Ep. 1603 - This Woman Was Just Sent To PRISON For Posting A Mean Tweet
01:11:20 Share

What's the difference between DIY and doing it yourself? It's the difference between a part-time passion and a full-time business. Wix gives you the power to turn your passion into a moneymaker. With

with a website that fits your unique vision. Let your ideas flow with AI that guides you, but keeps you in the driver's seat. Manage your business from one dashboard and keep it growing with built-in marketing features. It's time to turn your daydream into your dream job. Go to Wix.com.

Today on the Matt Wall Show, a mother in the UK will spend the next two and a half years in prison for posting something quote unquote hateful on social media. The UK, like so many other alleged liberal democracies across the West, has become a left-wing dictatorship. There's no way around it. Also, the Democrat Party has spent $20 million hatching a plan to win back young male voters. We'll take a look at the plan to see exactly how out of touch it is. And we have another super viral entry in the ever-expanding genre of online videos where wives complain about their husbands. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Pure Talk, my wireless company, a veteran-led company, believes every man and woman who has faithfully served this country deserves to proudly fly an American flag that was made in America. And that's why Pure Talk is on a mission to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, period, to 1,000 U.S. veterans in time for the patriotic holidays. Just switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month, and a portion of every sale will go to provide these high-quality flags to deserving veterans.

with plans from just 25 a month for unlimited talk text and plenty of data you can enjoy america's most dependable 5g network while cutting your cell phone bill in half the average family saves over a thousand dollars a year and what i like most about uh about pure talk is that yes you're supporting a company that believes in your values but also it's just a great service like any other uh cell phone just go to puretalk.com walsh to switch hassle free in as little as 10 minutes again

That's puretalk.com slash walsh to support veterans and to switch to America's wireless company, Pure Talk. Here's a little thought experiment to kick us off after the long weekend. It's not an especially difficult thought experiment, or at least it shouldn't be. But rest assured, there's an entire Western country that's paralyzed by this conundrum at the moment. I'm talking about a country with tens of millions of people and a supposedly highly developed legal system that cannot handle this particular hypothetical.

So with that dramatic buildup, let's see how you do with it. So I want you to picture

The single worst tweet you can imagine, and I don't mean worst tweet as in an extremely dumb tweet. It's easy to think of one of those. I mean the worst tweet as in the kind of tweet that poses a threat to civilization as we know it. I mean the kind of tweet that merits the direct involvement of the President of the United States and the entire judicial system. I mean the kind of tweet that judges will punish far more severely than most federal crimes, including the following crimes that I will list.

Crime number one, exposing yourself to a 13-year-old girl and then stalking her through the streets when she spots you, forcing the girl to bang on the doors of random apartments so that she can hide. Crime number two, publicly threatening to murder an infidel who dares to insult Mohammed. Crime number three, sexually assaulting a 12-year-old. And then crime number four, domestic abuse, including physical abuse over a three-year period. Now, these are all very serious crimes.

But again, in our little experiment, these offenses pale in comparison to your tweet of 280 characters or less. Your single tweet will do more damage than any of those atrocious crimes. And the judicial system, therefore, will punish you accordingly. So what would your tweet have to look like in that scenario? Now, the problem you may be running into is that it would seem

Literally no tweet could possibly ever be that bad or destructive. And that's true, unless maybe it's a tweet that, say, discloses America's nuclear launch codes along with instructions about how to launch the nukes. I mean, that might rise to the level we're discussing. But if that's the kind of tweet you're imagining, then you didn't quite nail it. Because thanks to our alleged allies in the United Kingdom, we have the definitive answer to this thought experiment.

So here is the tweet that, according to the UK justice system, is so unthinkable and so barbaric that it is worse than assaulting a child. Here it is. And as you can see, if you're watching on video, it reads, quote, Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the effing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them.

I feel physically sick knowing that these families will know what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it. So there it is. That's the tweet. If you're not shaking yet, then according to the British government, you should be. Because that's the post that in the eyes of the UK's justice system is worse than physically attacking and stalking children.

It's one of the worst things you can say out loud or post on social media. It's basically a nuclear bomb in tweet format. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, that's it? I mean, by the standards of social media, it's extremely tame. She's not even directly calling for anyone to commit acts of violence. There's no direct incitement here. She's saying she wouldn't care if other people committed acts of violence.

Now, every day, by contrast, there are about 10 million posts that directly threaten other people in very specific terms. Ask me how I know. So how exactly is this one post such a big problem? And when you consider the context of the post, that question becomes even more difficult to answer.

That tweet that we just read was written at 8.30 p.m. on July 29th, 2024 by a 41-year-old professional babysitter called a childminder in the UK, amusingly enough, named Lucy Connolly. And you can see her in this photo right here. She was reacting to the news that earlier in the day, the son of Rwandan migrants had just slaughtered three young girls at a dance studio in Southport where they were singing along to Taylor Swift and making friendship bracelets for each other.

And then were viciously murdered. And this obviously was a very big story. We've talked about it several times on the show. Once again, here's what the killer looked like. You can see him there. It's nightmare fuel, as you can see. This photo alone is grounds for the immediate deportation of this individual, along with everyone related to him. But even before this attack, there were about a million other grounds for deportation. When you look into this story, it was a very preventable act of terrorism.

Now, for one thing, the killer had repeatedly been referred to counterterrorism investigators in the years prior to this murder spree at the dance studio. He was threatening people left and right. And just a week before the Southport massacre, the killer tried to hail a cab that would take him to his former school where he had been expelled for carrying a knife and threatening students. His father desperately ran out into the street and told the cabbie not to drive him anywhere, probably because he knew that his son was planning to kill everybody at the school.

But his father did not alert the police after this incident, nor did he inform the police that is about his son's Al-Qaeda training manual or the ricin that was in his possession, although it's not clear if he knew about those. And of course, this killer and his parents should not have been in the UK in the first place. They should have been back home in Rwanda, contributing their wisdom and rich culture to their home country. But instead, they were spreading cultural enrichment to the UK. So with all this in mind,

You know, it wasn't exactly surprising that in the wake of this murderous rampage at the dance studio, someone like Lucy Connolly would call for mass deportations on social media. It also wasn't surprising that she'd talk about burning various migrant encampments inside the UK, whether or not so-called asylum seekers and government officials were inside them. And that's because when people witness the brutal execution of small children inside their own country at the hands of foreign nationals who have no business being anywhere near their country,

They're liable to become upset. They're liable to wonder why they even have a government if it can't keep them safe from Rwandan migrants, particularly Rwandan migrants who have been unstable and dangerous for many years. To be clear, Lucy Connolly was not threatening to commit any act of violence. She wasn't saying that she was about to go out and torch a migrant hotel or kill any politician, nor did she tell anybody else to do it. There was no imminent threat of violence.

She was expressing frustration as she has every right to do in a free country. But the UK is not a free country, which is why Lucy Connolly for the crime of sending that one tweet was just sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Two and a half years in prison for that tweet. Now you may have heard about this case, especially now that the Trump administration says that it's monitoring quote unquote the situation. It's also been picked up by a few different outlets

But to really understand how pathological and disturbing this prosecution is, you need to see some of the details behind Lucy Connolly's appeal, which was just rejected by a panel of three judges. She went to court to reduce her sentence and they denied her appeal. And if you look at what happened during her appeal, you realize that the British government is engaging in a very sadistic effort to crush the right of freedom of speech in their country. Their goal is to communicate very explicitly.

that citizens are not allowed to complain about the natural effects of their government's actions. And if citizens step out of line, they'll be imprisoned for a very substantial period of time. Now, for starters, in its ruling, the appellate court confirmed that Lucy Connolly deleted her allegedly offending tweet within three and a half hours. Yes, the tweet was posted to her account for a grand total of three and a half hours.

And she also had an account that was followed by a few hundred people. So basically nobody saw it, right? Very few people even saw it. Now millions of people have seen it because they're prosecuting her for it. But if they just let her delete it, then that would have been the end of it. And in those three and a half hours, unsurprisingly, no one torched a hotel because of her tweet. Nobody killed a politician or attempted to kill a politician.

But in the sentencing hearing, the court found that Lucy Connolly still deserved to spend several years in jail. Why is that? If you look into the appellate court's decision, here's what you'll find. They say that on July 25th, several days before the Southport stabbing, she wrote, quote, Somalian, I guess, loads of them, followed by a vomiting emoji.

She wrote that post in response to a story about an apparent foreign national who was caught masturbating in public. She also mocked people who were demonstrating in favor of more illegal immigration, saying, quote, Oh, good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh, sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family members that gets attacked, butchered, raped, etc. by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.

So in other words, in court, Lucy Connolly was being held responsible in part for expressing completely reasonable sentiments about illegal migration. There's nothing remotely controversial about either of those other two tweets. I've said stuff like that on this show many, many times, unapologetically so. But in the UK, her posts were considered an additional justification for sentencing her to two and a half years in prison. So you see how that works? They find one tweet they don't like,

And then they just work their way backwards from there. None of the mitigating factors mattered at all. They didn't care that Lucy Connolly had never been convicted of any crime before. They didn't care that her daughter is 12 years old and her husband suffers from bone marrow failure.

They didn't care that one of Lucy Connolly's children died at 19 months old, apparently due to incompetence by medical personnel. A fact that would obviously make her more upset at the sight of seeing other children dying in Southport because of needless government incompetence. Here's what the judge wrote about that factor, by the way. Quote, quote, you have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some 12 years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered.

I accept that you still feel very keenly that loss. There's no recent psychiatric evidence. And whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort, but rather incitement to hatred, close quote. So in other words, in the UK, you're not supposed to identify the reason that children are dying. You're not allowed to be frustrated by the causes of these deaths.

Instead, you're just supposed to express understanding and comfort when it happens. And if you don't follow that rule, then you go to prison for a very long time. And also notice the phrase that this worthless scumbag judge used. He said incitement to hatred, right? So hatred, they're not even claiming that Lucy incited violence. That's not even the claim. They're claiming that she incited people to feel unpleasant emotions.

And that's why she must leave her only remaining living child and go spend nearly three years in prison. And that is why Lucy Connolly is, in every sense, a political prisoner. Now, in case you needed more evidence of that, consider what happened to 21-year-old Ibrahim Mir.

which you can see here. In the wake of the Southport stabbings, there was a lot of civil unrest and many British citizens were protesting against all the migration into their country. But Ibrahim Mir wasn't one of them. Instead, he was one of the counter protesters. But there's evidence that he did a lot more than mere protesting. He was caught on camera wearing a balaclava and throwing a brick before running away with a bunch of friends from his local mosque. And he pleaded guilty to violent disorder.

But guess what Ibrahim Mir's sentence was? Well, he didn't receive one. Technically, he was hit with 20 months in prison, but the sentence was suspended, meaning he won't serve a day of it. And here's what the judge, somebody named Graham Smith, told Ibrahim, quote, you were holding a brick or a rock. You discarded that. The prosecution says you threw it. You say you were getting rid of it. In my judgment, you did throw it further than needed, but not in the direction of anyone. And nobody was hurt.

You're wearing a balaclava, a futile attempt to disguise yourself, if that's what you're trying to do. I am told of your good character and you are relatively young. You have a caring role for your brother in illness. You're a hard worker. I hope your progress will be positive and I haven't made the wrong decision. So that's why he didn't go to prison. Now, none of this sympathy was afforded to Lucy Connolly, even though she never went out in public wearing a disguise. She never threw a brick or anything like that.

And even though she's taking care of her husband, who's sick, and her daughter. Meanwhile, Ibrahim has a sick brother, so he gets to go free. I mean, it's not even a comparable situation at all. One person wrote some words on a computer. The other person went out in public dressed like a terrorist and committed acts that are obviously threatening and dangerous. But in the UK, Lucy Connolly goes to prison for two years while this guy doesn't go to prison at all. I mean, he suffered no consequences whatsoever.

As I alluded to earlier, neither did the 33-year-old Labor Party official who exposed himself to a 13-year-old girl and then stalked her through the streets. And then after the girl escaped, he spotted a woman walking her dog and decided to expose himself once more. That party official named Sam Gould ultimately paid a fine of a few hundred bucks. He had to take a course on how to talk to women. And that's it. He received no jail time for obsessively exposing himself to random underage girls.

Hugh Edwards, the former BBC presenter, got a similar deal. He received dozens of images depicting the sexual abuse of children. He admitted to all of it. And once again, no jail time. It was the same story for the crew of Muslims that rode in a convoy throughout central London a couple of years ago, calling for sexual assaults against Jewish people. Again, no charges.

because the prosecution had claimed that it would be impossible to get a conviction. And along the same lines, as of now, no charges are pending against a 39-year-old NHS employee and part-time cleric, Omar Abdallah Mansour, who's pictured here. Supposedly, Omar issued a fatwa against a non-believer who insulted Mohammed

The NHS employee reportedly showed a photo of his victim and then said, quote, when he repents, he will be put to death in the manner Muslims are killed. If he refuses to repent, he'll be caught, killed, and then thrown away in a hole like a dog. Now, as you can see, he's actually wearing his NHS shirt while he's saying stuff like this. According to the Daily Mail, he shot his footage inside St. Thomas's Hospital, which is directly across from the Houses of Parliament. So it's just right out in the open.

Omar has apparently been suspended from his job, but he hasn't been hauled to jail. He's not facing any prison time. And his defense is that he wasn't actually threatening anyone. He was just reciting the Islamic punishment for blasphemy. But that's small comfort for his victim, who's now fled the country after police say that it's too dangerous for him to return. Now, we could spend the next month going through more examples like this. In fact,

There are even worse examples that The Telegraph has collected from pedophiles to rapists who have received less than two and a half years in prison in the UK. And in the meantime, all across Britain, free speech is being punished. It's not just the Lucy Connolly case. It's happening constantly, far more than people think. This is from The Economist, quote, Speech is being restricted, particularly online, in alarming ways at an increasingly alarming rate. The number of arrests, more than 1,000 a month for online posts,

shows this is no longer about a few rogue cases. The root cause can be found in the country's speech laws, which are a mess and ill-suited for the digital age. Brits are prosecuted for the sorts of conversations they would have had in the pub, and things are set to get worse. Yes, you heard that right. There are more than 1,000 arrests per month for online posts in the UK. The article states that people have been hauled to jail for saying that their country is under attack from foreign nationals, which it is.

There's another case where parents were booked for writing disparaging WhatsApp messages about their daughter's primary school. And there's a case where a man posted a picture of himself on the way to a Halloween party dressed as an Islamist who carried out a terrorist attack. And he went to jail and on and on. Now, this is the kind of full fledged attack on basic human rights that if it were happening in like some Arab country,

Establishment Republicans would be calling on us to invade the country and kill the country's entire leadership structure and install a democratic regime in its place. But it's happening in Britain right now, in alleged liberal democracy, an ally of the United States. That's where this is happening. But because they're an ally, supposedly, the reaction has been pretty muted. We're effectively tolerating the eradication of free speech and equal protection in the UK, as well as countries like Australia and Canada.

These are all countries with very large populations that already detest the United States, and now they're sliding headlong into left-wing authoritarianism. And that means it's time to talk about a future in the very near term in which America has no allies at all. You know, pretending that we have allies when they're imprisoning women for tweets that are posted online for three hours is a lot worse than admitting the truth. We have very little in common with these countries anymore, and the significance of this development can't be overstated.

In the context of the UK, we're talking about the birthplace of the common law, which is the foundation of our legal system in the US. That's not a small thing. And it's a reminder that we're not immune from becoming just like them. It can happen pretty quickly, actually. We're not immune from adopting a legal system that imprisons political dissidents while giving child abusers a slap on the wrist. And unless we want to suffer that fate and devolve into a failed state that jails middle-aged women for tweets the government doesn't like,

We need to denounce our alleged allies as the authoritarian dictatorships that they are. We need to realize that they aren't our allies at all, not in any meaningful sense. And then we need to accept the fact that if we want to be a country that actually values and protects free speech, we will be on our own. And personally, I'm fine with that. Now let's get to our five headlines. The Five Headlines

What started as an idea is now the podcast and business blasting through your earbuds. Launching your own business is pretty much on everyone's bucket list, but most people let it collect dust right next to learn a language and get abs. Stop hiding behind lame excuses like, I don't have the skills, I can't do it alone. Turn those what-ifs into bold why-nots with Shopify backing your ideas. They've got the tools, you just need to take the chance.

Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. We even use it for our own daily wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly. You might be asking, what if I can't design a website or I'm worried that people haven't heard of my brand? Not a problem. Shopify has got you covered from the start with beautiful, ready-to-go templates that match your brand style and helps you find your customers through easy-to-run email and social media campaigns. And if you need a hand with everyday tasks,

Their AI tools create specifically for commerce can help enhance product images, write descriptions and more. Plus, their award winning customer support is available 24-7 to share advice if you ever get stuck. Turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com slash Walsh. Go to Shopify.com slash Walsh. Shopify.com slash Walsh.

Okay, we'll start with this. Here is MSNBC, along with Alex Thompson from Axios, who's one of the co-writers on the co-writer, the co-writer, along with Jake Tapper on the book about Biden's mental decline. But here they are trying to play, I guess, the Uno reverse card on the Joe Biden health discussion. Let's listen.

You take the lessons learned from the book, both about where the country is on having elder presidents and more importantly, where the media is. Is there a double standard in which in a way, the way the media covered Joe Biden's health versus Donald Trump's health during the campaign? And certainly now, is there a double standard with the way we are covering it? I mean, are you out there also investigating and reporting about Trump's health in the same rigor that you did this book?

I'm so glad you asked this question because while we didn't know that much about Joe Biden's health, we know even less about Donald Trump's health. He was completely untransparent during the 2023-2024 campaign. He has not been transparent

and there is no mechanism forcing him or any future president to being transparent about their health, he could be on anything. We really have no idea. So I think it's like a really vital question. I will say that, you know, in 2023, I wrote an entire piece about how Donald Trump had not been transparent about any of his health issues.

And yet the last like month or two, I admittedly have been busy with this book. So I have not returned to the subject. But I think it's a completely fair. Donald Trump was older on his inauguration day and Joe Biden was on his. Donald Trump's health is completely fair game. And there should be like incredibly investigative reporting on how it's affecting his job as president. Well, even if he's not releasing his records, we can all see with our eyes and hear.

Now, on the one hand, this is obviously a desperate attempt at deflection and projection. The big difference between Biden and Trump, clearly, is that Trump has not given any indication that he is mentally or physically falling apart. There haven't been any warning signs with Trump. And of course, when you say that, leftists will respond, what do you mean? Trump is weird and eccentric and he does and says bizarre things all the time.

Well, I don't think that most of what he says and does qualifies as bizarre, but however you feel about it, if you're on the left, that's what you would say. But it doesn't matter. However you feel about Trump's personality and demeanor, he's always been that way. Trump is Trump, and he still has a lot of energy. He's still out in front of cameras every day. He's not afraid to talk to people. He's not afraid to answer questions. So the comparison is totally absurd. Again, Biden was obviously deteriorating in front of our faces today.

while he was running for president. We could all tell something was wrong. They just refused to acknowledge it or explain it. And that's the difference here. And it's a really big one. And also now that what the media is telling us is, oh yeah, you know, we did cover up the fact that Joe Biden was physically falling apart, but we've learned our lesson and we're sorry. And so you shouldn't do that with Trump because we said we're sorry. In fact, they haven't even said they're sorry, nevermind.

And no individual media person. So the entire media now will admit basically that Biden was there was a cover up going on and they'll kind of admit that the media was involved in it. But no individual media person will come out and say, yes, I did that. I'm sorry. So they'll talk about it in these kind of broad terms, but there's no accountability. And then on top of it, while admitting they did this.

And they're demanding that, well, the other side, yeah, we did it, but you guys shouldn't. Right. So it's one of those things again. And all of that is ridiculous. On the other hand, I will say that, yeah, Trump is old. I mean, he's going to turn 80 around the midterms, I think. He's 78 going on 79. Your chance of having prostate cancer at 80 is about 60 percent as a man.

And that's just prostate cancer. Your chance of having any kind of serious disease at the age of 80 is probably much higher than 60%. Now, Trump seems healthy right now. There's no red flags. There are no warning signs. He seems like he's doing great. It's not a Biden situation at all right now. Biden, again, went into office with dementia, clearly falling apart before he was elected. Trump, meanwhile, survived an assassination attempt.

less than a year ago, twice, twice survived one. And he was giving marathon multi-hour speeches through the whole campaign. So he seems like he's doing great. However, yes, he's going to be 82 at the conclusion of his term. And he's a mortal human being. And as such, there's always a chance that things turn south for him. He might be doing well now, but it will happen to everybody. When you get into your 80s,

It's like life expectancy for men in this country is what 85 or something. Um, so It's like once you get into your 80s Everyone has a terminal diagnosis, maybe not officially you might not officially have terminal cancer But you're you know, your life expectancy is five to ten years Most people don't live to 90 and if you make it to 90 then every year that you get from there is uh is is You know rare so uh

And that's why after Trump, I mean, I think it's very good that Trump was elected, but he is term limited out. And so after Trump, I think it would be a good idea for us to move away from 80-year-old presidents for a while. Maybe we could take a break from that and really probably never go back to it again.

I don't think there's going to be another Trump situation that comes along. You know, I don't think it's going to be another 78 year old who's like Trump and surviving assassination attempts and dodging bullets and that sort of thing. I think we could probably assume that that's kind of a once in a lifetime scenario. And so once we get through this, I think, yeah, let's start. As I as I've argued many times, it there is a lower age limit for the presidency, which is 35.

It doesn't make any sense that we don't, that there isn't an upper age limit too. And I think that there should be, and maybe there will actually be an appetite to have that conversation now. Okay. Here's a conversation the Democrats are having. Pretty funny one. The Post Millennial reports, the Democrats still don't know why they lost so badly to Donald Trump in the 2024 election. And their attempt to try to figure it out and remedy the situation lies in a new program they're calling Speaking with American Men, a Strategic Plan.

Nicknamed Sam. New York Times writes, The new initiative from the Democrat Party is budgeted $20 million.

And per the Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democrats, Democrat support among young men, especially online. The project is planning to study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces. Dems are encouraging the purchase of in-game ads as a means of skewing young men towards the progressive ideology. Above all, the plan reads, we must shift from a moralizing tone. So there's the grand plan, $20 million, speaking with American men is what they're calling it.

They're going to study the language and syntax of young men as if they're some kind of primitive tribe in the Amazon. They're going to send in their anthropologists to study men, live among them, learn the ways of their people. They need their version of Jane Goodall or Steve Irwin or something. They'll start producing nature documentaries that follow groups of 24-year-old male humans around.

That seems to be the strategy, basically. And yet the strategy has already failed because they're missing the point. First of all, you don't connect with young people or with men or any group just by adopting their language and their slang. That strategy has never worked. Youth pastors have been trying that strategy for 40 years, and it's a cringe fest every single time. Ask the youth pastors how well that's working out.

It never works. And it especially won't work with young men as a group because men value authenticity. And that's what it means to be cool. Cool is not using certain slang or certain language. Cool is being confident. It's being unbothered, not trying to be something that you aren't. And that's the attitude that men appreciate. It's one that says, hey, this is who I am. This is what I care about.

And this is how I speak, and I don't care if you don't like it. That's the whole reason that Trump connects with people. That's half of the reason why Trump connects with people. We'll get to the other half. But one big reason is that Trump is authentic. He talks how he talks. He acts how he acts. He's not trying to be like anyone else. He's one of one. He's a unique entity.

in every sense. And so he's not trying to be like anyone. People try to be like him. He's setting trends. He's not following them. So that's why Trump is like 80 years old, almost 80 years old. And he's still the coolest politician in America by a mile for this reason. So the Democrats are off on the wrong foot, right out of the gate. And also they say that they want to get rid of their moralizing tone. That's another. And we hear this too from a

from Democrats who are doing the kind of post-mortem analysis of why their party lost so badly in the last election. We hear this bit about moralizing, stop preaching, stop moralizing. Well, that's not exactly the problem. Young men have no problem with moralizing per se. The problem with Democrat moralizing is that it's wrong. It's wrong and degrading and resentful and spiteful towards men in particular.

So their version of moralizing is to say that men have toxic masculinity and they need to start acting more like girls. So the problem there is not the moralizing per se, but the content of the moralizing. Because what do we mean by moralizing? That just means, in the most literal sense, it just means taking a position on what is right or wrong.

Now, I guess the term sort of implies haughtiness. It implies you're taking a kind of holier-than-thou tone, which is bad. But the part where you take a position on what's right or wrong and you try to defend it and persuade other people to agree with you, there's nothing wrong with that in principle. Making a moral argument, there's nothing wrong with that. That's good, actually, because people connect with that.

The problem is that for Democrats, it's not that they were taking moral positions. It's that they were taking the wrong moral positions. Their morals are wrong. Nothing wrong with having morals. The issue is that they have the wrong morals. They have an inverted perverse morality. And that is what alienates men. Which brings us to the last point, because when you go back to Donald Trump, he's the coolest politician of our lifetime. He connects with men. He connects with young men.

Partly that's because his style is authentic and confident, which makes it cool by definition. But then there's the other part, which is that young men are not morons. And this is news to Democrats, I realize, because they fundamentally despise men, especially young men. But young men are not stupid. They do actually care about the issues. So the main reason why Trump resonates with men

with voters generally, but with men in particular, is that they agree with him on the issues. They like his policy positions. Trump won the presidency twice, mainly because he believes in national sovereignty and he believes in law and order. And men want that. Americans in general want that. Men in particular want that. And they value it. So...

This is why Democrats are screwed because that it's, it's, they want to tell themselves that their problem is a stylistic one and they just need to adjust, right? Their style, their stylistic approach, but that's the style is bad. They do have the wrong, but it's deeper than that. There's also a substance problem. The substance, the way that they're selling their positions is they're selling them the wrong way, but then also the positions themselves, the substance of the position is

alienates men. Men are not interested in it. Okay, let's go to this. Over the weekend, we had the fifth anniversary of George Floyd's overdose. A lot of cringe was offered up to commemorate this occasion, and perhaps none cringier than this video posted by the Minnesota Star Tribune. And here's the caption to the video. Minneapolis Poet Laureate

Junotta Petrus imagines a world of delicious mundane where George Floyd grows old, smoking his cigarettes and watching fireflies, where his life extends beyond the South Minneapolis intersection where he took his final breaths. So we have another award-winning poet, a slam poet, we can assume. So not a real poet, but here she is. Her name is Junotta. And let's listen to this wonderful work of art.

All we really know was his last living desire was for a cigarette. In other words, a simple and neat, quick and light burn of personal tobacco. Inhale, throat heat, and exhale. For a moment, the brain pauses and buzzes. For a moment, the heart is a soft float and you belong to you.

Native homies, give the offering of tobacco. Soft hands, cupped gratitude. Put a little tobacco here. Smoke of prayer for your ancestors, their witness, their earthly nostalgia for earthly life and earthly pleasure.

The more expensive it is to live, the more worthless power treats our life. Charge rent on the sky, put our access to blue behind a paywall. Give you gray when you pass due, some would never see the blue. Colonize butterflies and enslave bees. Give the man his cigarettes, give him his free.

I can't listen to any more of that. Enslaved bees? She thought that was a great line. She loved that line. I guarantee you when she wrote it. Colonized butterflies enslave the bees. She thought that was the most profound thing that had ever been written. That is, I mean, that's like the worst poem ever written. It's all the bad things that a poem can be.

I mean, it's obviously totally witless and artless and clunky and poorly written. It doesn't flow. There's no rhythm. There's no rhyme. The language is not evocative or special in any way. It's pretentious. And on top of all that, it isn't sincere. I mean, if you're going to write crappy poetry, at least have the decency to make it sincere. But this is not sincere because nobody is actually still mourning the death of this random drug addict. Nobody was ever really mourning it.

It's all a put on. So this poem is, on top of all the other bad things, it's insincere, which makes it totally irredeemable from every angle. Just a hideous effort all around. As a general rule, if it's not obvious that your poem is a poem, then it's a bad poem. Okay, if I could read the lyrics of the poem,

and be confused as to whether it's supposed to be a poem or some kind of weird book report or the ramblings of a drunk vagrant on the subway, then it's not a good poem. Same rule for paintings. If I look at your painting and I can't tell if it was an intentional painting or someone accidentally spilled a splotch on a canvas, then it's not a good painting. I mean, the bare minimum for art is that

The art should require some amount of obvious and intentional human effort. I should at least be able to look at your art and say, wow, it looks like somebody was trying to do art. But if I look at it and I'm not even sure, is that supposed to be art? What is that even? Is that what was that done on purpose? Then then if it can't clear that bar, then it's I mean, that's the bare minimum of all bare minimums.

And beyond all that, the premise here is hilariously delusional because she's imagining a world where George Floyd didn't die and instead grew old, smoking cigarettes, right, on his porch, watching fireflies. There was no plausible scenario where that was going to happen. George Floyd as a retiree on a rocking chair watching fireflies. That is the—it's not impossible, right?

There's a possible universe. I mean, if there's parallel universes, there might be a universe right now where George Floyd is on a rocking chair watching fireflies. Maybe. But that was the least plausible outcome of all the possible outcomes of George Floyd's life. So she calls this mundane. But that would actually be, that would have been incredible. George Floyd, somebody like George Floyd, growing old,

And just being like a grandfather on his rocking chair is that would be an incredible that would be like watching a horse sprout wings and become a unicorn right in front of you, which is also logically possible. I mean, there could be a possible universe. Again, if there's if there's infinite parallel universes, which I don't believe there are. But if there were, then maybe one of them has unicorns.

But still very implausible because George Floyd was a drug addicted serial felon. And those kinds of guys don't grow old watching fireflies as a general rule. They die on the street or in prison. That's the way the story ends. And it's the way that Floyd's story was destined to end one way or another. That's the sad reality.

But still not as sad as this sorry excuse for a poem, which was really extremely bad. Let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow up with a sweet baby game.

Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the April 15th deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments,

The IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in many years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free, and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate.

Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh. You may have missed April 15th, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move. Okay, it's been a few days since we've done a show. So for the comment section, we're going to pull from a video we posted over the weekend where I responded to Ben Shapiro's repeated attacks against me after I accurately pointed out that the Lord of the Rings is

films are overrated and that the last one especially is too long and kind of boring. Now, Ben was aghast at these statements of truth from me. He made multiple videos attacking me ruthlessly for it. And I issued my response, which you can find on my YouTube channel. Here are some of the comments. First one says, Matt Walsh, this generation is done. Their attention span is cooked because of social media. Also, Matt Walsh, oh my God, Lord of the Rings is too long.

except the L, Matt. Well, I don't see how those two statements are mutually exclusive. I mean, it is possible that our attention spans are all cooked because of social media and that Return of the King is too long. I mean, it's possible for both of these propositions to be true, not just possible, but it is in fact the case that both are true. Matt is going to be even more upset when he learns most fans prefer the extended editions of these movies. Well, I'm not upset. I'm not upset. I'm just, I'm perplexed. I'm confounded.

I'm baffled. I'm upset. How could you watch three and a half hours of Frodo whining? Because that in Lord, the third one in particular, the whole movie is just, it's just one constantly whining constantly. And how could you watch that? And then say to yourself, I need this plus another hour of it. How could you watch three and a half hours of Frodo and Sam cuddling

Think to yourself, you know, the biggest problem with this is that there's not more of it This is not there's I need more of it. I need more of this. I just don't that's mind-blowing to me it is

Let's see. The reason why Aragorn did not enlist the army of the dead earlier is because he had to travel to where they lived to recruit them, which is exactly what he did. Middle Earth is a big place and they're traveling by foot and horseback. It's not like you can just send them an email. But before he could command their allegiance, he had to establish his bona fides as the rightful king, which meant going to the elves to get his sword reforged first. Once he had the sword, he called on the dead to fulfill their broken oath to his ancestors whom they had betrayed in exchange for morality and then sat out to kick some ass.

In the movies, this takes several hours, but in real life, it would have taken months. But none of that has any bearing on the main quest, which is Frodo's journey to Mount Doom to destroy the ring. The army of the dead were only useful at defeating Sauron's minions, but they could not defeat Sauron himself. Only Frodo could do that by destroying the ring. Yeah, whatever, nerd. Whatever. That's all I have to say to that. I have no counter-argument. Let's see. The eagles could not fly into Mordor because of the Nazgul.

Not until Sauron was destroyed in the Nazgul out of the picture, dead or freed from Sauron's spell, could the eagles enter Mordor. Okay, first of all, again, nerd. Second, Nazgul sounds like a side dish that you would order at an Indian restaurant. And third, even if the eagles couldn't take Frodo and Sam all the way into Mordor, by your lot, they could have at least taken them right up to it, right? Outside the gates or whatever. Right.

They could have done that because there are other scenes in these movies where the eagles do, where they, right? The eagles save them at other points in the movies. I don't remember. So we know the eagles showed up earlier in one of the movies. So we know that they're around, they're flying around. They could have at least taken Frodo and Sam, like as far as they can get them. Okay. And then we could cut out. By your logic, okay, we can't cut out. So we got three movies. We can't cut all of them, but we can cut the first two.

And just get right to the third. So think about that. You know, I, I'm all, I, and there are a lot of comments like this. I'm always confused as to why people get so mad at me for not liking their favorite movies. And I, I, I don't, I can't relate to that. I have movies I love, but so I can relate to liking a movie. I can't relate to getting mad at other people for not liking them too.

That's generally how I feel. But I will say this. So I'll admit this because I was thinking about this last night. I'm usually, I feel often perplexed whenever I talk about some pop culture thing and I say, yeah, I didn't really like it. It's not true. The claim that I dislike every movie and all that, that's not true. There are plenty that I like. I talk about the ones I like. But then I also talk about the ones I don't like. And I often feel perplexed by people get so angry and I don't get it.

But I will admit that I do get, I can relate maybe a little bit more than I thought because I do get kind of upset and a little bit heartbroken when I like a movie and my kids don't like it. So I can relate a little bit to the people who are mad at me, even though I'm not your child. So it's different, but I can relate a little bit. So for example,

Last night, I convinced my five-year-old daughter to sit with me and watch the movie Babe, about the talking pig from the 90s. I mean, you know Babe. So it's a wonderful movie. It's wholesome. It's funny. It's enchanting. It's a nice, wholesome family movie. And I loved it when I was a kid. I saw it many times. We had it on VHS. We would watch it. And so I thought,

okay, five-year-old girl, this is perfect, she's gonna love this movie. And I convinced her to sit down and watch it, and she hated it. She was complaining the whole time that it's boring. And I'm like, it's a talking pig. What do you mean boring? And then she said, it's weird. We're about 20 minutes in. I said, what do you think? You like the movie? She's like, it's weird, daddy. Why is it weird? What do you mean weird? And she said, well, the pig is talking.

And I said, oh, now that's weird? And animal talking is weird to you now. 98% of the movies you watch have talking animals. And now it's a problem? Now you've got a kind-hearted little pig talking and that's an issue? So I'm arguing with my five-year-old about that. And there are also all kinds of hilarious moments in this movie. Like when the pig pees on a farmer. Great funny moment. When the pig is trying to look inside the house, you know, and then he's like a stack of boxes. He falls down.

Right. There's a duck that thinks he's a rooster. Great stuff. This is great stuff. This is this is funny material. It's hilarious, especially if you're five. And my daughter, stone faced, doesn't laugh. And I said to her, how are you not laughing at this? The pig just fell. You see the pig? He fell. He fell. That's funny. And she said, I don't get it. Maybe you don't get it. It's a talking pig fell. That's funny stuff. So anyway, so I get it. I understand a little bit.

I understand a little bit how you guys feel. Maybe it's, how you feel must be something like how I felt when my daughter didn't like Babe. But you're still wrong. You're still wrong about the movie.

40% off new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships ends soon. This is where you stream all of your favorite daily shows ad-free for the most trusted voices of conservative media. Plus, you'll also unlock our full entertainment library, including Dr. Peterson's brand new series, Parenting. Head to dailywire.com and use code DW40 to join now and save 40% on all new annual memberships. ♪

Today for our daily cancellation, we have another entry in the rapidly expanding genre of videos where wives complain about their husbands. And this genre is extremely popular. Of course, it's come up several times on this show. And yet, the reverse genre, husbands complaining about their wives, basically does not exist. I mean, if a husband complains about his wife publicly, it will almost always be in a funny, lighthearted way where he makes himself the butt of the joke, ultimately.

But the all-female genre of spousal sessions is never meant to be funny, and the women certainly don't make themselves the butt of the joke. These videos are, in almost every case, bitter, petty, patronizing, and deeply insulting to the husbands. And this latest entry is no different. So here's a woman, Jenny Maharaj is her name.

who decided to tearfully scold her husband in front of the world, in front of what turned out to actually be an incredibly large audience. This video has been viewed 2 million times on TikTok and another 30 million times on X. And as always, the comments are mostly full of women cheering her on and dogpiling her husband. There's wide agreement in the feminist peanut gallery that Jenny's husband is a bad person, a bad husband, a bad man, and she has no recourse but to divorce him.

And this is exactly the kind of feedback that Jenny was looking for, obviously. There's no other reason to parade your spouse's shortcomings in front of the world. So here's Jenny's tragic tale of her husband being slightly dismissive once during dinner. Listen.

My husband decided to be spontaneous and take me to the movies last night. And when we went to dinner afterwards, I was talking about how much I really loved the movie. It was so good. I was so excited to talk about it. And he looks at me dead in my face and says, it was just a movie.

And I immediately stopped talking. So the more I sat there and thought about it, I start crying. It gets really uncomfortable. And he tries to like break the silence by continuing to talk. And I finally looked at him and I said, that really hurt my feelings. And he responded, it was just a movie. I said, I was really excited to talk about it. You took me to see this movie on a whim. I've never heard of it. Didn't look it up beforehand.

And I really loved it. You picked a great movie. And I was so excited. And now I don't want to talk at all. Because why would I want to talk after that? And he immediately stops. He's like,

You're right. I'm sorry. And then he grabs my hands. He's like, I'm not even being sarcastic. You're right. I'm sorry. I love when you get excited. It's just annoying sometimes. I recognize that he is trying and he is learning how to communicate with me. It's not an overnight process, but it is very painful. He's still new to his healing journey. So I just have to keep remembering that. Of all the red flags that have ever been flown, there is perhaps none more ominous or more glaring than a woman who uses the phrase healing journey.

And this is exactly the kind of therapeutic jargon that you so often hear from the worst kinds of people. It's always the worst, most selfish, most oblivious, least self-aware people who speak in a way that make it obvious that they've spent many years in talk therapy.

Which should tell you all you need to know about talk therapy, but that's a topic for another time. For now, you should know that as this video went super viral and thousands upon thousands of women applauded her and offered absolutely vicious indictments of her husband, Jenny kept posting videos about it. Because once a woman like this realizes that she can get attention and validation on the internet by publicly spitting in her husband's face, she won't stop.

It's a drug. And so in a follow-up video, Jenny informs us that her husband is self-loathing and not as emotionally mature as she is. And if she has to divorce him, she will because she can make it without him. Watch.

You are correct. There is hatred here, but it's not for me. It's for himself. He hates my joy and excitement because he has nothing to feel joyful or excited about. And that's exactly what I said to him after he said it was sometimes annoying. The comments were not surprising. I actually almost didn't read them because I knew exactly how they were going to go. I started my healing journey in August of 2022.

In the first year of my healing journey, I crashed out at least two to three times a month. And he was there to take the beating every single time. When you start healing and reconnecting with your higher self, your brain thinks it's in danger and it starts to project and deflect to whoever is closest to you. In my case, it was usually my husband. And now in his case...

it is me if i didn't feel like he was trying i would not be here i am secure in myself enough to know that i can make it on my own if i have to uh i know i said this topic for another time but this i i cannot stress enough what a disaster therapy and the whole the whole therapeutic industry and i don't know if this woman has been to therapy i i assume she probably has uh

If she hasn't physically been, then I guarantee she's read all kinds of self-help books and watched videos and that sort of thing. It's all part of the same scam. And it's just been a disaster. The therapeutic industry has been a disaster for the human race and for women in particular. Because let me tell you something, the...

The appropriate response, if you know someone personally who has this complaint about, oh, I wanted to talk about a movie. He didn't want to talk about it. It's like, okay, get over it. Yeah, he was a little rude, a little dismissive. So tell him that and move on with your dinner. You should be over it by the time the appetizers get there. Okay, it's not a crisis. We don't have to sit around dissecting it. We really don't.

It's not about, oh, let's look at the deeper significance of this. No, it's just a moment. He's annoyed by something, maybe. Maybe he's annoyed because they didn't have the food he wanted on the entree. Whatever. It doesn't matter. Get over it is the answer, lady. Get over yourself and get over it and move on. Stop being a child. You're being a child is what you're being. Crying because you didn't want to talk about a movie. What the hell is wrong with you? You child.

So that is actually the appropriate response. It's the healthiest response. It's what people like this need to hear. They will never hear it from a therapist. They will never hear it from a therapist. Instead, they'll say, let's sit and talk. Let's do 10 sessions about this. Anyway.

Another detail that you should know about this truly awful woman is that she has apparently four children. And two of them are teenagers or young adults, which means that her children are fully aware that her mother is disparaging their father on the Internet. They can read and certainly have read all of the comments describing in detail why their father is an egotistical monster unworthy of love. And all of these comments are foreseeable. Indeed, Jenny says that she knew it would go that way.

And yet she posted the video anyway. And this is why I must desperately urge the women of America. And I know you don't, I know, I know not all women do this. If you're one of these women, I am urging you to stop complaining about your husbands on social media or in any other public forum. It is not just inappropriate. It is not just a case of oversharing, though it is both of those things. More than that, it is actually despicable.

You are a despicable person if you take the flaws and faults of someone close to you and parade them around in public. You are a disgusting, narcissistic bully if you would offer up someone you love to the pitchfork mob as a way to win an argument. It is evil. It is vile. There are not words strong enough to convey how much I loathe this kind of thing. I mean, think about it this way. It would be, and we would all agree with this actually,

It would be utterly contemptible to treat a friend or acquaintance this way. You would be a heinous jerk if you publicly castigated a friend who you only text twice a year. I would think and everyone would think that you were an abhorrent, despicable, disloyal snake if you aired your dirty laundry about a friendly acquaintance or a distant cousin who you only see at weddings and funerals.

But like to do this to your spouse, the person you've pledged your undying loyalty to, the person you know and should love more deeply and intimately than anybody else on earth. That's downright monstrous. And yet the attitude a lot of people have is that doing it to your spouse is the only appropriate time. Yes, everyone would agree that doing that to a friend, a cousin is like, why would you ever do that? You're a terrible person.

And yet a lot of those same people think that it's totally fine to do that to your spouse. You have it exactly backwards. Well, really, you shouldn't be doing it to anybody. But to do it to your spouse is the worst of all those, you know, hypotheticals. And needless to say, you are automatically the bad guy the moment you take your squabble to social media. That's why we're not going to dissect or discuss at all the actual story that Jenny shared. That doesn't matter.

Again, the only answer to that is get the hell over it, you child. Stop whining and crying about it. But what you have done, Jenny, is orders of magnitude more despicable than what your husband did to provoke your behavior. In this case, he made a thoughtless, slightly dismissive remark.

You, on the other hand, made the calculated, premeditated decision to disrespect and belittle him in front of the entire world. You are the bad guy here. There is no contest. You have also unintentionally provided some mitigating context to the dismissive remark from your husband.

Because now we know what kind of wife you are. Now we know how you treat your husband. If you will disrespect him like this in public, we can only imagine how vicious and horrible you are to him in private. In fact, you admitted that too. He said you crashed out multiple times a month, but it was okay because you were on your healing journey, whatever the hell that means. So you're admitting that you're awful to him in private also, which we know because you're awful to him in public. So I don't know. Maybe that's why he was a bit short-tempered at dinner.

Maybe you've worn him down through years of behaving like a raging narcissist. Maybe your lack of respect for him as a man has made him care a little less about respecting your opinion about movies or about anything else. How many times have you done this kind of thing? I mean, we can assume that this TikTok video is not the first time that you've advertised your husband's shortcomings to an audience.

If you would do this on social media, we can assume that you've already complained about him many times over, many times over the years to your family, to his family, to your friends and his friends, random dinner guests, neighbors, acquaintances, acquaintances, and so on. There is a certain kind of wife who does this as a matter of habit. She cuts her husband down everywhere to anyone who will listen constantly. All of the evidence suggests that you are just that kind of wife. So here's what women like Jenny need to understand.

Your husband needs respect. I'm not saying that he wants it or that he would prefer it. I didn't say that it would be nice if he had it.

I said he needs it. A man needs respect. He needs his honor as a man. Men who feel like they have lost the respect of their loved ones and their peers and the outside world will be at a risk of plunging into a deep and catastrophic despair. There are a lot of very strong men out there who can deal with almost anything, deal with almost any physical hardship, any emotional hardship,

But the one thing that could be crippling is a loss of respect because a man who feels that he has lost his honor will often lose his will to live. And if you think that's dramatic, I mean, there's a reason why many ancient societies all across the world have featured some form of ritualistic suicide as a remedy for lost honor.

There's a reason why the phrase death before dishonor came into being. Honor, respect, reputation, men through all of history have died to obtain these things and died because they lost them. So as the wife, you have a unique ability to either make your husband feel deeply respected or deeply disrespected. If you choose the latter,

then you are choosing to throw a grenade into the middle of your marriage. You are choosing to pull your husband down and the marriage along with him. That's the choice you make when you deliberately dishonor and disrespect him, when you intentionally make him the object of scorn and ridicule, when you emasculate and belittle him. Now, I will no doubt hear the response that, well, a husband should only be respected by his wife if he earns it. But as I've said in the past,

This is exactly the wrong attitude. A wife should respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he should love and honor his wife because she is his wife. That's the reason. That's how your husband earns your respect, by being your husband. You owe that to your husband.

Now, you might say that your husband deserves it when you mock him and berate him and belittle him and nag him and scold him and parade his flaws around in public. But I would say that nobody you love deserves to be treated that way by you. And if you think in those terms, then you obviously don't love them.

But at any rate, deserve is not the point. You don't marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you've promised them. And you promised fidelity. You promised love. You promised respect.

Now, this doesn't mean that a man has a license to be thoughtless or uncaring or whatever. He's challenged to live up to his wife's respect. The more a man is respected by his wife, the more respectable he becomes. This is the, you know, this was G.K. Chesterton's point when he wrote that the great lesson of the Beauty and the Beast story is that a thing must be loved in order to be lovable.

And the same goes for respect. Love in a marriage, it doesn't mean anything if it's only given in the exact proportion that it's earned in any given moment. And respect also means nothing if it's offered or withheld depending on whether the wife feels that the husband's behavior is deserving of it from one moment to the next. Saying that you're not going to respect your husband because he doesn't deserve it is no different, absolutely no different,

From your husband saying that he isn't going to be faithful to you because you don't deserve it. This attitude is a recipe for disaster in a marriage. I mean, the only question is how your husband chooses to respond to this sort of treatment. He might become emotionally frail and enfeebled and submissive and emasculated. That happens in many cases.

He might, which means that you're going to find it even more difficult to respect him, which just it's a compounding problem. You go around the cycle continues. He might become angry and bitter and contentious. He might go to work one day and find that his attractive female coworker seems to respect him and take him seriously much more than you do. And nothing good comes of that.

Now, he would not be morally justified in having an affair because an affair is never morally justified. But even so, this is the starting point of many affairs. I got news for you. You know, as many affairs begin because the husband does not feel respected in his home and he goes out and he finds a woman who seems to respect him. And even if that's just to put on, you know, it's he's drawn to that.

You know, there are many ways that your husband might respond to chronic disrespect, and many of those ways may not be morally justifiable, but they are foreseeable and they're also avoidable. The point is nothing good, nothing at all good can ever come from deliberately trying to make your husband feel disrespected and belittled. Speaking of journeys, that is a journey with several different possible endings. None of them are good.

But apparently Jenny still has not learned that lesson on her healing journey. Because whatever she's healing from, she apparently is not healing from being a manipulative, disrespectful, disloyal brat. And that is why she is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch Parenting, available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today.