Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 18, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

43:24

Ep. 334 - The Grisly Story The Media Is Ignoring

A deranged abortionist kept trophies of the babies he killed. We'll talk about why the media is terrified of this story. Also, a "seminary" has its students confess their sins to plants (yes, really). And we'll talk about the pros and cons of giving the Left a taste of its own medicine. Date: 09-18-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know, I'm not normally a fan of outrage mobs, but this is one mob that I can get behind, that I can join, even.
	People are outraged because the CEO of Sony hinted that Sony might be cooking up a remake to The Princess Bride.
	And I swear, if they do that, if they do that, there will be riots in the streets.
	And I will be there, too, throwing bricks in windows, And doing whatever else.
	I've been waiting for an excuse to join a riot, and this might actually be it.
	Just leave The Princess Bride alone, sonny.
	Just leave it alone.
	There are some movies that are... There's no conceivable way to improve upon them.
	They're nearly perfect as they are, and this is one of those.
	Here's an idea.
	If you want to make a movie that's sort of like The Princess Bride, a movie that's inspired by it,
	a movie that's in the same vein as it, then just make that movie.
	There used to be this concept of genre in film where you'd have a bunch of movies
	that have similar themes, similar kinds of plots, but aren't exactly the same.
	And that's what we call a genre.
	But now it's just every movie's the same.
	So if someone says, you know, I think we should make a movie about people in space, you know, and it's, oh, another Star Wars movie.
	No, no, no, just another movie about people in space.
	Oh, yeah, Star Wars, definitely.
	Let's make another Star Wars.
	You don't really have to do that.
	My God, can you imagine what they would do to this movie?
	Can you imagine the woke remake, the woke-ification of Princess Bride?
	Princess Buttercup is a feminist bisexual.
	The movie ends when she gives Prince Humperdinck an empowering lecture about consent.
	And he realizes the error of his ways and lets him go, and then she flees into the arms of Wesley, and they agree to have a polyamorous relationship.
	And of course, you have to make one of the male characters gay.
	Probably Fezzik, I guess, the giant.
	And then the Spaniard is trans.
	The trans-yard, we would call him.
	Anyway, just leave this one alone, is all I'm saying.
	We have to draw a line somewhere, for God's sakes.
	And I think this is where we draw the line.
	All right, plenty to get to today.
	And first out of the gate, we're going to talk About something that is related to the unborn here in a second.
	But on that topic, the Right to Life UK, the organization Right to Life, the UK branch of Right to Life, points out on Twitter that The Guardian, which is a major left-wing newspaper in the UK, they have this morning on their front page Um, a reference to unborn babies.
	Using that phrase, unborn babies, on the front page of the Guardian.
	And Right to Life is, understandably, celebrating the fact that this left-wing news organization has finally decided to use humanizing language about the unborn, because that's very unusual.
	You never hear the phrase, or read the phrase, unborn babies in the left-wing media.
	Um, except, Wait a minute.
	I think we should hold off on throwing a parade just yet, because what's the headline?
	The headline is, again, front page, right there.
	The headline is, Unborn Babies Exposed to Toxic Air Pollution.
	And the article is all about how unborn babies are affected by air pollution.
	So, you see, when pollution is harming unborn babies, then they're unborn babies.
	But when abortionists are doing the harming, when it's an abortion drug doing the polluting, well, then they're fetuses again.
	In other words, they're babies when it's politically expedient for them to be babies, and they're fetuses when it's politically expedient for them to be fetuses.
	So this is not an improvement, I'm afraid to say.
	This, in fact, is a really stark example of the problem, where we grant unborn humans personhood based on what's most convenient for us.
	So it's entirely arbitrary.
	So we can't even really say that the pro-abortion side has dehumanized the unborn.
	That actually would be too consistent.
	In a way, we give them too much credit when we say that.
	Because that would seem to imply that they at least have some sort of consistent narrative about what the unborn child actually is, but they don't.
	Whether or not the being in the womb is a person really just depends on politics, on convenience.
	It just depends.
	It really depends.
	So it's entirely arbitrary.
	So when you ask, well, where do you draw the line?
	When is the baby a person?
	The answer is they don't draw the line anywhere.
	At least not anywhere.
	They have no one place where they draw the line.
	What they would ask you is, well, what's the situation?
	So that humanity, the very definition of what constitutes a person, is now situational.
	And this provides a transition into the topic I want to discuss to begin with, because The Guardian has another story, or they had another story a few days ago, different story, only in this, and this is a good example, in this headline the babies were fetuses again.
	Here's the headline.
	More than 2,000 fetal remains found at home of former Indiana abortion doctor.
	Now the media, the leftist media, has given as little attention to this story as they can possibly get away with.
	They have had to at least mention it, because it's too big to completely ignore.
	So they mention it, they do their article, and they do their little segment on it, and then they move on quickly, and that's what they've done.
	But it is a big story.
	An abortionist named Ulrich Klopfer recently died, and it was discovered after his death that he had the medically preserved, quote-unquote, bodies of over 2,000 aborted babies in his home in Indiana.
	He had these trophies in his home.
	2,000!
	Think about it, 2,000 in his home.
	LifeSite News has, but this is, now, in that case, they're fetuses.
	Because the Guardian is never going to say, oh, he had the remains of 2,000 babies.
	Because if you do that, well, now that just makes abortion sound horrifying.
	That makes abortionists sound like serial killers, which they are.
	But the Guardian's not going to.
	So all of a sudden, they're back to being fetuses there.
	LifeSite News has more.
	More information about this lovely man and the crimes he committed says the bodies of 2,246 aborted babies were found in the home of a recently deceased abortionist who previously operated in 2020 Democrat contender Mayor Pete Buttigieg's South Bend, Indiana.
	Abortionist Dr. Ulrich Klopfer committed abortions at the Women's Pavilion in South Bend, Indiana.
	Home to the University of Notre Dame, and at other Indiana facilities until his medical license was suspended in 2016.
	As the Watchdog Group Operation Rescue has extensively documented, Klopfer had a history of abuses, including failing to report statutory rape of a 13-year-old and a 10-year-old.
	He sent the latter home with her parents, who knew their daughter was raped by her uncle, but didn't want him prosecuted.
	And they didn't report it to the police.
	Klopfer is far from the only abortionist to do this.
	This is very common.
	But think about that.
	A 10-year-old girl raped by a family member, her despicable evil parents don't want to report it to police, and Klopfer goes along with it.
	Well, why is that?
	Because Klopfer's a monster.
	Back to the article, says the Will County Sheriff's Office announced on September 13th that an attorney representing the family of Dr. Ulrich Klopfer called the County Coroner's Office on September 12th to inform them that while going through the doctor's personal property, they discovered what appeared to be fetal remains and requested that Will County Coroner's Office provide proper removal.
	And then skipping ahead a little bit, they go in, they find these 2,246 dead babies.
	Although they say that there is no evidence that any medical procedures
	were conducted at the property.
	So this raises the question of, was he performing illegal abortions or something in the home?
	They say there's no evidence of that.
	And then LifeSiteNews points out that this would raise the possibility that they were aborted in Indiana and then transported across state lines, which would be a federal crime, which would mean the federal government has to get involved.
	Now, why would this weirdo, this freak, And yes, in this case, I will happily speak ill of the dead.
	The dead, in this case, being the dead Klopfer.
	Why would this disgusting freak of a person have 2,000 dead children preserved in his home?
	Well, because he was a serial killer.
	And this is what serial killers do.
	And this is why, as I said, this is why the media has just glanced at this story and moved on as fast as they possibly could.
	Because it brings to light a really uncomfortable fact and it raises uncomfortable questions about the psychology of people who go into the business of killing babies.
	And this guy isn't the only one, alright?
	This isn't one case.
	Gosnell, you may remember, had a bunch of trophies that he kept.
	Mainly the hands and feet of aborted, of his victims.
	He kept in jars and so on in his office, in his home.
	Again, why?
	Why would he do this?
	For the same reason any serial killer does it.
	I say this raises uncomfortable questions for the pro-abortion side.
	Of course, it raises many questions, but one of them is, is it really possible for someone to get into the business of abortion?
	To do this every day?
	To butcher babies every day?
	And not end up a deeply disturbed and deranged person?
	Now you'll say, you have to be deeply disturbed and deranged to get into the business in the first place, and that's true.
	But the job itself, doing the job, I think has the effect of killing off whatever was left of your conscience.
	Whatever conscience you might have had.
	However compromised, going into this job, I think, will be obliterated by the job.
	There's no way you can retain it.
	Think about the Nazis at Nuremberg.
	The famous phrase, the banality of evil, which comes from the Nazis at Nuremberg, and just how they appeared to be these... They weren't comic book villains who were laughing maniacally about the horrible things they did.
	These were just empty people.
	Blank expressions, they appeared to be almost bored talking about the slaughter they carried out.
	Because they had done so much evil for so long that they had lost their souls, they had lost their conscience.
	Think about, and then that brings to mind, think about the undercover Planned Parenthood videos, which Dave Dalyden of Center for Medical Progress is in the process of being legally persecuted.
	For those videos.
	But think about that.
	Think about the... You remember the joke that one of the abortionists made about she'll get a Lamborghini for selling dead baby parts.
	There was that kind of thing.
	Laughing, joking about it.
	Somehow even more unsettling, though, was in many of the videos, what you saw is kind of like, again, the Nazis at Nuremberg.
	Just this serial killer kind of look.
	Where they're so casual about it.
	So almost bored with it.
	That you think, these are people, there's just nothing left inside, their soul is dead.
	Men without chests, as what C.S.
	Lewis would describe.
	People without a conscience anymore, and that's what you have here.
	But the media doesn't want us talking about that, they don't want us realizing that.
	Makes them very uncomfortable, and so that's why they move on from the story, even though it is a huge, huge story.
	Alright.
	A couple of the things I wanted to talk about, and we'll start with this.
	This is some comic relief, I guess, kind of a palate cleanser after the sick and disturbing stuff we just talked about.
	Union Theological Seminary is a source of never-ending hilarity, if you can find it within yourself to find heresy funny.
	Which most of the time I can't, but in this case I kind of do because I just can't help it.
	Union Theological Seminary is a heretical outfit.
	They teach a completely insane version of Christianity, if we can even call it that.
	And they sent out a tweet today, and this is not a joke, okay?
	I promise you it's not a joke.
	This is real.
	Take a look at this.
	Here's the tweet.
	The tweet says, Today in chapel we confessed to plants.
	Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt, and sorrow in prayer, offering them to the beings who sustain us, but whose gift we too often fail to honor.
	What do you confess to the plants in your life?
	I have to say nothing, is what I confess to the plants in my life.
	There's a picture of a person, and if you're not watching right now, you can't see this.
	There's a picture of a person sitting and talking to a group of plants, while a bunch of other people sit and watch this exchange, which I have to assume was a rather one-sided conversation.
	If you're confessing to plants, and they give you a penance to do or something, if they respond, If they start, then you know that there's really a concern here.
	But all those people watching, here's what's striking about this photo.
	Well, the whole thing is striking, but if I had to point to one particular thing, all of those people watching as this woman sits and talks to plants, none of those people are even smirking.
	I mean, could you physically be in that room while this is happening and not at a minimum smirk?
	None of them are.
	They're just sitting there, just sitting there, business as usual.
	And that's how you know the brainwashing is really working.
	I imagine that the people who run the Union Theological Seminary were kind of standing off to the side off-camera and rubbing their hands together and saying, yes, yes, it's working.
	Um, look, all I can say is that I think based on that picture, they are taking veggie tales way too literally.
	That's, I think that's really the problem here.
	I wonder, I wonder how these people can manage to walk across like a grassy field.
	How do they do that?
	They're walking across.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	Um, do they apologize to their Caesar salad before eating it?
	Because that has to be an awkward conversation.
	Listen, I don't know how to tell you this, But I'm going to, well, I'm going to consume you.
	I am really sorry about that.
	Please don't take it personally.
	Or do they not eat salad at all?
	Because that's really my question.
	And I always wonder this, because the people who are most likely to be idolaters of, you know, to engage in this idolatry of plants, and this is what you're looking at there, that's paganism, okay?
	So this is grade A paganism on display.
	But the people who are most likely to do that are also the people who you know just are almost certainly vegan.
	There's just no chance they're not vegan.
	But then there's this obvious contradiction here, because you're worshipping plants, but then those are also the only things you eat.
	Or do you not eat plants?
	How does that work?
	I mean, assuming you don't eat animals, But you don't eat plants because, you know, plants have feelings too.
	I mean, you can't very well confess your sins to someone and then eat them.
	Look, if that becomes the process, that's going to cause a lot of problems in the Catholic Church.
	Things are going to get pretty dicey for priests.
	So then how does that work?
	So you don't eat meat, you don't eat plants.
	What do you eat?
	Ceramic?
	You just, whatever someone gives you, you dump the food off the plate and eat the plate?
	One last thing to think about here is, can you imagine how these people would have reacted if they saw Jesus curse the fig tree?
	I mean, the Son of God would have got a talking to on that one.
	Can you just imagine them witnessing that scene?
	I wonder if... Do they even... They must rip that part... They must do whiteout over that part of the Bible, because that would be way too traumatizing if they were to realize that Jesus, who they probably think was a hippie vegan socialist, to realize that he cursed a fig tree.
	All right.
	Moving on.
	So this is interesting, and I'm interested in your take on this.
	An editor at the New York Times, and the New York Times has really been stepping in it a lot recently, and here we go again.
	This time it's an editor at the New York Times named Gina Cheroulouse, probably not how you pronounce it, but that's the best I can do, who apparently has a long history of offensive, quote-unquote, tweets.
	Some conservatives went through her Twitter history.
	I don't know why they selected her for this treatment.
	I'm not sure, but they did.
	And they went through and they found a bunch of social media posts going back, most back 8, 9, 10 years ago.
	But a bunch of posts that, by the current rules, are racist, homophobic, etc.
	Now, Gina herself is a black woman, so she might get away with some of this stuff.
	There's a lot of stuff where she's insulting white people.
	Now, that she can do all day.
	No one's going to have a problem with that.
	But there's also a lot of the homophobic stuff, which her being a black woman, that's not going to help her there.
	Remember the victim pyramid, the victim hierarchy on the left, and remember that at the LGBT, they're at the very top of it.
	So you're not, now if you're a black woman, you're pretty close to the top, you're not at the very top.
	So that could get her into some trouble.
	And for example, she uses the D word for lesbians, she uses the F word for gay men, she even uses the Q word too, the trifecta.
	She has the homophobia trifecta, all three words.
	Now, a lot of conservatives are saying, saying, hey, you know, these are your rules.
	Now your life has to be destroyed, too.
	OK?
	We're going to play this game by your rules.
	And she did apologize for the tweets, but the response to her apology from a lot of conservatives has been, too bad.
	Too bad, you're sorry.
	Your life has to be ruined, you have to be fired.
	You don't accept it when other people apologize, so we don't accept your apologies.
	Now it's your turn to fall on that sword.
	And... So, look, first of all, I just said yesterday that, objectively, it's very silly to get all outraged about offensive stuff people said in the past.
	Because we've all said offensive stuff.
	I just went on this spiel yesterday.
	We've all said offensive stuff.
	All of us have many times in our lives.
	The offensive stuff we've all said, it may be different genres of offensive, but we've all said offensive things.
	So digging up offensive comments and feigning outrage is disingenuous, stupid, malicious, and so on.
	And hypocritical.
	And I've also said that nobody should ever apologize in these situations.
	Don't apologize to people who are only pretending to be outraged.
	And in these situations, in every case, the people who are demanding the apology are not really offended.
	Their feelings aren't really hurt.
	And even if their feelings are hurt, I would still say you probably shouldn't apologize.
	But they're not, so that's even more real.
	Why would you apologize to someone who is only feigning outrage?
	So, that's what I've said in the past.
	I stand by it.
	But on the other hand, the argument from the other side is, hey, you know, she's a leftist with the New York Times.
	She has her self-endorsed cancel culture, as it's come to be known.
	This culture of quote-unquote canceling people, you know, getting them fired, shutting them down, ostracizing them, alienating them because of things that they've said that, you know, are politically incorrect or whatever.
	And she's been a part of that.
	Even yesterday, she was retweeting uh things that were in that were approving uh the the shane you know shane gillis the snl guy him get him getting cancelled she was she seemed to approve of that and so she should take her own medicine that's the argument and that's the only way leftists will learn is if they are forced to experience it themselves and and that that that seems to be the attitude and the approach of a lot of conservatives
	Where they're saying, let's take this stuff and throw it right back in their face.
	I understand that argument.
	Okay?
	I get it.
	It makes sense.
	Hoist them with their own petard.
	It's well-deserved.
	No question about that.
	I'm not going to deny that.
	I mean, if you're out there saying, cancel this person because of the stuff they said, and yet you said similar stuff, then shouldn't you be canceled too?
	Haven't you, in effect, cancelled yourself already?
	So I get all that.
	I understand the logic.
	And in a way, it's sort of impeccable logic.
	But, however, I still can't get behind this.
	I can't get behind digging up dirt on leftists and calling them for them to be fired and all of that.
	Yeah, I guess I can't get behind treating them exactly as they treat us.
	And I'll tell you why, okay?
	I want to give you my reasons.
	And my reasons have nothing to do with not having the stomach for it, with being squeamish, with being a wimp about it.
	It's nothing to do... I have the stomach to go toe-to-toe with these people.
	I think you know if you've been following me for any length of time.
	I'm not squeamish.
	I have no issue with upsetting them, with having people be outraged at me, with fighting, whatever you want.
	I got no issue with that.
	I'll do that all day long.
	And I think, as I said, if you follow me, you know, if you listen to the show, whatever, you read my stuff for any length of time, I think you know that's true.
	So, and that's the problem, is that anytime any conservative tries to say, well, maybe this isn't the right approach, they're always accused, ah, you wimp, ah, you're just lying down, bowing to the left.
	No.
	There may be some conservatives who do lie down and bow to the left, but you know that I don't do that.
	That's not the way that I play the game.
	I have different reasons for it, and I'll tell you what my reasons are.
	Number one, it's transparently disingenuous.
	It requires us to act like we're offended by something that we clearly are not offended by.
	And I have a problem with being disingenuous in general.
	I find it to be the most repulsive trait in people.
	I really hate it.
	It's the one thing about a person that repels me the most, is being disingenuous in a person I find really repulsive.
	And so I can't do it myself.
	I just can't.
	Constitutionally, I cannot do it.
	And anyway, even aside from that, it's pointless.
	Because if everybody knows you're faking it, and you know it, and everyone else knows it, then what's the point?
	So if we're sitting here and we're saying, why?
	Why?
	I never.
	She used this language in a tweet.
	I find this scandalous.
	I'm going to faint.
	If we're playing that game, meanwhile, we don't really give a crap, which we don't, and we shouldn't.
	I mean, you don't really care about what this woman said in a tweet 10 years ago.
	You don't care.
	I don't care what she said.
	She could have said anything.
	She could have said the most horrible things you can imagine.
	I really don't care at all.
	It does not upset me or offend me.
	It doesn't.
	And so I can't pretend it does.
	And if I did, everybody would know I'm pretending.
	So why?
	Now, second thing, more to the point, what is our argument?
	And this really is, put everything else aside, this really is the point.
	What is our argument?
	Okay, when the left goes and they do their thing, and they try to destroy people based on past comments and tweets and whatever, what's our argument?
	Okay, what's our argument against that approach?
	At least I'll tell you my argument.
	I think this is all of our arguments.
	Our argument is not, oh, you shouldn't do that to this particular person because we happen to like this person.
	So when they did this, for example, to Kevin Hart with the whole Oscar thing.
	And almost every conservative, even though Kevin Hart is, I don't think, a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
	But every conservative, they were coming out, they were saying, this is ridiculous.
	And our argument wasn't, oh, don't do this to poor Kevin Hart.
	Kevin Hart, he's got a heart of gold.
	He's such a wonderful guy.
	Don't do this to Kevin Hart.
	No, really, it wasn't about Kevin Hart specifically.
	It was just, don't do this in general to people.
	A joke he made on Twitter 10 years ago, whether you like the joke or not, is not a reason for a professional for getting him fired from a job and all that stuff now.
	So that's our argument.
	It would be a very weak and non-winning argument for us to respond and say, oh, don't do that to this particular person because we happen to like them.
	Why would anyone listen to that argument?
	No, our argument is against cancel culture in general.
	Our counterattack is that this whole thing of digging up dirt, trying to ruin people, is BS.
	It's wrong.
	It's dishonest.
	It's manipulative.
	It's hypocritical.
	It's stupid.
	It's petty.
	We oppose it.
	That's our argument, isn't it?
	Well, if we then turn around and do it ourselves, even in retribution, Then we've just forfeited the general on-principle argument against cancel culture.
	We've forfeited the argument against it by participating in it.
	And the problem is that it's a really good argument that we're making.
	And this is point number three.
	Related to point number two.
	This is why I don't want to forfeit our in-general, in-principle argument against this kind of thing.
	It's that our argument is right and it's winning.
	It is a winning argument.
	I think, and I really believe this, more and more people Even people who are ideologically aligned with leftist values in many ways.
	There are a lot of people in that camp who are saying, yeah, I agree with them on a number of things, but I just can't be associated with this because of this.
	The political correctness, all this stuff.
	There are a lot of people who are just the outrage mobs, everything.
	The malicious, petty, disingenuous, hypocritical way that they go about things.
	I think that is alienated, not just right-wingers who we don't like them anyway, but it's alienated a lot of people who are in the middle and a lot of people even on the left who otherwise would be, you know, marching alongside them, but they just can't go along with it.
	So it is a winning argument.
	And, uh, and.
	I think if the right, if conservatives, whatever that even means anymore, have any chance of winning back the culture, I think it's going to have a lot to do with the left's behavior and us standing on the other side and saying, that's wrong, this is ridiculous.
	For us to be the sort of, even putting ideology aside, for us to be the common sense, consistent Just logical people who can sit there with some of this madness and say, come on guys, this is crazy.
	No, no, no, no.
	As simple as that argument is, it's very appealing to a lot of people and I don't want to sacrifice.
	I think we are sacrificing it and we are throwing ourselves into the muck and therefore losing a lot of the converts that we could otherwise win.
	And not by sucking up to them, but just by being consistent and strong-willed and logical and rational.
	Being that way, I think, wins people.
	It's not weakness at all.
	To be rational and consistent is not weak.
	It's the opposite of weak.
	That is strength.
	And to have a little bit of self-control and exercise a little bit of prudence and to say sometimes, yeah, you know what?
	We could get a scalp here.
	We could take this person down by their own rules.
	But you know what?
	We're not going to do it.
	It's not worth it.
	That person isn't worth it.
	That's what we should say.
	Someone like this Gina, whoever her name is, I mean, who the hell is she?
	Who cares?
	Yeah, you could take the scalp, you could get her fired, you can, you know, sound the trumpets and dance a jig because you got that little scalp.
	But who cares?
	She's not anybody.
	Okay?
	All we've really accomplished is that we have once again forfeited our winning argument.
	There's cancel culture and we are supposed to be the ones against it, saying this is wrong.
	And I see this a lot now on the right with conservatives.
	I think we are forfeiting a lot of winning arguments.
	Unnecessarily.
	And we are, in effect, joining the left and adopting their mentality and their philosophy in an attempt to beat them, which of course is ridiculous.
	Because if we become them, then they win.
	What in the end does it mean to win?
	What are they trying to do?
	They're trying to claim the culture.
	To win, in this sense, ideologically, is for the culture, for almost everyone or most people in the culture, to adopt their way of thinking and their philosophy and their worldview.
	If that happens, then they win.
	That's what winning means in this case.
	And so when we join them and use their tactics, then that's them winning.
	Even if we claim one of their scalps in the meantime, they still win overall.
	And so I think that's a mistake.
	All right, let's go to emails.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com.
	This is from Channa.
	I think Channa is C-H-A-N-N-A.
	Hello future Supreme Dictator Matt, congratulations on your fourth kid.
	I was just wondering how you go about choosing possible baby names?
	Do your kids have biblical names?
	Do you name them after family members?
	Or do you just pick names you like?
	You know, in all honesty, I think we just pick names we like.
	Now this is probably not the answer my wife would give.
	And if I was, you know, maybe it's not always the answer I would give, but I think in reality, We do just pick names we like.
	We pick names that we think sound good.
	And then retroactively, we try to justify them by finding a biblical figure, or saint, or historical figure, or family member.
	You know, go to Ancestry.com, just like, find somebody.
	And so that we could feel like the name has more meaning than it does.
	But I think where it's, and that is probably true for most people, that when it comes down to it, you're trying to find a name that you just think sounds good, and that you can imagine a kid having.
	Uh, and living with for their whole lives.
	And so we start there and then we think, well, but we don't want to, cause you know, people are going to ask us, why'd you pick that name?
	And we want to have some profound sounding reason.
	And so we go look for one.
	Think of an aim, go flip through the Bible.
	You know, is it in there somewhere?
	Um, that's, that's basically our, our process.
	All right.
	This is from Justin says.
	Hi Matt, love the show, appreciate all you're doing.
	I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the fact that it's been nearly 2,000 years since Jesus' death and every generation since then has anticipated His return, but yet here we all are all these years later and it hasn't happened.
	I've been a Christian for most of my life and I was brought up to believe, maybe mistakenly, in the imminent return of Jesus, but I've been struggling lately with the question, where is Christ and when will He ever return?
	Anyway, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
	Thanks.
	Yeah, I think... I think... You hear a lot of people these days, even, which is what you're alluding to, a lot of Christians who say, oh yeah, we're living in the end times, this is it, this is the end times.
	It couldn't possibly go on any later than this.
	I think the people who say that, if they only had... I think all they would have to do is just study history.
	Before you go declaring, oh, this is the end times for sure, this is it.
	Before you declare that, just pick up a history book and study history, and what you'll discover is that every single generation, going back before Jesus, ...has assumed that their generation was the last one.
	Every single one.
	It's just one generation after another.
	Oh, this is it.
	Nope.
	Oh, this is it.
	Nope.
	Oh, no, this is definitely it.
	Nope.
	Oh, no, no.
	This is it right now.
	If you take a historical view of it, you realize how silly it is.
	At a certain point, it's like, clearly...
	We're reading the signs wrong here, and we probably should just stop predicting, because we're going to be just one generation in the thousands that have said, this is definitely it!
	It's the end!
	So you can't do that.
	I think the Bible makes it clear, too.
	No one will know the day or hour.
	And so these are predictions that just can't be made.
	And in fact, I mean, you could sit there and point out all these, oh, well, look at what's happening here in the world and here and there.
	I mean, this has to be the end time.
	Look, okay, but think about what previous generations have gone through.
	Think about World War II, or World War I. The entire world, or much of the civilized world anyway, is literally at war.
	Or go back to when you had epidemics wiping out large swaths of the population across the civilized world.
	The flu epidemic, the Black Plague.
	I mean, think about being someone, a peasant in Western Europe, while the Black Plague was just decimating and killing huge percentages of people all across that region of the world.
	Would you have a pretty good reason to assume that this is the end?
	This is the apocalypse?
	Yeah, but it wasn't.
	Black Plague came, killed a lot of people, it went away.
	It didn't completely go away, but you know what I'm saying.
	The epidemic happened, it ended, and that's it.
	And so all throughout history there's been that.
	So, yeah, I think we at a certain point just have to stop trying to predict it.
	And there is something I think also sort of morbid and weird, certainly morbid, but also I would argue kind of weird about it.
	That we're living our whole lives just waiting for the end of the world?
	You think that's really what God wants?
	And I joke about this, too, all the time.
	Anytime you hear about an asteroid that came within... Well, they call it a close call if it came within 100 million miles.
	That was a close call!
	Phew!
	Um, and every time I hear about one of those, I say, ah, man, maybe next time, maybe, maybe we'll have better luck next time.
	But in reality, that's a joke.
	I mean, I don't actually want the world to be destroyed.
	Okay.
	Let me just, I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't really want the destruction of the world.
	Uh, I don't think that's how God wants us to live.
	I think he wants us to live our lives.
	We have a life, live it.
	Don't live every day, just waiting for the world to be destroyed.
	That's kind of, it's a weird way to live.
	And, uh, I, I just, I don't think that that's why we're given life.
	Now, I'm not going to get in, I'm not saying, you know, YOLO, you only live once, go, go, live, do whatever you want.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	I'm just saying that we are certainly given life to live it, at a minimum, and sitting around waiting for the end of all things doesn't seem like living.
	It just seems like waiting, treading water, and I don't think that's what we're meant to do.
	All right, finally, this is from Simon, says, you talked a lot about pronouns yesterday, and you drew the comparison between demanding that other people use the wrong pronouns and having pet peeves.
	You said that you can't demand that people act differently because you have a pet peeve, and you used people eating bagels as an example.
	However, I wonder if that holds true when you see people FaceTiming in public without earbuds on, or if someone chooses to sit next to you on the bus, even though there are no other passengers on board.
	Is this an inconsistency in your statement or is there a difference between the two?
	Please have mercy on me and my family when you gain power in spite of my rude question.
	Well, mercy you certainly, Simon, cannot rely upon.
	But you can rely upon justice.
	I will promise you that.
	And in your case it will be swift.
	And likely fatal.
	Uh, what I will say, yeah, I have in the past complained about people who FaceTime in public without putting earbuds on, uh, people who are sitting next to you on a plane and the seat right next to you, even though there are other free seats on the plane where they can get up and move and give you all some room.
	And you're saying, isn't that a pet peeve?
	Aren't I being hypocritical?
	Well, the answer is no, because as I said, a pet peeve is something that you are unreasonably annoyed by.
	Okay.
	It is a normal, Perfectly fine activity that people are engaging in that for whatever reason because of the way you're wired, you find annoying.
	That's a pet peeve.
	But if it actually is a rude or strange thing, then it's not a pet peeve.
	It's perfectly rational to be annoyed by it.
	So you can't say, oh, it's my pet peeve when people cut me off in traffic.
	No, that's just something that annoys you because it's rude and dangerous to cut people off in traffic.
	So it's very logical for you to be annoyed by it.
	Now, people who FaceTime in public without even bothering to put headphones on And when they could just be talking on the phone instead, forcing us all to listen to their banal, uninteresting, insufferable conversation.
	That is not only rude, but psychotic behavior.
	And so I have every right to be enraged by it.
	Here's what I'll say.
	I think I am certainly within my moral rights, and I would argue even my legal rights, if you're sitting at a coffee shop on FaceTime.
	I, within my moral and legal rights to come over, take your phone, bring it into the bathroom and put it in the toilet and flush the toilet.
	I am, that would be totally justified in doing that.
	And yeah, when you're, if you're sitting in a middle seat on a plane and there's someone, you know, on the window seat and nobody shows up for the aisle seat and you don't move over again, that is psychotic behavior.
	That is a sign that you are a dangerous person, even.
	That's a reason, it would be justified in that case to get up and find the Air Marshal and say, I have suspicions of it.
	See something, say something.
	And this is one of those things.
	Because that is just not normal human behavior.
	All right, but thank you for that question.
	We'll leave it there.
	Thanks everybody for watching.
	Thanks for listening.
	Godspeed.
	If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other Gelliwire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
	Thanks for listening.
	The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Donovan Fowler.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
	But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

▲