you think. Males do no work. Their only purpose is to mate with queen bees. They take no part in cleaning the hive or producing the honey.

They are completely helpless and rely on their sisters for everything because, as feminists say, if you want something done right, let women do it. Males and queens are produced during late winter. So by spring, they are mature and could go on mating flights. If the males do not mate, they are evicted by their sisters in the fall before winter comes. They are removed from the hive if they are to try to reenter, and they eventually starve to death since they are completely helpless and useless. Some tips to help you, make sure to have it. I won't go into the beekeeping tips, because that's a little bit too niche. But yeah, no,

I agree. This is one thing as I've talked about that I've noticed as a beekeeper, as a new beekeeper, that it is a very feminist anti-male environment among bees. But, I mean, they treat each other pretty harsh. I was out at the hive a couple days ago, and I noticed there was this one bit, a female bee trying to, you know, she was coming back from a flight looking for flowers or whatever she was doing, and she tried to come back in and the other bees wouldn't let her in. They actually basically body slammed thrown to the ground,

and then she, you know, just waddled away. She wasn't allowed to come back. And so they'll randomly decide to evict. I don't know if they do it by lottery or something. I don't know how they decide, but they'll randomly decide. Well, you know, look, women can be a little bit, they can turn on each other kind of quay. I mean, female friendships can be a little bit finicky and volatile at times. And so I guess there was some drama in the hive and this girl was on the outs.

and so they sent her out, and anyway, she died. But we'll leave it there. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeech. I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show. Students at Hofstra University are demanding the school tear down a statue of Thomas Jefferson. Meanwhile, a Northern California public school district wants to remove a mural of George Washington.

We will analyze the end of history. Check it out at Dailywire.com.