TRANSCRIPT
*Transcripts are auto-generated and reviewed for accuracy, but there may be some errors in punctuation or words. Listen to the podcast at https://rabbidaniellapin.libsyn.com/ for clarification
The Rabbi Daniel Lapin Podcast
Episode: It's Time For The Truth
Date: 11/01/24 Length: 01:09:48
Daniel Lapin 0:00
Greetings, Happy Warriors, and thank you for being part of the Rabbi Daniel Lapin show, where I your rabbi reveals how the world really works. Thank you for being part of the show, and thank you for helping to promote the show. Very much appreciated. It helps get our numbers up. You subscribing is also very helpful, so if you haven't yet done that, please go ahead and subscribe. Let us get going with today's show. You've heard the term, have you not the fourth branch of government. Now for all you Happy Warriors, I owe you a confession and an apology and that is this podcast is posting a little bit late, and so if you were looking for it earlier, my apologies, and I try very hard to stick to the schedule of a fresh podcast once a week. Occasionally that slips, and I feel bad about that, and I apologize for it. One of the things that I would have been available to had this come out on time, was that there was a fantastic sale on some of our resources, things like the Scrolling through Scripture series this, this is very significant. I mean, if, you've ever wanted, once and for all, to get a handle on the F of faith. If you ever wanted to sort of get a sense of just why it is that the Bible has exerted the huge influence on civilization that it has, then this would be very worth your while, the Scrolling through Scripture, two units and then the unit on the book of Ruth, chorus of connection. It's something that will bring enlightenment to you. It'll show you aspects from ancient Jewish wisdom of the Hebrew Bible that, frankly, you probably never even dreamed of so that is now available. There has been a sale especially for you as being extended because you're not hearing about it until this later date. So please go to RabbiDaniellapin.com and simply go to the store and look for the Scrolling through Scripture programs and the sale price will be honored for you, Happy warriors for a while longer, it's as good a price as we've ever been able to make it available at so enjoy that and benefit from it.
Daniel Lapin 3:06
And now let's carry on with the program. It's fairly well known. It used to be called the fourth estate, and that came from the French around about the time of the French Revolution. Government comprised the clerics and bureaucrats and nobility, etc. But in the United States of America, when they speak about the press, they speak about the fourth branch of government, for obvious reasons, right? Because America is governed by the three branches of government, namely, the legislative, which is Congress making the laws, the judiciary, which is, of course, the court system, enforcing or making sure the laws are followed, the laws that the legislature passes. And then you've got the executive, which is the holding it all together in the middle, making everything happen and pulling it all together well, obviously, a vast and enormous bureaucracy has now been created, and this is something that Donald Trump promised to dismantle when he took office in 2016 he had at the at the time, he had no idea of how pervasive It was, how deep it won it went, and how powerful it was, because over the years, Congress discovered that rather than passing laws in public in full view of their constituents, what they could do instead was to empower bureaucracies who. Would then establish rules and laws, and this was bypassing the entire system as it was designed by the founders, the founders of the United States of America, contrary to what you may well have been told incorrectly, were profoundly religious people, almost all of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were profoundly committed Christians, and they came up with this wonderful system which has worked for 248, years, namely, dividing the government into three parts. Legislature. Judicial and executive. Where did they get that from? Well, since you are a well educated happy warrior, you naturally have a Bible available to you somewhere in your home or in your office. So turn to the book of Isaiah and look at chapter 33 verse 22 and it speaks about God. So it says, For the Lord is our judge, that's the judiciary. The Lord is our law giver. Yes, that's the legislative. The Lord is our king. That is the executive. That is the verse which inspired the founders to divide the functions of government into three areas so that no area will get too powerful, right? Brilliant. When you think about absolutely brilliant. And it worked for a long time, excepting, as I say, the creation of a huge bureaucracy, where today, pretty much one in two Americans works for government in some way or another, and many for the federal government, many formal local governments, so postal workers, teachers, people working directly for any of the hundreds of bureaucracies created by the federal government, People who work for the Social Security Administration. Total them all up. It's about half the population. So if you've wondered why it is that the vote in America for a number of election cycles has sort of been 5050, part of the reason is that the country is divided into those who depend upon the government for a paycheck that includes welfare recipients. By the way, the country is more or less divided into half. Half the people get their money from the government, and about half the people get their money, I wanted to say, in spite of the government, and sort of partially true, but through the private sector where they work, they have to deliver value, and they have to stay in business in one way or another. So that's pretty much how the country is run. Meanwhile, as time goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that newspapers wield an enormous amount of power, enormous amount of power. And so you think about newspapers they put in their appearance in terms of the newspapers we know today, very close to when the printing press was invented by Gutenberg in about 1450 and we start seeing newspapers in the English speaking world, particularly pretty quickly and then through Europe and places as well, and the newspapers grow and they become hugely popular. Now today, obviously, newspapers are in serious decline for two reasons, firstly, the internet, and secondly, because they have ceased being objective voices reporting on the news, but they see themselves now pretty much the same way Pravda and Izvestia saw themselves during the heyday of the Soviet empire, namely, in other words, being instruments of power of the governmental central structure
Daniel Lapin 9:41
and But meanwhile, before that time, newspapers are being read by almost everybody, and so in each city, politicians would carry favor with the newspaper owners in order to receive favorable treatment in print and. And newspapers and their owners began to be hugely influential. And so when Walter Annenberg, he was a guy who owned publications like TV Guide, The Philadelphia Inquirer, an important newspaper, magazines like the teenage girls magazine 17. He was a very influential guy. In fact, President Nixon appointed him to be the ambassador to the court of St James, which is basically saying the ambassador to England, the ambassador, American ambassador in London. And during that time, he, interestingly enough, formed a mutually respectful relationship with Queen Elizabeth the Second so much so that when she visited the United States of America, she was a guest at Walter annenbergs estate in Palm Springs, California, at any rate, Walter Annenberg as a member of the fourth branch of government, somebody who was very influential through his publications. He wrote an article called The fourth branch of government. Also, there was a guy called Douglas Kader, and he was a diplomat. He was an aide to President Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was a journalist, and then perhaps in his most important work, he became the president of Washington College, small college in Chestertown, Maryland, right, which is a place that not many people go to. It's a small town on the eastern shore of Maryland, and it's, he writes a book called The oh, by the way, it's the oldest college in America. He wrote a book entitled The fourth branch of government, and, and, and from then onwards, this idea that the press, the media, is the fourth branch of government, began to make sense and and people understood how true it was. Because yes, it's true that senators and congressmen have influence, and it's true that judges have influence, and it's certainly true that the White House has a lot of influence, but so does the press, newspapers, magazines, and now, of course, the internet a great deal of influence, and its influence that the government is not entirely sure is happy with, as long as it knows, it'll be on their side. And in this sense, it's no different than earlier periods of American history, when politicians, from mayors of small towns to the President himself, made sure that they did whatever they had to do to get favorable treatment in print, in the newspapers, and make it well. We all know, over the last number of years, maybe 10 years or so, in America, there's been increasing pressure from the government to try and gain compliance on the part of powerful internet media organizations to basically put out the government line and nobody else's people were hurt. Careers were damaged, and often destroyed. People were really hurt during the COVID time when they published information that question the effectiveness of the vaccine when they published information questioning how serious COVID really was, in other words, doing exactly what newspapers were always meant to do, which is basically Keep politicians honest, let the country know, let the population. Let citizens know what is going on behind the walls of government. And of course, that is now gone, and for the most part, with a few brave standouts, for the most part, what you read on the internet or what you might read in the newspaper, whether it's the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or The New York Times, you may not fully understand the extent to which you are reading government propaganda. And so yeah, the fourth branch of. It's a very, very good idea. It's a very good term. It's very appropriate. Recently, just a few days ago from the time I'm preparing this podcast, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, both papers, breaking with tradition of many, many years, failed to endorse the Democratic candidate for President of the United States of America. Again, I'm, I'm recording this at the end of october 2024 and and I mean, this is hugely significant. The reason, I think the reason, is that they've decided that President Trump is going to win the November 5, 2024 election, and they didn't want to endorse the losing candidate and make the next president angry at them. I think it's as simple as that, no matter what they say, obviously they'll try and give high sounding, noble explanations for why they're not doing what they've always done. Every year for as long as people can remember,
Daniel Lapin 16:13
they've always endorsed the Democratic candidate that's understood, and this time, not because it's quite clear this was seen as a significant blow to the Kamala Harris campaign, and it just goes to show and help us understand just how influential they are and how hard They work to retain their influence, and how hard the dispensers of influence in government work to stay in tight with the with the newspapers of the United States of America. Now this might be a very good time for me to tell you about the bonus podcast, as you know, in an attempt to acknowledge our enthusiasm for members of the Happy Warrior community, we have made available. We have this is a pattern that I've practiced now for a while. I make available a special section of the podcast, a bonus section specifically created for the benefit of members of the happy warrior community. And what happens is, when you are a happy warrior, you receive notification of the availability of this extra podcast, and then you can click on a button and you can listen to it or whatever you want to do with it, but this week, what you are going to hear in the bonus podcast, which is entitled The Seven Deadly Sins of business, and I list the Seven most popular, most common mistakes that people practice. I also explain that one of the mistakes is not realizing that no matter what you do for a living, with very few exceptions, you really will benefit significantly in your finances by seeing yourself as a business professional, and by setting up your affairs in such a way so as to reinforce this idea that you are a business professional, and I give examples and I explain so, for instance, you know, let's just take a common one. Let's imagine that you are a barista. You pour coffee for a national chain whose name I shall not mention because they do not advertise on this show. And you know you could just see yourself as an employee, and that's the end of it. But if you were to set yourself up in terms of being a beverage professional, and you've got one main customer, namely this unnamed net international chain of coffee Emporia. So so now you, you would see things a little differently, and you would actually behave differently, because you'd say to yourself, well, it's never good for anyone to be dependent on only one customer. And so it's not that I'm an employee, I'm a customer. Now what what businesses sometimes have to do is raise their prices. That's called asking for a raise in in your situation, but it is also raising your prices. You might also decide that you have to create a weekend gig or an evening gig where you make available your experience and your knowledge and your expertise as a beverage professional in other scenarios and in other circumstances that. Would produce for you additional streams of revenue. All of this much easier to do when you think of yourself as a business professional and when you conduct your business affairs, even to the point of how you set up your accounts and your financial record keeping all as you, Inc, right, you or me. Inc, you might call yourself whatever, whatever it is, but at any rate, that failing to do that is one of the Seven Deadly Sins of business, and for the other six of them, well, all you need to do is make sure that you go over to the to your website as a member of the happy warrior community, and go ahead and do just that. If, by chance, you are not yet a member of the happy warrior community, no worries. Just become a member. You would be welcome, and we would be delighted to have you on board. From your point of view, not only do you get access to to literally hundreds of hours of material resources that that I and the other members of the team at the rabbi Daniel lapin.com ministry have created for you. All of that is available to you as a member, so if you're not, oh, and by the way, also the opportunity of interacting with other members of the happy warrior community. And it's a very lively discussion group. People put out questions on issues they're having challenges on people provide answers. And in my own mind, I don't know what's more valuable to be able to help other people by providing answers or by having a forum where you can share challenges you're undergoing along with other people who have a common Outlook with you, based on the five F's, based on wanting to grow and develop and enhance their families and their finances, their faith, their fitness and their friendships, their social life. So over to Rabbi Daniel lapin.com go over to my website, Rabbi Daniel lapin.com and you'll see there right away, there's an opportunity. You'll see what's a happy warrior, how to join and become a happy warrior. And there you got it. And you know that I will appreciate you doing so, because you are going to receive knowledge and access to the special bonus podcast that I create for you on a regular basis. Now why did I tell you all of that about newspapers? And the reason I did that is because I wish to reveal to you a very penetrating and important reality about the fourth branch of government that will help you in your interpretation of what's going on, because another one of the deadly Seven Deadly Sins of business that I discuss in the podcast, bonus for members of the we happy Warrior community is the importance of making sure you are not ignorant, making sure that you are knowledgeable, particularly in areas that are likely to impact your business affairs. I know people who have used the tips and the tools that we teach in order to know in advance that the company that they're working for is likely to be experiencing difficulties, may let them go and use the understanding that they've gained to see in advance that this might be the future course of action and preparing an alternative landing site. So when they did get their pink slip and their marching orders, they smiled and moved on with the plans that they'd already had an opportunity to prepare. And so one of the tools that I want to provide to you, has to do with understanding journalism, understanding the people who create the content that you and I consume in our newspapers, our magazines, our websites and everything else. And it's really important to understand, I mean, very often, one simple fact can totally change your ability to understand what's going on. Let me give you a quick example again, going back to the COVID scandemic, looking at COVID and vaccines,
Daniel Lapin 24:58
where if you. You only knew then, what you probably know now already that there is a financial cost to pediatricians for not vaccinating the children under their care, and significant financial incentives to pediatricians and all doctors for vaccinating. To just give you one example, Blue Cross medical insurance does pay a bonus to pediatricians who have at least 100 of their patients fully vaccinated by the age of two. Now I personally, and again, you know, there's a lot of places to get good information on this, but I personally believe that it's a it's an unhealthy thing to pump so many metals and other dubious substances in the form of vaccines into tiny, tiny bodies, like so babies who are, you know, 1215, pounds in weight and less, receive a huge number of vaccines. Now, one reason I always assumed, and had been told this by many doctors, was since a large part of America's population is not diligent about life and cannot be trusted to bring their babies back for well baby visits. You know, when the baby is six months old, when the baby is a year, when the baby is two years. And so although doctors would rather have given many of these vaccines to the children as they are bigger and of heavier weight because they don't trust so many of the population to bring the children back. They just dump them all in the child while they got him very often within hours of birth. And do I believe that certain phenomena that we notice in children might have something to do with these substances that are built into vaccines and out of which vaccines are manufactured that are given to children. Yeah, I I'm not at all sure. I don't know. I'm not a doctor, but I do know that I cannot trust the information that comes to me from within the medical establishment, because I saw the lies in which doctors participated during COVID And so I may be an ignoramus on this, but I personally have a strong suspicion that the huge increase in allergies, like peanut allergies, I'm not sure in my own mind, could it come from these things that are have been for years already pumped into tiny bodies? Yeah, I think so. Now, would many, many people mock me and laugh at me for this contention and for this opinion. Yeah, they will. And those are people who have and continue to buy solidly into the official party line. Let me. Let me put it this way, and I realize that this could sound a little extreme, so I'm trying to say it as gently as possible, so as not to shock the gentle ears of my listeners. But I do think that a clear understanding of what has been happening to America. I could say since 1960 I could, and I do, but I would say more particularly, since about 2000 has been the slow, gradual introduction of communism into the United States of America, the group identities, the growing power of government, the growing reduction of rights, of civic rights of citizens, many, many, many other things, and the intolerance of views that depart from what have been sanctioned as the official government views. So, you know, am I crazy? It's I don't think so, but different people probably would have different opinions of that, and that's fine with me, but I do understand, I am sure, that the fact that most people are not aware that Blue Cross pays a bonus to pediatricians who vaccinate their babies with all these vaccines, and I understand why they do. By the way, because vaccines absolutely do work on the majority of a population, and it's simply accepted that on a small proportion of the population, they're going to be adverse results to the vaccine. They accept that. And the economic calculation makes sense, because there are many, many, many people now who will not require insurance to pay for serious diseases like polio and measles and and other things. And yes, will there be a few people who are going to be very badly impacted and who are going to, you know, develop various very even extending to being on the spectrum, as they say, uh, yeah, that that is an economic when you do the the financial calculation, it makes sense. And so I had to ask myself, do I want my children to run the risk. On the one hand, there's the risk of not being vaccinated. I accept it's a real risk. On the other hand, being vaccinated. When the COVID vaccine came out, I had to recommend to people in my family and many happy warriors, asked me as well, what do I feel about the COVID vaccine? And I was candid from the very outset that I was not an enthusiastic fan, and did it help? Some people probably did. Did it also kill a number of young men with heart by the introduction of heart problems? Absolutely, I don't think anybody serious who is knowledgeable in the field even denies that. So your attitude might change when you realize that doctors receive a financial incentive to vaccinate well that so now, when my doctor says how strongly they recommend it, I really have to ask myself, wait a second, remember, I'm in charge of my body, I'm in charge of my children, and I've got to make a decision based on a wide variety of data sources. I can no longer just accept the official line. So that is kind of, you know, a useful thing if you happen to be questioning the whole issue of vaccines. Well, knowing that there's a financial incentive is a piece of information that's useful. Similarly, knowing that for a long while already, journalists no longer see themselves as fearlessly and honestly reporting the news. No, they are. Let's have a drum roll here. You know, you know what they really are. Journalists are content creators, just like every other content creator, and like all content creators, they have, each has an angle, an approach, if you're like a spiritual schematic of their own right. That's why you know, if you go to a blog written by a certain content creator, you already know what you're going to get there. And if you want to hear one viewpoint about what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening in the United Kingdom, and you happen to be of conservative and religious outlook, you know, you might go to the blogs of Melanie Phillips or the blogs of of Douglas Murray. And if, on the other hand, you are more inclined to like the viewpoint of the the government centric left wing viewpoint, the intrusion, the gradual intrusion, of communism. Oh, sorry, bad word. I meant to say progressivism, socialism. Is that okay? But if, if
Daniel Lapin 34:01
that's the view, then you know, you might rather listen to the words of somebody like Sam Harris. And so it is. There are hundreds and hundreds of names I could have picked. Some of them have viewpoints that are closer to my viewpoint. Some of them have viewpoints very distant from mine. But we understand content creators, that's what they do. I'm a content creator, obviously, and I'm very candid that my information is based on ancient Jewish wisdom. There it is. And so you know, you know what you're going to get from me, and hopefully I'm going to provide information that is useful to you in your life, but you know where that information is coming from. For the longest time, journalists sat on a pinnacle above this. Journalists had no ax to grind. Journalists didn't have an opinion. Journalists didn't. Come with any preconceived notion their role was merely to report. Well, what you need to understand now is that that's history. That's toast. It's gone, finished today. Journalists are content creators, and they have an angle. How do you know the angle of a journalist? Well, it's kind of easy, because all universities, pretty much all universities, are the same. They structured the same way. They are created with the same curriculum, and if one of them starts pushing a woke environment, then they all do, because they all come from the same idea. In other words, the PhDs that are employed to staff a university in your city were all created in universities in other cities, and they were taught there by PhDs who were created in universities elsewhere. And so the culture has spread. And yes, the university culture has indeed, over the years, synthesized into a cohesive doctrine that kind of somewhat makes sense in a road Mapp, kind of a way and and therefore it is deeply satisfying. And so when people are exposed to it, particularly when they're exposed to it at a young age, before people have got to the age where they know how little they know, right? All of a sudden, to be given a world view that is government centric, that is institutional centric, that is left wing centric, that is secularized in its ultimate way that is driven by the religion of scientism, the idea that science answers and explains everything the idea that follow the science is somehow a responsible and respectable way to speak to citizens of a democratic republic. All of that flows naturally through a university system and influences hugely how the people in the schools of journalism are attached to each university, operate and think and so with the overwhelming majority of journalists are now left wing content creators, and you've got to be aware of that. You really got to understand it. And that's one of the reasons journalists are coming to understand that they no longer have to report to the task masters editors at the newspapers for which they work, no they can quit the paper and become a content creator on the internet like everybody else and one of the platforms that has provided a landing site, a new home for journalists who have left the hallowed halls of the New York Times and The Washington Post and the LA Times and The Chicago Tribune and all the other newspapers. One of the places they go to is a platform on the web called sub stack. Brilliant. Brilliant idea was launched in 2017 but like many startups, it took a while for it to really kick off, and what what substack does is provides a place for a content creator to engage with an audience, to grow that audience And to monetize that audience so is that now no longer being dependent on the paycheck from the New York Times? They quit, they join sub stack. Sub stack provides the tools. And this is not an advertisement for sub stack, but it was a very clever internet idea that three guys came up with in 2017 I forget their names for a moment. I wish I could tell you, because they really did a clever thing. You know, is sub stack. Long for this world is going to endure? I have no idea. Everything has a limited lifespan, even Amazon, according to Jeff Bezos himself, as he correctly said. But at any rate, for now, substack has been growing beautifully. They now have more than 17,000 writers, content creators, many of whom used to work for newspapers, but realized that they can do better as independent content creators and they've and again. Sub stack encourages readers to become subscribers, paid subscribers. Last year, they hit 2 million paid subscribers across the platform, so there's probably, you know, close to 20,000 riders. And. Um, some of them have set up subscription patterns as substract sub stack recommends, and they are sharing about 2 million subscribers producing here this, readers who have subscribed to these content creators on substack have paid $300 million more than 300 million so there's real money going on, and content creators are discovering they are if they're any good at what they do, they're far better off on sub stack than working at the New York Times. How do I know? Because I know riders who've left the New York Times and are now on sub stack and doing better. Very happy. So there it is. They, they're taking, I think, I think sub stack. Oh, substance, of course, takes a little slice of the money that comes in, and it's, it's more, it's well over ten million a year. You know what? It's a whole lot more than that. I haven't got the exact figures. They're doing very, very well indeed. Okay, so why do I tell you all of this well, mainly because of how important I think it is to really understand that what you receive, if it's a mainstream publication, then it is going to be from a very strongly positioned left wing, secular, fundamentalist perspective. And likewise, if you go to a more conservative you know, say you go to town hall.com then you are going to be receiving your your news through a different lens. And this is all wonderful. I i think the goal of utterly opinion free journalists was almost impossible to attain, and probably never really was attained. And so now we know where we stand, as long as we remember that we really, really do not have objective reporting. Everything we get is through the lens of the position being taken either on the left or on the right to whatever topic is being discussed. And the article I were to talk about appeared in The Wall Street Journal, october 21 2024 and the headline was, behind many powerful women on Wall Street is a doubting husband, and they wrote a glowing story about house husbands and the idea, yes, you see, there's no reason why men have to go out and work and women have to be home to have children and raise the children and be homemakers and housewives. No, doesn't have to be that way. It's just as workable to have women going to work and the men staying home as house husbands. And so before you take that at face value, and before you assume that the nature of a man to want to be the provider, whether it is dry, dragging killing the bison and dragging him back to the cave, or whether it is going out to work every morning, whether he feels like it or not, and bringing home a paycheck to support his wife and his Children.
Daniel Lapin 43:38
People assume, well, you see, this was just a culturally imposed this is just because the way it used to be. It's culturally imposed. Men got to thinking that way. But in our brave new world, we are going to be able to retrain men to realize that it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe you'll marry a woman who is going to be a good earner, and she's going to want to go to work, and you are going to have to stay home to have the babies and raise the bay. Oh, wait a sec, you can't That's right. Well, we'll figure a way around that, but you can certainly stay at home and make the scrambled eggs for the children's lunch that you can do so. But before you jump to that conclusion, you have you should do what I do with that article. And I I sit down and I grab an index card out of my shirt pocket, because I like shirts with pockets in them. I know they're not quite as elegant, but for me, that's where I keep my index cards for quick notes, and I grab an index card, and I write down a series of questions that occur to me right that way, and I say to myself, I'm going to take it as a given. Yes, I know it's the Wall Street Journal. Makes no difference. The newsroom is quite different from the. Editorial. Editorial leans pro business. The newsroom is staffed by journalists who were educated at schools of journalism, you know, at Columbia, New York University and and La Santa and UCLA and Berkeley and everything else. And so I know already what their angle is going to be like. The author of this particular article, Miriam Gottfried, I don't know her, but I know that she is a journalist, or better yet, I know she's a content creator, not an objective journalist, and she has an angle. So what is the angle of most people who attended Columbia Graduate School of Journalism like Miriam Gottfried did, and got her Bachelor's at Wesleyan and worked for Chicago Public Radio, as Miriam Gottfried did, whom I do not know, but do I really have to know her once I know that She is someone who thinks of herself as a journalist, because she's not on the internet at substack, she's at the Wall Street Journal, and her journey to the Wall Street Journal was through Chicago Public Radio and Wesleyan and Columbia Graduate School of Business, of journalism. So I know now, am I being unfair to her because I'm not treating her as an individual? Yeah, I am. There is a minuscule possibility that she stands out as an exception, although her article would argue against that. But look, insurance companies are unfair when they charge every young male very high premiums for car insurance. Look, our young son had a car and drove it when he was 16 and 17 and 18, the insurance was through the roof, and I thought it was unfair, because he didn't drink, he didn't do drugs, he didn't engage in risky behavior. And sure enough. You know, thank God. His driving career, through his through those dangerous years, was flawless, not a problem, but he still had to pay a high insurance premium, because statistics, while flawed, are reliable within their general boundaries, the majority of yes, the majority of young men are dangerous drivers. They're dangerous to themselves. They engage in high risk behavior. That is true much more for a 19 year old or a 23 year old male than it is for a 47 year old female. It's just a reality. And so yeah, I'm also judging Miriam Gottfried on the basis of her background, but also on the basis of her article, behind many powerful women on Wall Street is a doubting husband. One of the things we know is a strongly held position by everybody on that side of the cultural divide is hostility to the traditional family, and so not surprisingly, this Wall Street Journal article entitled, behind many powerful women on Wall Street is a doting husband, we got to realize that the argument they're trying to make is how wonderful it is that these women are not at home, not with their children, not with their families, but they are reaching high positions in finance on Wall Street, and it's their husbands who are at home. And of course, there is the automatic presumption of denigrating building a home. So let me tell you what I wrote when I wrote when I read this article. Let me tell you what my index card looks like. It's got six questions. These are questions to myself, and so I share them with you. These are the questions I asked. I said to myself, What is missing from this article? And I found six things that are missing here. My questions are, why does the article not mention, even once, that it is well established? Nobody argues this, that couples where a woman significantly out earns her husband, these marriages fail at frighteningly high rates. It makes sense, right? If you're not sure why it makes sense, watch an enjoyable movie that Warner Brothers released in 2015 it was called the intern, and I really liked it. It starred Robert De Niro and Hathaway. And somebody who played an important role in the film, but an actor, obviously much less known than Anne Hathaway or Robert De Niro. His name was Anders Holm, very good actor. And what happened in the intern is that Anne Hathaway is a high powered. Career woman who builds a fashion empire, and Robert De Niro is plays this role as a sort of senior intern, an older man who advises her. And his home is her husband, and Anders Holm is a house husband. He's at home with the child, the little girl. Anne Hathaway is at work all day and much of the night and and they all lived happily ever after. You know why? Because Robert Didi ro wisely advised Anne Hathaway not to seek a an outside CEO who could take on some of the way to running the company. She would stay on and do it all by herself, meaning even less time for her family. And one of the things that I thought was quite well done was that Anders home meets a young woman now because something called hypergamy, the tendency of a woman to want to be with a man who will kill the bison and bring it back to the cave. Women do not really respect they may like they may appreciate the House Husband, but they don't respect the guy whom they support the guy who is living on their income. And that's deadly for the man. Deadly for the woman too, but it's deadly for the man. He can't live with a woman who doesn't respect him. Nobody, no man can. And that is it's so fundamental that I can't tell you how important it is in in my years of coaching and and I don't coach a lot of people, I only coach about three people a year,
Daniel Lapin 51:57
or three people, three guys at any given time. But I can tell you, over the years, this issue is hugely important, and the movie accurately reflects that Anders Holm has this loving relationship with Anne Hathaway, his wife. But it isn't a genuine male female, husband, wife relationship. It's a brother sister relationship, or it might even be a mother son relate in a certain sense, and has weighs more Anders Holmes mother than she is his woman. And so and is home, and I don't remember if it was the pretty young nanny or the or another woman he met at the park while he was taking the child to the I don't remember where he met this young woman, but she was a young woman and and she looked up and his home, she and he felt it was an irresistible situation. I totally get it. I don't endorse adultery, but in this circumstance, I wouldn't have penalized. And is home. I totally good. I totally get it. This young pretty woman, not that Anne Hathaway is a hag, but she is a rich pretty woman. And this was a woman who actually looked up to Anders home, and so he strayed and started an affair with her. Needless to say, Robert De Niro solved all problems and made all the pain go away, just as happens in real life. And everything was fine. But the point I make is that the Wall Street Journal article did not have even one tiny little mention that there is a downside to being in a high finance a high pressure job for a woman, and having a house husband. And the the danger is, and this happens over and over again. Believe me, I see a lot of it. I talk to a lot of people, the two dangers I've just spoken about. One of them is that your house husband encounters a woman who actually looks up to him, and he will find her utterly irresistible, utterly irresistible, no matter how much you trust him, no matter how good a guy he is, that fundamental sexual impulse to be with a woman who looks up to you is irresistible, almost, and but the other side is just as much, and I see as much of this as well, by the way, which is Anne Hathaway meets with a lot of high powered people. Maybe she does hire a few people for her executive suite. Maybe it's the investment banker who's assigned to a company when it's going to go public. Maybe it's somebody in the law firm that is their legal advisors. But there's going to be some type a guy who is more powerful than Anne Hathaway is, and she. Is going to succumb to him. Look, there's a reason why, whether it's in my coaching or whether it's in our important book, the holistic you we link sex and money very strongly. It's very real and very important. The fact that this angle was utterly omitted from the Wall Street Journal article tells you clearly that the author, the content creator, not journalist, the content creator who wrote it, wants to see more people at more women at work and more men at home. That's what she wants to see. Don't forget when I speak about America being slowly infiltrated by Communism, sometimes not so slowly, part of communism is the obliteration of the traditional family unit, right? You know that. And so, not surprisingly, almost every position taken by whether it's the universities, or by government policy, or by the bureaucracy the deep state, or by the intellectual world, always anti family, you thought surely by the laws of statistics, half the universities should speak in favor of traditional marriage, and half should speak in favor of ending traditional marriage? No, they all speak in favor and promote the abolition of the traditional family. So there was the How could they do an article that doesn't even mention that speaks only glowingly about these couples. How wonderful it is that finally, these old customs are falling away, and people can do what they really want to do. Guys do not really want to be supported by women. I promise you, it may be cool for a little while. It may be a fantasy for a little while, but you will slowly die, gentlemen, and you won't stay in that deal. You just won't. And for the content creator of The New York of the journal, Wall Street Journal, not to even mention that peril, and when I say peril, there's a recent study from France in America. We've had these studies for years, but France collects a lot of official data. France is very bureaucratic, and three journalists, good for them. Journalists, no researchers, not journalists. Came up with this idea. Let us check the statistics. We've got all the information in France of marital status, age, gender, whatever you are when you got married, when you got divorced. And they crunched the numbers and were shocked to discover that whether you are married or cohabiting, the likelihood of the couple divorcing a year after the woman starts out earning the husband is like two to one. It's It's shocking. It's real. This is a very, very real thing. There. You know, exceptions are where it's a very temporary thing. Let's imagine a nurse marries a doctor, or a guy who's at medical school, and she says to herself, I'm going to work very hard multiple shifts. I'm going to support him during medical school, and then he'll become a doctor, and he'll be able to support me during that time. She's earning much more than he is, but he is on the road to a high earning occupation. It can work then, and sadly, what doesn't work so well then is the very high number of those marriages where the doctor decides he can do better than the nurse who paid for him to go through medical school. And, yeah, that's, that's that is a risky Gambit for a young woman to take. Anyway my index card, I go to item two, what else did the article in the Wall Street Journal about house husbands and high power working wives. Failed to point out. They failed to point out that all the examples they addressed were older couples where the man had already had a successful career. That changes things. If this is like Kamala Harris's husband said he's going to quit his he was at retirement point. He was quitting his work anyway. He's going to quit to be able to support his wife in her political career. Okay, yeah, at that stage of things that could sometimes work. The third item on my index card is not pointing out that the, as I said earlier, the danger of the House Husband meeting, either, by the way, a another mother because one of the. Things that the culture, the left leaning culture, tries to encourage is that mommy and me groups must start including husbands, and I've seen situations like this. Again, I'm giving you the pleasure without the pain of seeing the world through my eyes, because I'm blessed to have been involved intimately in the lives of so many people, so many couples, and so I've, I've seen a lot of things. And yes, these groups are encouraged. They are mummy groups, right? Where women get together with other mommies, and they, you know, share ideas, and sometimes they meet once a week, and they bring their kids, their kids all have a great, big play session, and they have an opportunity to listen to a child care specialist or whatever it is. And these groups have always been women's groups, and now they're being pressured to admit men and men of being these house husbands are being pressured that you know, if you're going to do this properly, you have to join your local Mommy and Me group. Well, guess what? Affairs develop. That's right. It's perfectly natural and perfectly normal. The challenge of being a great human being and the challenge of building a successful life is not responding to nature, overcoming nature, but it's asking a lot of people. And so here are these mummy groups, and there's one guy in the group, my goodness, there's one source of testosterone in the group.
Daniel Lapin 1:01:44
These guys speak of it, and they write of it and they talk of it. Yes, it's they have their pick of women. Now, it's not that every one of these moms is ripe for the plucking, but many of them are divorced and many of them are single moms, and hey, away we go. So you're, you know, you're at work in your high power female career, your husband is a house husband, and you know, he goes once a week to Mommy and Me group with all these women, and oh how lovely that is, how wonderful it is. And then you blindsided when you discover he's been having an affair with one of the moms of the group. It's not right for the Wall Street Journal article not have pointed out the how common this is is real. And, of course, the other the in the other direction, that's another item on my index card, not pointing out that it is highly common for the married. And by the way, there have even been many cases that have hurt me because they have occurred within religious communities where the woman is at work and the husband is more of a house husband and she falls for a Type A guy that she meets through her work, and when measured against her husband at home, the husband is found lacking perfectly natural and perfectly normal. You know, we you know, we all say my wife wouldn't look at another man, but when the other man is put next to us and she doesn't see him unshaven, she never sees him in worn out pajamas. She only sees him in a smart business suit, and he invites her to lunch, and it's not at McDonald's. Sorry, guys, most of us can't match up to that. Well, I would trust my wife. Okay, fine, you know, whatever you say, but that's not how the world really works. Is every woman gonna fail? Of course, not, just as every man isn't gonna fail. But are you sure that you want to risk your marriage, even if it's only 10% to do and it's at least as high as that, I can assure you. Okay, you get the point. Wall Street Journal said none of that. It didn't mention this is the fifth item on my index card. The article failed to mention that this whole discussion is a tacit concession that children need parents, because why don't they just say, hey, two high powered parents, let the mother work, let the father work, and they hire housekeepers to take care of the kids. No, the article is an acknowledgement that that experiment has already failed and that children do need. Parents should have said that. The article should have mentioned that. And finally, number six on my index card, isn't it a bad thing that the article didn't even raise the question of whether this is good for society, given the fertility problems, given the fact that the Wall Street Journal, soon after this, ran another article talking about how all attempts to incentivize women to have more children, because, yes, there is a very serious fertility problem. I've discussed this on earlier podcasts. And is this a good thing if we're going to tell women, you know, isn't this going to impact the number of children they're going to have? Isn't this going to impact whether they get married in the first place? Not even to raise these questions, but to depict the whole trend in society of more and more women working more and more women earning more than their boyfriends live in partners or husbands. Is it a good thing for society? Wouldn't you thought that that should be asked? Well, I Well, no, and something that I didn't write down on my index card when I read the story in the first place, but it occurs to me now, which is very simply, the question of whether or not this is hard wired or not. In other words, at least raise the question. I mean, yes, obviously we know that men can be educated and uplifted and modernized to stop being so primitive and feeling that they have to be the breadwinner of the family. We can, okay, fine, but why don't you at least say there are those who hold the view that this is hardwired, that this is part of masculinity. Say that if you were a journalist, you would, but you're not. You're a content creator. Oh, okay, well, then I get why you left out the seven points that I now have written, I've added it to my index card. The seven points that you didn't mention. Well, obviously, because you have an ax to grind, you are trying to change society. You are part of the community of infiltration of society. So you have an angle, and you are trying to influence people. So why would you bring up any of the downsides that I mentioned in my seven points? Of course you wouldn't, and I get that, and that, my dear Happy Warriors, is the lesson for today, which, if you hear what I'm saying, this will be immensely helpful to you in terms of gaining a clear understanding of what is really happening around you, because you will then realize that you don't have a choice between Facts Only, opinion free journalism and bias journalism. No, that's not the choice. The choice today is only choosing which side you want to filter your information. And then, if you get a lot, use a number of different information sources and put them all together, you in your own mind, you start creating what is a coherent explanation for what's going on. You know, are our electric cars still successful? Are they going to be successful? Is California's mandate to have no more gasoline driven cars by 20 Is that likely, or is it going to be kicked down the road? You can figure that out, but not by listening only to one news source. Listen to all the content creators and form a picture yourself, you will end up with something that stands a very high probability of being close to the truth. And I aim for point nine or better, 0.9 correlation with fact I that's what I aim to get in how I consume the content of the content creators that I access, and so that, ladies and gentlemen, Happy Warriors, each and every one of you, thank you for becoming part of the Happy Warrior community, and you will grow week by week in Your family, in your finances, in your friendships, in your faith and in your fitness. I'm Rabbi Daniel Lapin, God bless.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
