The Gutfeld Monologues

by Greg Gutfeld

  How could you deny that science, Mr. President?

  No wonder Obama could declare ISIS the “JV.” In his world, they barely existed. I guess that’s one way to counter a threat: Put your fingers in your ears and hum “We Are the World.”

  I hate releasing 911 calls in general, because I believe it dissuades people from helping others in need. Example: Let’s say you’re out with friends, and one of them overdoses. You might be too scared to call because it’s an illegal activity. And 911 calls also reveal people at their most vulnerable, when they’re crying and helpless. (The one mentioned above does not apply.)

  But really, if any declaration were in support of a media-accepted villain, releasing the information in its entirety would not even be a question. The fact that they considered holding it back because it involved Islam should piss the hell out of all of us. They are lying through omission and pretending it’s for our own good. Screw ’em. Imagine, for example, if it were an NRA official on that call. You wouldn’t hear the end of it. It would be on a twenty-four-hour loop on CNN.

  August 16, 2016

  Take it from me, when the left deems something “McCarthyesque,” it’s probably a good thing. Like Donald Trump’s proposal on extreme vetting, which sounds like something Tom Cruise did to potential wives. But Trump’s plan for questioning potential immigrants is, for the New York Times, quote, “an uncomfortable echo of McCarthyism,” meaning it’s mean and intolerant. The fact is, McCarthyism is the default button that liberals push whenever we demand fighting an external threat, be it yesterday’s communism or today’s ISIS. It is this clichéd smear that leaves us vulnerable.

  Plus, you know, if there are actually communists in government, it’s not quite a witch hunt, is it? And let’s not forget: Communism did affect our lives. More on that below.

  The fact is, you wouldn’t need a new antiterror campaign if previous attempts hadn’t been handcuffed by PC screams of intolerance. Express concerns about attacks or terrorists sneaking in as migrants, link mass violence to those who actually promise mass violence, and somehow that makes you Islamophobic. But how is wishing to halt mass murder bigoted? It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with deadly ideas.

  I get it, Trump often tarnishes legitimate concerns with impulsive, crass rhetoric. But that’s not McCarthyism. It’s carelessness. However, it is the media that is guilty of a different kind of McCarthyism—Charlie, not Joe—parroting mindless claims one expects from a dummy on a string. As they focus on Trump, they ignore Hillary Clinton saying she won’t send troops to fight ISIS, a presurrendering to evil. How bizarre. But the Times—the Times is okay with that, and always on the wrong side of history. The media cannot read the handwriting on the wall, even when it’s written in blood.

  Islamophobia is the current “anti-anti-communism”—meaning it is designed to demonize people who are passionate about stopping something bad. If you believe radical Islam is bad, the Islamophobic label is meant to portray you as a bigot, the same way that if you had, decades ago, pointed out that communism killed tens of millions of innocent people, then you were the extremist. The only difference: Today, it’s worse. Communists just wanted to destroy our system. Radical Islamism wants to end the world. And don’t take my word for it—for Christ’s sake—take theirs.

  August 23, 2016

  After every recent ISIS-related attack, we’re warned not to go overboard in the war on terror. We’re told that you’re more likely to get struck by lightning than offed by a jihadist. That’s the thing with statistics. They can be right until they go very wrong. Let’s take lightning. While it’s true it’s a common threat, there are things you can do to escape it.

  Don’t stand in a field during a storm, holding a five-wood. Not so much with a suicide bomber. Unlike lightning, a terrorist goes out of his way to seek victims.

  A terrorist has a brain. Lightning doesn’t. When you close one door, the terrorist finds a window. Also, lightning hasn’t changed in billions of years. Terror changes more often than climate. As it adopts new technology, the body count rises.

  This concept of “terror change” is something that must be taken more seriously than climate change, which is slow and incremental. But “terror change” happens fast, and daily. Terrorists learn not simply from their successes, but also from their failures. They even learn from actions they didn’t take. For example: The Vegas terror attack instructed a whole new league of terrorists on the methods of death from above. It may be that, in the near future, open-air events will be obsolete because of that. Terror change should be on all our minds, not the dangers of unleaded gas.

  No longer involving a plane and a box cutter, it will be done with drones and anthrax. You can expect a major attack (using such weaponry) hitting a big city in the next decade.

  Sorry.

  Meanwhile, lone wolf attacks continue, caused by a zombie virus called radical Islam. So, don’t buy in to the binary choice between panic and relax. We need vigilance and a willingness to fight. The same goes with terror; we have to be right all the time. Terrorists, only once.

  It’s a logic lost on so many leaders armed with statistics, but little else.

  I get it—more people die from lightning than terror. But it’s a noncomparison. Fact is, no single strike of lightning is going to kill thousands [unless it sparks a fire] or millions. But one sole terror agent, armed with a dirty bomb, or a clever way to paralyze our power grid, can incapacitate an entire city population. So spare me the pseudo-intellectual stats. Cars kill more people. Opioids kill more people. But only one entity wants to end the planet. And they can be woefully inept—failing in 999 attempts out of a thousand. But when that thousandth attempt, which occurs after, say, a decade of trying, hits the target, we will long for the days of thunderbolt and lightning.

  September 28, 2016

  Around this time, a Skittles metaphor erupted on Twitter as a way to describe extreme vetting: To paraphrase, would you eat a bag of Skittles if you knew one Skittle was toxic? This was analogous to terrorists sneaking in through migration—one person among many is all you need to kill you, which explains the entire science behind security . . . yet everyone in media thought the comparison was evil. How silly and awful it is to compare people to candy! But they conveniently forgot how a metaphor works—especially since that metaphor makes a point that they cannot refute.

  FBI Director James Comey said the U.S. should expect a wave of terrorists once we get ISIS out of Iraq and Syria—roll it.

  COMEY: They will not all die on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq. There will be a terrorist diaspora, sometime in the next two to five years, like we’ve never seen before. We must prepare ourselves and our allies, especially in Western Europe, to confront that threat.

  Diaspora. I think I caught that at Chipotle. I was on the toilet for three days.

  So what’s he talking about? He’s talking about Skittles. Remember the meme, would you eat a bag of Skittles if you knew some were deadly? It describes how one might look at refugees in the age of ISIS.

  Today it’s easier for bad people to infiltrate good places and kill good people by blending in with good people fleeing bad places. So we’ve got to sift through the Skittles to make sure the good get in, not the bad.

  Wait. Did I just say humans are Skittles? No. I used a metaphor to describe the risk, which upsets the media. The media whose members likely majored in humanities in college, where they ODed on metaphors and similes, writing bad poetry in coffee shops.

  To the left, similes are like guns. They’re evil unless they have them. Note: That’s a simile. They’re not really guns.

  But Comey’s other warning: The killers aren’t abroad, but they’re now within. With homegrown evil, the Skittles thing doesn’t work anymore.

  What metaphor does?

  Our immune system.

  We spend time and money strengthening our body’s own defenses against threats within and without. Left or right, we all harden this soft targ
et with exercise, nutrition, preventative checkups. Why do we embrace this with our health but not with our nation? It’s a good question, one we must answer before our country catches something terminal.

  Comey got this one right. Too bad it wouldn’t last! But the human immune system is exactly how we should view our borders. We need to harden our bodies against illness—so, why not harden our country against foreign invaders [which, in a way, are like toxic bacteria and viruses]? Ideally, in my perfect world, America would be domed. And by domed, I mean protected by lifesaving killer drones that protect us from incoming attack. Maybe it’s what Ronald Reagan had in mind with the Strategic Defense Initiative. But he was too ahead of everyone else. But if you look at our country as a human body, SDI is no different than wearing SPF. Just very, very, very, expensive SPF.

  I loved that monologue because it illustrates the hypocrisy of the media/academic/entertainment complex, which allows them to indulge in metaphors and analogies—but no one else has that luxury. Hell, I took classes at Berkeley devoted to nothing but metaphors! And now they’re mad when I want to use one! It’s the only thing I’m able to remember from my education!

  October 25, 2016

  In case you missed it, we’re at war.

  Now, if there’s any group deserving our destructive wrath, it’s ISIS. They are basically Nazis without the fine tailoring. But the challenge isn’t their fearlessness. It’s the collateral damage. What we are seeing are heathens taking advantage of our own goodness—using human shields, knowing our humanity prevents us from wanting to harm them.

  It’s their lack of morality taking advantage of our wealth of the same. So what do we do? Sadly, the math. Human shields provide ISIS opportunities to continue fighting another day.

  So, will backing away now pave the way for a worse existential evil to come later? Their goal is martyrdom: The more dead, the merrier the afterlife.

  It’s a sick belief that sooner or later takes all of us with them. For when primitives replace pointed sticks with dirty bombs, their road to heaven is soaking the earth with blood.

  A plane flown into a building becomes quaint compared to the effect of a nuke on a major city.

  So, imagine that hellish decision made before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima.

  To prevent more deaths, involving hundreds and thousands or even millions, do you inflict a smaller but substantial horror?

  Now, no one wants to make these decisions. But do we have a choice?

  There’s no room for pacifism in the era of jihad.

  For while it’s true that no one wants a holy war, what if the holy war wants you?

  Hint to the left: It does. This monologue covers familiar ground, but it’s ground one must never get tired of covering. The fact is, we’ve never dealt with an enemy that not only wishes to win, but also to die. Built within this ideology is “victory as death, and death as victory”—and the more bodies you take with you to the afterlife, the better and faster your magnificent transport to heaven. Right now, radical Islamists just massacred three-hundred-plus fellow Muslims in Egypt [I write this on November 23, 2017]. Do you think those killers felt bad for their victims? Absolutely not. They assumed they were doing those men, women, and children A FAVOR by blowing their young lives to shreds. So when you realize the ugly reality, then you see that this isn’t so much an ideology as it is a disease whose main goal is to poison and kill the host, that is earth. Earth is just a way station for the miserable, waiting to die.

  The math is, sadly, against us. An average human lives on this planet for twenty-seven thousand days. Give a terrorist ten thousand days to plan his heavenly exit and multiply that by—on a conservative estimate—one hundred thousand terrorists, and you see that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that we could die at the hands of an existential maniac. Unless we come to grips with this mad reality. (Sorry if I ruined your day.)

  December 22, 2016

  It was big news. A Muslim man kicked off a Delta flight for speaking Arabic on the phone to his mother, freaking out Islamophobic passengers and the evil, evil airline. This outraged celebrities. Even actress Olivia Wilde vowed to boycott Delta. Yes! The great Olivia Wilde! And CNN’s Brian Stelter, who rails against fake news all the time, retweeted the victim’s video, which fanned the flames.

  He’s our nation’s hall monitor, his concern as sweaty as his forehead.

  But hold on, you heroic warriors of social justice! Stop indulging your assumptions for just one moment and you’ll find that this so-called victim is a renowned hoaxer who fakes events on planes. On his YouTube channel are videos of him, with titles like “Arabs on a plane,” “Speaking Arabic on a plane,” and “Counting down in Arabic on a plane.”

  And one that was so damn obvious—how did a CNN anchor fall for this?

  I sense a trend here.

  Recently he staged a fake video with a New York City cop harassing men in Muslim dress. It was fake. He even faked the story about boarding a plane in a suitcase. Fake. And there’s the time he claimed the Boston bombers were framed. He’s also a 9/11 truther. And still celebs in the media buy his shtick. This ghoul says that even though he’s cried wolf many times before, this time it’s real and he’s consulting a lawyer.

  So should Delta. Sue this divisive alienating a-hole.

  We must finally declare war on hoaxers, because once again, without evidence, so many swallow an attention-seeking drama, happily smearing a company and the innocent people that it employs. So who is worse? The hoaxer or his prodding enablers in the media? Hard to say. But in the meantime, until further notice, let’s make all of them walk.

  Can you imagine some jackass pulling this on your flight? I’m not a vengeful guy, but in a perfect world, after such incidents, every passenger gets to kick the guy in the shins as they exit the plane. It’s also amazing how none of the well-known sympathizers ever really have to answer for their slack-jawed gullibility. They can sympathize with this clown, publicly, but when he’s found out, they simply slink back into darkness. I’m sorry, if you supported this jackass, then you owe everyone an apology for being such a fundamental jerkwad. Final note to Olivia Wilde: Just because people know you’re a famous actress doesn’t make you smart, it only makes you a famous actress who is easily tricked.

  And you notice how Twitter warriors rarely delete the original tweets that got all the original “likes” and retweets? And of course, the follow-up tweet saying it was a hoax never gets as many eyeballs. But the attention-seekers wouldn’t have it any other way. [I include myself in that bunch!] Bottom line: We’re so addicted to the rush of adrenaline we get from mounting an attack on a perceived oppressor—we don’t bother to second-guess an obvious lie. We want to believe it so badly that we turn off all our tools of skepticism.

  Where Are We Now?

  I would love to end this chapter on an upbeat note. But that would be dishonest and dangerous. ISIS, for now, is crushed. But I say “for now,” for good reason. We know that ideology is deathless. When one form is crushed, another far more gruesome kind takes its place. ISIS, after all, was just a bastard offspring of the creeps who came before them.

  So, what scares me? That we assume this stuff is over. It’s never over. Ever. We will live with this kind of apocalyptic existential threat as long as radical Islam exists.

  What really scares me? That the marriage of technology and terror makes it simpler for one creep to do the work of millions. You don’t need a ton of terrorists anymore. You just need one. Our world has truly become a James Bond thriller. Whether it’s attacking a stadium with a drone packed with anthrax, or polluting a water system, or paralyzing a power grid—it’s not the number of crazed jihadists that matters but how inventive and surprising the latest enemy is. And the difference between this enemy and those of old is that these aren’t playing to win on battlefield earth. This is all about heaven. So they’re perfectly fine with dying, and taking thousands, or millions, with them. This is why our diligence must be never-en
ding.

  See, I told you I wasn’t ending on an upbeat note.

  CHAPTER FIVE

  THE ENVIRONMENT

  For the eight years before the election of Donald Trump, we were reminded of two eternal truths, drummed into our heads by both the media and the Obama White House:

  • Earth was going to hell in a fiery handbasket made of smaller fiery handbaskets.

  • And it was our fault.

  These coupled beliefs drove almost every moral decision: Somehow our callous treatment of the earth was leading us to a man-made Armageddon (“managgedon”), and unless we disavow our addiction to oil and embrace windmills, solar panels, and edible compost, we are deservedly doomed to die.

  After a while, most Americans just grew tired of the tirades. Although, I never got tired of writing about them.

  These monologues focus on the absurdity of our modern times: that we had a president, a media, and an academic culture that found carbon more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. Living in a luxury country buffeted by oceans, we could debate about the consequences of plastic bottles, air-conditioning, and cattle flatulence, while families are butchered in other countries over some insane belief. If there’s anything I learned from the last decade, it’s that the more removed you are from real threats, the dumber you are about real threats.

  Back in the summer of 2011, a new report suggested that climate change could lead to mental illness. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that one in five people report emotional injury, stress, and despair after extreme weather, which they link to climate change. A lot of global warming science looks like this—hypothetical bias designed to foster guilt, fear, and grant money. Let’s be clear. Emotional injury and stress are not mental illness. They’re normal responses to bad stuff like natural disasters. The real mental illness comes from other factors. But their key message is this: If you were a little more green, people wouldn’t be so ill. Which makes me think climate change doesn’t cause mental illness. Mental illness causes climate change hysteria. Or rather, the harmful Chicken Little mentality causes panic-obsessed PhDs to conjure up any harmful problem and link it to climate change, which then leads to junk science. Think about everything we’re told that is caused by global warming—which includes acne, bee stings, bird loss, even cannibalism. That’s a few, but the list keeps going. Ultimately, hysteria creates a hellish fantasy that addles the brain of its believers. No wonder Al Gore has lost it. He’s about four years away from wandering a local parkway in a opened shorty robe with a beard down to his belly button.