The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  Wage discrimination, after all, is illegal. But choices affect pay and life.

  Women live nearly five years longer than men. Now if this were reversed, could you imagine the outcry? We’d be talking about “life disparity,” not wage disparity. We’d protest against the life ceiling, not the glass ceiling, and demand that men die sooner just for the sake of equality.

  Amazing point!

  But if Hollywood wants to talk about equality, look at their two worlds—one of dramatic concern at the Oscars, and the other of absurd luxury. Their gift bags cost $125,000 each—that’s more than they pay their maids, their drivers, their leaf blowers, and their hookers combined.

  So as the Oscars trash America, the world outside is going nuts.

  Women are being enslaved by a death cult, or stoned to death for adultery.

  True, there may be women in Syria who would have applauded the Oscars speeches if ISIS hadn’t chopped off their hands for using cellphones.

  There is no better example of misguided concern than that of a movie star’s take on the world when accepting an Oscar. It’s a moment that fully exposes a celebrity’s imbecility—a sort of dumbass X-ray. Leftism in Hollywood is gravitas for the lightweight, intellectualism for the stupid. Reading, facts, critical thinking . . . that’s for the little people—those normative losers! So rather than actually assess the various injustices around the globe, they pick what they can handle without having to read much, or digest statistics. There are all sorts of inequalities, but in America, everyone is better off than anyone pretty much anywhere else. But that is overlooked, in favor of hammering home the same mundane, inaccurate assumptions about the world’s greatest invention—America. Instead of exposing true injustice, they feed into the false ideas that fuel the anger of the people who hate us. They target those who happily tolerate their silly ideas, meaning American moviegoers, while ignoring followers of ideologies who would kill such brave artists, if given the chance.

  The argument over inequality is a complex one, and often ignores the more obvious concrete cases of disparity.

  For example: height. Taller people are afforded more opportunities than the short. Studies bear this out. If you’re taller you’re more likely to get a raise or get that job. But also, let’s not forget the prime target of inequality: the plain. If you’re good-looking, you’ll always do better than those who aren’t. But sadly, the unattractive do not mobilize, or protest. And what about the good-looking? Hollywood KNOWS that good looks are truly more important than anything. For example, it’s amazing how attractiveness is used in movies to undermine one’s judgment regarding good and evil. I think it really caught fire the moment Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway played Bonnie and Clyde—how could you not love two murderous bank robbers when they’re so damn hot? Mind you, it’s not the obvious, grotesque villain who is portrayed as handsome [typical vicious henchmen always have scars and bad teeth]. It’s the “cool” villain who is hot. And that villain is somehow granted a certain leeway, simply because when he’s doing the killing, he looks so great doing it. It’s why Rolling Stone put the Boston Bomber on its cover—he was cute. It’s why every young psychopath in movies is portrayed as uniquely “complicated” when they’re just psychopaths. We can talk forever about the inequality between sexes and races, but ugly people get the shortest stick of all, and we accept it as a fact of life. I’ve said this in previous books (it’s a cause of mine). We need a Gandhi for the homely. An MLK for the plain. Until then, they will suffer in silence, as we continue to judge such books by their pimply covers.

  June 17, 2015

  So, on some talk show, comedy powerhouse Judd Apatow said it’s crazy to think rich people care about other people.

  Well, unless they’re rich leftists.

  JUDD APATOW: I just think it’s ridiculous that anybody thinks that rich people care about other people, all right. Just as simple as that. Like when the Koch brothers like give—like new—a billion dollars for the new election cycle. It isn’t out of a great concern for the masses.

  When asked if this applies to rich Hollywood liberals like Apatow, he replied:

  JUDD APATOW: I think the difference is that Hollywood liberals would be willing to change the entire system if we all would get money out of it. And I don’t think the conservatives would do that.

  So do you get that? Rich Hollywood liberals care, rich conservatives don’t. Now, I could defend the Koch brothers easily. David has given more than a billion dollars to medical and cultural causes. But why bother with such facts? With Judd, you’re talking to a wall—an ideological barrier that can only endure as long as you believe your opponent is driven by ill will. So it’s one thing to say you think someone’s wrong. But it’s another to say that person is just no good. Judd does that—which allows for his hypocrisy.

  This guy actually thinks that? Wow—it must be nice to be thirteen years old forever, Judd!

  To him, a rich liberal can flood politics with money because it’s for the greater good. Your rich people are evil, my rich people . . . good. This is a conviction driven by the insecurity prevalent in novices playing catchup with newfound politics.

  But consider the person who allows the possibility of being wrong. He ends up with sharper ideas. For conflict exercises your muscles of logic and reason—rather than playing patty cake with a salivating fan base.

  So Judd’s not evil. He’s sometimes right, he’s sometimes wrong. But he’d probably never say that about us. Which makes you wonder how far his side might go to hurt its opponents. If all disagreement is rooted in malice, then everything’s permitted when you’re fighting evil. Demonize, ostracize, and pulverize, all in the name of the greater good.

  It’s one thing to disagree—we do that all the time. It’s a different thing to root the disagreement in morality—to claim that you don’t agree with me because you are evil. It’s the kind of tribalism that leads ultimately to excuses for oppression. Remember, there are those on the left who believe you should be able to imprison those who question their extremely inflexible beliefs on climate change. There are those who believe you can “punch a Nazi”—which most of us would like to do—except that their assessment of who a Nazi might be is anyone who departs from their political assumptions.

  I’m writing this little note in January 2018, just after Trump used the phrase “shithole” to describe economically rotten countries. Apparently, Hollywood finds that outrageous, but had no problem with their favorite nominee calling half of America “deplorable.” In Trump’s case, he was referring to the state of a country, in the other, Hillary was referring to actual people. But when you’re a liberal, you’re exempt from your own high-horse mentality. You can accuse me of being vile, while employing a far more vile vocabulary. A perfect example is Chelsea Handler, who despises Trump for his behavior, yet makes far more insidious attacks on people she hates than he does. For example, she just tweeted a particularly vile comment about Senator Lindsey Graham being blackmailed over homosexual behavior. If a right-wing commentator had said something similar about, say, Oprah Winfrey, he or she would be crucified. People like Handler and Apatow see standards as something that applies only to the little people. Not them. They’re special. They’re liberal and rich. But not evil. I will never deem them so, even though they would not extend me the same courtesy. I’m fine with that.

  September 22, 2015

  My feelings about Bernie Sanders have changed a bit since I wrote this. I still detest his progressive beliefs, but I do realize that he was far more likable than Hillary, who treated him like a white-haired speed bump on her way to the White House. I’m glad he’s not president; but I can still kind of like the guy, right?

  So look at all the cool kids flocking to Bernie Sanders. He got Will Ferrell, Jeremy Piven, Sarah Silverman. It’s a gala for the gullible. But really, all this Bernie love is a status marker. In an attempt to appear authentic among their peers, they performed the least authentic act ever, embracing a stupid ideology s
imply to appear real. In the 1970s, Hollywood types embraced albums with singing whales.

  Bernie is just another kind of singing whale. A novelty used by guilt-ridden faux intellects to shame their personal trainers. You can credit historical amnesia when you forget the horrors of previous deadly strains of socialism.

  This one is different, you say. But it never changes. The primary engine of socialism is a force of leveling outcomes from above, through the power of punitive revenge, fueled as always by envy. Anyway, it doesn’t matter to celebs. It didn’t matter when they glorified deadly communism.

  Yet here he gets love from the intellectually empty in the land of the plenty.

  So after all the prosperity that America’s free market system brought them, they flock to an ideology that would have prevented such outcomes. Fact is, without capitalism, there would be no Bernie Sanders. If this country had been under socialist rule, Sanders would have been chased out of town long ago. Capitalism really enables the survival of beliefs that damn capitalism

  Let us not forget: The love for Sanders among the rich is meant to excuse the rich for being rich. This is their penance, their indulgence, for living a life of gated luxury, expensive pot, and more expensive therapy. That’s the difference between a Hollywood leftist and an underground Hollywood righty like Gary Sinise or Clint Eastwood. The Hollywood leftists got their pile of money, and now it’s perfectly fine for them to prevent you from getting the same—they can extol a proven disastrous idea because they’re doing so sitting on a million. But the underground Hollywood righties want you to get as rich as they are. That’s not greed, that’s opportunity. But try to explain that to Sarah Silverman. The only thing she really cares about is her next bong hit—since the other hits are so few and far between. Skeptical? Ask yourself why socialism has only ever been considered on American coasts—with a stopover in Chicago. The truth is that rich celebs don’t understand socialism. They don’t realize that they’d be the first to go. That level of understanding would actually require reading something beyond the Chateau Marmont late-night menu.

  February 18, 2016

  On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with Hollywood studio heads to hack a plan to counter the ISIS narrative. It’s a great idea, if I don’t say so myself, years ago. Imagine if Hollywood channeled this energy into something else—like death cults currently killing thousands. Imagine what Hollywood could do to degrade, mock, and marginalize the useless, lurid tools who flock to loser magnets like ISIS. They could use special effects to scare the hell out of these idiots.

  For forever, Hollywood has pumped out propaganda for presidents’ pet causes, from obesity to climate change, while ignoring the real threat to their total existence. And that threat is a suicide cult with a great story. They are hordes of marauders racing across the sand to their sex-crazy apocalypse.

  Meanwhile, our creative minds in Hollywood often side with our critics, portraying our free-market system as a greed-driven, power-mad evil. America is the only target left in which blaming the victim is actually cheered.

  So this could help—maybe other companies, like, maybe, Apple, could join the fight. Consider the contrary narrative we could supply. Is ISIS a real fighting force? Or losers? And what of those seventy-two virgins you were promised? Who might they be?

  This is where I show a clip of bleating goats.

  Granted—they keep you warm at night.

  Now, this plan could work. But there is one problem. How do we know about this plan? Kerry tweeted it. Yes, he tweeted to the world about our plan to fight ISIS. What in God’s name is he thinking? Isn’t the whole point of propaganda to make the enemy think that it’s real and not manufactured? Well done, John Kerry: Announce our intentions, then wonder why our enemy is always one step ahead.

  Poor John Kerry. It was also his job to sell us the Iran nuclear deal also. This guy makes Willy Loman look like Warren Buffett. Bottom line: Portraying ISIS as losers is what Trump happily adopted. These are not revolutionaries, but the world’s detritus—sad sacks who can’t get laid, so they’re opting for an afterlife of nonexistent virgins. Trump called them losers, then crushed them, like termites. This is important: By exposing the lie, by showing that the Islamic State was not inevitable, but rather just a mad group of douchebags destined for a loser’s death, Trump shrank the appeal of ISIS to a nonexistent fleck. No one wants to join a loser. But keep those lectures going up at the Kennedy School, Mr. Kerry. They’ve definitely been the difference! [The other advantage Trump had over his competition: his refusal to telegraph his plans beyond “We are coming to get you.”]

  Another thing that bites my ass: Hollywood has no problem creating villainy out of whole cloth—it’s usually an executive at a nuclear power plant or a pharmaceutical executive. But hand them the greatest villain since Hitler, in ISIS, and they drag their feet like they’re being forced to sit down and eat a pot of boiled broccoli. But I don’t blame them—they have a definite problem identifying evil in their midst. ISIS is just Harvey Weinstein without a car service.

  December 19, 2016

  Last week, we told you about some has-been celebs who released a video imploring GOP electors not to vote for Donald Trump—after he won the election.

  These celebrities are now targeting one elector, Ashley McMillan, the vice chair of the Kansas Republican Party.

  Here’s actor Martin Sheen:

  MARTIN SHEEN: As you know, Mr. McMillan, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of the demigod and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

  Yes, we get it, Martin, you own a thesaurus.

  See what Martin did there? He called Ashley a man. The only problem, she’s not.

  But what do you expect from sexist Hollywood that can’t see women in positions of power? He just assumed if it’s a vice chair, it’s got to be male. Hollywood, where once a woman hits thirty-four, she’s stuck playing the crazy spinster neighbor while casting agents try to get new talent only born after 1995.

  Forgive Martin if he thought Ashley was a dude. At her age, she might as well be. But these stars are anti-influencers—when they tell you something, you got to do the opposite.

  Getting political advice from them is like getting dating tips from ISIS.

  And don’t they remember all those celebrity videos before the election accelerated Hillary’s defeat?

  They are the ones who finally cleared our political system of Clinton constipation. So you think that maybe after that humiliation, Hollywood would take a moment to self-reflect between indulging their outsized egos and gaping insecurities? Hell no, they are like a guy who has been dumped, but refuses to believe it, so he’s lurking outside your apartment, hoping to change your mind. Hollywood, it’s time to move on. There are other fish in the sea, probably in Canada.

  It’s always a pleasure to expose the underlying sexism of those who pretend to be so enlightened. It’s also been somewhat of a joy to see the implosion postelection from people who would often portray the right as being “insane” over Obama winning way back when.

  When Obama won, we got on with our lives—even if we disagreed with his weak foreign policy, pernicious progressivism, and his teachers’ lounge politics. Sorry, no one on the right was “broken” by Obama the way the left was by Trump. None of us needed therapy; none of us needed to march; none of us needed to scream at the sky.

  Why is that? Because for normal people, politics plays only a small part in our lives. Sure, we can be pissed that our guy didn’t win, but then we shrug and have dinner with our family, read stories to our kids, get up for work in the morning. [Note—I do none of those things, but I’m assuming you do!] For the libs, the Trump election destroyed their entire world—because their entire world is political. What a horrible world to live in. Politics should occupy less space in your brain than thoughts about your favorite Golden Girls episodes�
�which for me is a rather large space, actually.

  But Sheen’s actions were a precursor of all the impeachment hysteria that followed from his side. When the electoral tricks failed, then it was on to impeachment. Or collusion. Or the Twenty-fifth Amendment. The Dems were willing to try anything—Stormy! Dementia! Diet!—to undo an election—a sign of an overemotional response rooted in a life too drenched in team sports politics. The fact is, of the nearly twenty Republican candidates who ran for president in 2016, Trump is the closest to a Democrat you could have ever gotten.

  And the idea that somehow they would be happier with Ted Cruz or Rubio is laughable. They’d be vicious to every single alternative to Trump. They would likely have been worse to Cruz, actually.

  Which is why the best thing one can do since 2016 is laugh hysterically at their hysteria. Of course, this doesn’t mean everything Trump does must be met with applause simply because it’s the joyful opposite of the meltdown madness. But the irrational anti-Trump response is a strong hint that things aren’t as bad as we’re regularly told on an often overboard CNN or an apocalyptic MSNBC, and in fact, it could end up being damn good—fingers, toes, and vestigial tails crossed.

  April 26, 2016

  Lena Dunham became the latest lefty lass who threatened to move to Canada if Trump wins the White House.

  If you don’t know who she is, I envy you. The recipient of entertainment welfare, Dunham got famous mining a self-indulgent mountain of feminist navel-gazing crap. Her favorite topic is herself, and being a cookie-cutter leftist, she’s as daring as flatulence.

  Dunham is one of many celebrities threatening to move to Canada over this election. Maybe that country should build a wall.