Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the mask mandates are returning and you aren’t allowed to question it. This is how “science” works now. Namely, like religious dogma. Also we have our five headlines including the Capitol officers continuing their media tour, a former president of Planned Parenthood says she was shocked to discover that Planned Parenthood only cares about abortion, and gender theory begins to make in roads into medical school. In our Daily Cancellation, I will respond to the outraged masses that have been trying to cancel me over the past two days. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the mask mandates are returning, and you're not allowed to question it.
This is how science works now, namely, like religious dogma.
Also, we have our five headlines, including the Capitol officers continuing their media tour, and a former president of Planned Parenthood says that she was shocked to discover that Planned Parenthood only cares about abortion.
What do you know?
And gender theory begins to make inroads into medical school, which is a terrifying thought.
In our daily cancellation, I will respond to the outraged masses that have been trying to cancel me.
Over the past two days, it'll be another inspiring reverse cancellation.
All that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
I want to begin today by talking about masks and vaccines.
Just a little bit of behind-the-scenes information here.
You should know that our big tech overlords have placed many landmines just under the surface when it comes to this subject, and you step on one and they take you down.
You're blown up to smithereens and you're done.
They don't want us asking any questions about masks, about vaccines, about anything.
Except they can't come out directly and say, don't ask any questions about any of these subjects.
Instead, they have a whole list of statements that you're not allowed to make.
Statements that are anti-scientific, they say.
Claims that are misinformation, they claim.
Can't say any of that.
And if you make those statements, they'll simply take your platform away and that'll be the end of it.
Now, I know some of you listening are probably saying, well, hey, don't let the man control you, man.
Charge out there, step on those minds to prove a point.
Blow yourself up on principle, on purpose.
There is something that seems noble about that, I admit, and appealing on an emotional level, except that that's exactly what they want you to do.
Because then you're gone and your voice is gone and they don't have to worry about you anymore.
They want the excuse to silence you.
So the game, I think, is to speak the truth and question the narrative and never speak untruth ever under any circumstance without performing an act of intentional self-immolation at the same time.
But the fact that these rules are in place should really tell you something.
It tells you that none of this has anything to do with science.
Here's how you know that someone or some institution or some social media platform doesn't care about science.
If they don't want you to ask questions.
That's a dead giveaway.
Because science welcomes questions.
Scientifically minded people are eager for questions.
They want their positions to be challenged.
And if that sounds rare, if it sounds rare that you would actually encounter someone who likes it when their positions are challenged, well, it just tells you that scientifically minded people are rare.
Science that cannot be challenged is not science.
It is dogma.
Telling someone that they shouldn't question the science.
I mean, it's like a fitness instructor telling someone that they shouldn't physically move.
You go for a physical fitness training and the first thing they tell you is, I don't know, don't move, just stay right there, sit down, sit down, don't move.
There is no physical fitness that doesn't involve movement, just as there's no scientific process that doesn't involve questioning.
There is no settled science either.
That doesn't exist.
Especially because there is no single cosmic scientific authority who can come along and declare it settled.
When people talk about, oh, it's settled science.
Who exactly decided that it was?
Who determined that?
Science constantly evolves, constantly questions itself, constantly learns new things.
Science is also transparent.
If an institution makes a claim, or a mandate, or a recommendation, and they won't tell you why they've made it, or show you the data that led to that decision, then that institution is not a scientific institution.
And that's why the CDC, for example, is not a scientific institution by this standard.
Here's a good example as to why from a report on Fox News this morning.
It says, More than a day after issuing new guidance that vaccinated people should wear masks indoors, recommendations that are likely to affect millions of Americans in the form of private and public mask mandates, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has yet to release the data behind its decision.
The lack of clarity on what exactly the agency is basing its decision on comes as states and cities across the country are working to vaccinate more of their citizens, and it's making some local officials reluctant to follow the CDC's advice on nearly universal masking.
Quote, this is from New York City Health and Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz.
He said, while the CDC issued their guidance yesterday at about 3 p.m., they have not yet released their scientific reports on the data that underlies their recommendation.
He said that at a press conference with Mayor Bill de Blasio.
This has been, of course, the way that our public health authorities, public health authorities, in quotes, have operated from the very beginning.
They tell us what to do, but don't bother to tell us why we should do those things, except in the most vague terms.
A question like, what exact data led to this conclusion, is rarely answered in a direct and clear way.
Instead, we're expected to simply do as we're told, even if what we're told is the opposite of what those same authorities told us five seconds ago.
It's like a game of Simon Says, if you remember that game as a kid.
The moves that you make in a game of Simon Says are random by design.
There's no point to the move itself.
The point is obedience.
That's the game.
And that's certainly the case here, now that mask mandates are returning across the country, even for vaccinated people.
They've returned in Congress, too, where the Capitol physician has now declared that everyone in the Capitol must wear masks again, vaccinated or not.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy questioned this decision.
That is, when I say he questioned the decision, he sided with the CDC of five seconds ago rather than the CDC of right now.
And for this, he was called a moron by Nancy Pelosi, and then he was taken to task by Representative Tim Ryan in a rousing floor speech defending masking vaccinated people.
Here's what Tim Ryan said.
Look, the attending physician of the United States Capitol, the top doctor for Congress, asks us to put on masks when we come to a chamber with 435 people.
I hate these things.
Absolutely.
It was terrible having to put this back on.
And we do it because the top doctor for all of us asked us to.
And I may not be from a hotspot.
Speaker may not be from a hotspot.
Speaker Pelosi may not be from a hotspot.
Somebody in this chamber is coming from a hotspot.
Somebody represents the hotspots.
And they get in a plane, and they fly here, and they interact with all of us.
And then we leave here, and we go home to our families.
Some take care of their sick parents.
Some take care of kids who may have an autoimmune disorder.
And I just find it absolutely immature and appalling to somehow diminish it to try to score cheap political points.
And that's exactly what we saw a few minutes ago.
Appalling!
It is appalling to question putting on a mask when you're vaccinated, even though you were just told you don't have to, now you're told you have to.
Appalling!
Who could question this?
The physician, the attending physician has spoken!
We must not question him.
We must not apply our own mental powers to the situation and come to any conclusions on our own.
But you'll notice what's missing from Tim Ryan's rant, and it's the same thing missing from the CDC's latest declaration.
It's the same thing that's always missing with the mask called this, and that is, again, data.
Reasons.
And most of all, an answer to this question.
How much risk is acceptable?
Although these people won't talk about it, the fact is that the data tells us there's a fraction of a fraction of a percent of a chance that a vaccinated person will get seriously sick from the virus.
It is unlikely that he will contract it or spread it also.
And not just vaccinated people.
Studies have been done indicating that those with natural immunity, we don't talk about natural immunity, but those who've previously had COVID had natural immunity.
Studies indicate they have lasting protection, maybe even better protection than vaccinated people.
Studies indicate.
And this is all the case without masks.
The risk that COVID poses to people in these groups appears to be very small, just as the risk that it poses to children appears to be very small.
So again, the question, if a very small risk is not tolerable, Then how much risk is tolerable?
That is a fair question.
Fauci, the CDC, the public health experts on TV, the Democrats in Congress, none of these people have ever even attempted to answer it.
They haven't engaged with it at all.
They won't acknowledge it.
But it's not only a fair question, it is the question.
The number one question.
We cannot have a public health policy without an answer to it.
How much risk is tolerable?
All public health policy must be crafted around this question.
It's the fundamental question.
How much risk is tolerable?
How much risk is acceptable?
Only until you know the answer to that question can you come up with any kind of policy for anything related to public health.
We can only assume, though they won't directly say it, That they believe a very small risk is not tolerable.
Again, they won't come out and say that, but that is clearly what they're indicating.
Even when your risk is in the range of a fraction of a fraction of a percent, it is still not tolerable.
What they seem to want, what their goal seems to be, is zero risk.
That's an issue because it's not possible to live a zero-risk life.
If we are pretending that any risk is high risk, that there's no meaningful distinction between something that is almost certain to kill you and something that almost certainly won't, then we can't have a human society.
Someone told me today that going around without a mask is like driving without brakes.
But driving without brakes is certain to result in serious injury or death.
Going around without a mask, vaccinated or not, does not carry anything like that kind of certainty.
If we have collapsed this distinction, if all risk is just risk, and all of it is unacceptable, well, I'm not taking any risks.
We can't take any risks.
We can't take risks with our children.
We can't take risks with the vulnerable.
If that's what we're saying now, doesn't matter how much, just can't take a risk.
Well, then we can't live.
We can't have a civilization.
We can't.
You cannot function that way.
It is not possible.
Am I saying that civilization collapses if people wear masks?
No, not exactly.
I'm saying that civilization collapses if people have decided that there is no amount of physical risk which they are willing to endure.
It is not possible to function that way.
We cannot go on like this.
We simply can't.
And it is as simple as that, I believe.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Now a quick word from Legacy Box.
You know, so much of your own identity is tied up in your memories.
And as they say, if you want to know who you are, you have to know where you've been and who you've been.
But what if you have a bunch of old camcorder tapes and old photographs that have been destroyed, they're in a box somewhere?
You're not going to know who you've been.
You're not going to know your own identity.
Now you'd be doomed to wander the countryside, a ghost, a mere figment, not knowing yourself.
That's why you need Legacy Box.
Legacy Box is a super simple mail-in service to have all of your videotapes, camcorder tapes, film reels and pictures digitally preserved on a thumb drive, DVD or the cloud.
Legacy Box is a way for you to easily and affordably digitally preserve your past.
The process from start to finish is really easy.
You pack and send.
Their team digitizes everything by hand and then they send it back to you and you enjoy it.
It's as simple as that.
Legacy Box is the world's largest digitizer of home movies and photos and has helped over 850,000 families preserve their past.
So do that now.
Preserve your past.
Figure out who you are today.
Get started future-proofing your memories today so you can gather the family and begin the trip down memory lane.
Go to LegacyBox.com to get an incredible 40% off your first order.
Again, Legacybox.com slash Walsh and save 40% off while supplies last.
All right, so tell me what you think about this.
I need your opinion on this before we really get into the headlines here.
My wife is, first of all, an excellent homemaker, home designer, decorator, incredibly talented in that department.
If I was in charge of that, we'd have cardboard boxes as furniture.
We'd have maybe our only decorations would be like old beer bottles.
And but but but the fancy ones, I mean, you know, because I do have some class.
I'm not saying I would just leave beer, but I'm saying, you know, you get those beer bottles like a nice IPA and they've got the fancy draw.
Then they're fancy drawings on the on the IPA.
I would probably leave some of those out because they look nice anyway.
But my wife has more sophisticated tastes than that.
However, she she she sometimes makes choices that I don't agree with.
And so she we have some things in our house.
I think like every suburban family, we have some of these things up on the wall that are like inspirational slogans, you know?
And so one that she really likes that she got somewhere, and it's the slogan is, be fearless in pursuit of what sets your soul on fire.
That's the slogan.
And my first problem with it is just like, that is so not me.
I mean, I do live in this house too, right?
This is also partially my house.
Is it not?
And I think anyone comes over and they see that they're just going to think that he lives here with that thing.
But then, um, you know, we moved and, and, uh, we're getting everything set up in the new house.
And so she takes this thing, the inspirational slogan, and she puts it up in the bathroom.
And so that's a choice I find confusing.
Who needs to be inspired that way in the bathroom?
I have been, this is what comes to mind for me.
I have been in the bathroom feeling like my soul is on fire, but that's because I had too much Chipotle.
I don't want to go into detail.
So that's my issue.
But maybe the bathroom is a great place for inspiration.
I don't know.
Especially if you're staring in the mirror doing your morning affirmations.
Maybe that's the idea here.
All right.
So the left-wing Capitol Police officer, Officer Dunn, was on CNN last night.
Like the other officers, he's been kind of doing this media tour all over the place.
And by the way, we know that he's... I'm not saying that he's left-wing simply because he showed up at this theater performance that they're calling the January 6th Commission.
Oh, that's a pretty good indication in and of itself, but we also have, we know from his statements on social media, it's very clear what his political leanings are, and he was on CNN last night where he addressed the comparison between January 6th and the BLM riots, and he explained why January 6th was so much worse.
Let's listen.
First Amendment protests is what this country is about.
The First Amendment, the Constitution, that's the democracy of it, but once you start Attacking people, attacking things, then that's wrong.
And you know what?
That goes to the riots this summer.
They were wrong.
If you peacefully protest, then sure.
But the riots and the violence and the damage this summer, they were wrong.
They were wrong.
And that's the exact same thing that happened at the Capitol.
But their goal was to overthrow democracy, which is a bigger threat to America.
To overthrow.
So it's worse because they were trying to overthrow democracy.
First of all, this, of course, we've heard this so many times.
They were trying to overthrow democracy.
Even which, which to begin with.
Assumes that these people going into the Capitol building all had a plan and a plot altogether.
And there was a, there was a, you know, there was a real reason that they were there and they were, they had something they were trying to achieve.
But meanwhile, when you look at the footage, you see plenty of people just kind of like milling around.
Someone steals a lectern.
Someone goes into Nancy Pelosi's office, takes some selfies.
That was their plan for overthrowing democracy?
See, I'm very skeptical that that, in fact, was the plan in the minds of most of the people in the building that day, just based on what actually happened.
But even if that was the plan, Does that mean that there was actually a threat of it really happening?
There can be all kinds of wackos that come up with all kinds of plans, and the plans can be very bad.
But to say that, well, this was a serious threat as if it, because it was a plan, that means that it almost happened.
We're going to operate as if this was a, that was an outcome that was within the realm of possibility.
That's what we're meant to believe here.
Which again, assuming that that even was a plan.
The guy stealing the lectern.
He did that because he wanted to overthrow democracy.
Okay.
Well, it's funny though, of course, because no one has been, of all the people involved in this that have been hunted down and arrested, and all of them have been, none of them have been charged with anything like that.
No one's been charged with treason or sedition or any of these, all of these words that are thrown out to describe it.
None of them have been charged with that, which is interesting.
Is that because the courts aren't taking it seriously?
Don't want to hold these people accountable?
Obviously not.
They're sending SWAT teams after old grandmas who took pictures, you know, in the lobby.
So they're obviously trying to put whatever charges they can on these people, but they can't put treason on them.
Because there's simply no evidence for it at all.
So that, you could just respond that way to the claim made by Officer Dunn there.
But it's such an absurd claim, my point is, even if I agreed that they wanted to do that, there was zero chance of it actually happening.
There was no possibility that democracy was going to be overthrown that day.
That was not Anywhere within the vicinity of something that might have actually happened.
Do you think that our system of government, our democracy, is so weak and infirm and vulnerable that it could be overthrown that way?
By a crowd of hooligans trespassing and taking selfies?
You think they might have actually pulled it off?
So it's just an absurd claim to begin with.
And at any rate, if that is an attempt to overthrow democracy, then as we've said a million times, going into a police station in the middle of a major American city and burning it to the ground, what do you call that?
If going into the Capitol building is an attack on our system of government, well then what about burning down a police station?
There really is.
He's correct in a way that there really is no comparison between the BLM riots and January 6th, because the BLM riots were so clearly, in every way, worse.
And a much greater threat, you know, there's the actual damage that was done during these riots, which again, much worse.
We're talking billions of dollars of damage.
There's not anything like that kind of damage that was done during the Capitol riots.
We're talking dozens of people killed, hundreds of buildings destroyed, businesses destroyed, all that during the Belem riots.
So, the immediate physical and financial toll, the toll in both blood and money was much greater.
But also, what about the broader implications?
You know, I'm not going to say that the BLM riots was an attack on democracy.
I don't even think that.
It was much more than that.
It's worse than that, actually.
It's an attack on the rule of law.
And you want to talk about things that we need in order to have a human civilization?
There are different forms of government, OK, that can work for a civilization, clearly.
But you cannot have a civilization without rule of law.
That you can't do.
And this was a fundamental attack on the rule of law.
Not just by the rioters, but by very prominent people, people in high positions of power, going all the way up to the guy who's currently in the White House right now, encouraging it, justifying it.
Either directly or implicitly saying that the rule of law, it doesn't really apply to these people in this situation because they're very upset.
And if you're very upset, then we have to understand and, you know, we got to give them room to destroy, as the mayor of Baltimore famously once said.
That is a direct assault on the rule of law.
And we're seeing the implications.
We're seeing the results of it right now.
Crime, violent crime out of control.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Much worse than it's been in decades in many of these cities.
All right, let's move on to some interesting news about Planned Parenthood.
So LifeSite News has this, and you hopefully know that Planned Parenthood is the number one abortion conglomerate in America, number one abortion provider, as they would call themselves.
They slaughter over 300,000 children every single year.
You know, they have killed millions and millions of people, of human beings, babies.
This, obviously, is their number one priority, is abortion.
That's how they make most of their money.
You look at where they make their income, and it's abortion and tax money.
That's where almost all of it comes from.
Now, Planned Parenthood in public will say that's not the case.
And Planned Parenthood's defenders will often say things like, "Oh, abortion is only 3%
I'm sure you've heard that figure before.
3%.
It's only 3% of their business, that's all.
Trying to make it sound like it's certainly not the main focus, it doesn't even really matter that much.
You could take abortion away and it would have almost no impact on the institution at all.
Which already is sort of interesting because if it's that small, and if it hardly matters, then why does Plant Barrenhood defend it as viciously as they do?
But we know that the 3% figure is total nonsense.
The way that they get to that number, and as always, you know, this is how you can lie with a statistic, the way they get to that number is by unbundling, what they would call unbundling their services.
And then sort of weighting all of the services the same.
So, an analogy would be something like maybe a car dealership.
If they were to sell three cars, and then also sell 100 water bottles from their vending machine, and then they turn around and say, well, selling cars is only 3% of what we do.
But really, we're a water bottle distributor, primarily.
But when you look at where they make their money, it's in selling cars, not water bottles.
And so there's a bunch of other things that Planned Parenthood does, in theory.
You go there, you could get birth control, for example.
There are other services they provide.
And they may even provide those services, like something like giving away free birth control, easy enough to do.
That's a really easy service to provide.
They may provide those services more often than they perform abortions, but abortion is the central piece of their business.
And of all the services they provide, that's where they make the lion's share of their income.
Okay, that's the reality.
But many people are confused on this point, including the former president of Planned Parenthood herself.
So here's what LifeSite News reports.
They say, in her memoir, published on July 27th, Dr. Leanna Nguyen details her time spent as president of the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
Nguyen offers readers an insider's view of the organization's obsession with abortion in Lifeline, a doctor's journey in the fight for public health.
Among other things, she says that she was told to say abortion in every media interview.
Someone also warned her that if we don't talk about abortion openly, loudly, and proudly as a positive moral good, then we're further stigmatizing it.
Wen served as president for eight short months before Planned Parenthood suddenly ended her employment during a secret meeting in 2019.
At the time, she said that she left because of philosophical differences.
Now she's written sort of this expose talking about what really happened behind the scenes.
It says, as she reveals in her book, Wen faced opposition from Planned Parenthood from the very beginning because of how she handled abortion.
Quote, one of the main points I wanted to get across was that healthcare shouldn't be political.
She remembered from when she prepared for her first media appearance as president on ABC's The View.
I had come to this job as a doctor and my charge was patients' lives.
Her message was met with applause and cheering from the show's audience, she said, but not from Planned Parenthood.
Less than an hour after the messages started coming, some of which threw her off guard, first a board member texted her saying, next time make sure you talk about abortion.
Then someone else said, then two people on the national staff informed her that back in the office there was a lot of worried chatter.
Did I leave out abortion on purpose, they wondered, Wen said.
Was this a signal that I didn't want to defend access to abortion?
One of them also advised her to, next time, just say the word.
The unnamed person added, you need to talk about abortion at every media interview.
You're the president of Planned Parenthood.
People expect that from you.
This caused Wenda to reevaluate Planned Parenthood.
And she says, until that moment, I thought the overriding reason Planned Parenthood was equated with abortion instead of its other health care services was the anti-choice opposition.
I was taken aback to see that it wasn't just the anti-choice side that wanted to brand Planned Parenthood with abortion.
This is really kind of amazing.
You've got a woman who was the president of Planned Parenthood, only for eight months, but she's a doctor, medical professional, grown adult, obviously familiar with these issues, Becomes the president of Planned Parenthood, and she was shocked to discover that Planned Parenthood cares only about abortion.
This is what she talks about in the book.
Anytime she was in front of the media, all they wanted her to do was talk about abortion.
This came as a surprise to her.
Now, I have never stepped foot inside of a Planned Parenthood, and never would.
I could have told you that.
Clearly, this is what they do.
This is where they make their money.
This is what they care about.
It just shows you how thoroughly people have been diluted and how successful Planned Parenthood has been.
And, you know, let's not give them too much credit.
It's easy to be successful with this when you have the entire media on your side, when the entire media is a propaganda organ for you.
Then it's easy to be successful in diluting the public into thinking that you're primarily a health care clinic and, you know, you do abortions on the side here and there.
Yes, you will.
You will viciously defend abortion at every step.
You will not allow any criticism about or any questions about it, but it's not that big of a deal.
This is how deluded people are.
And they have to be.
You know, Planned Parenthood needs people to be deluded in this way.
Because if you actually began to see Planned Parenthood for what it is, and you really stopped to think about this, this is a company that has made billions of dollars from killing people.
And they kill 300,000 humans every year.
When you stop and think about that, you know, it's kind of hard to just drive by them on your way to work and see them in some shopping mall and say, oh, it's Planned Parenthood, just like any other business.
All right.
Let's see, what else we got here?
From maybe I'll save this for tomorrow or maybe not.
Barry Weiss on her sub stack has a report written by Katie Herzog.
That's it's really a must read.
And it's about the infiltration of gender theory into medical school.
So here's a little bit of it.
So it says, during a recent endocrinology course at a top medical school in the University of California system, a professor stopped mid-lecture to apologize for something he'd said at the beginning of the class.
Quote, I don't want you to think that I'm in any way trying to imply anything, and if you can summon some generosity to forgive me, I would really appreciate it.
The physician says, in a recording provided by a student in the class, who we'll call Lauren, again, I'm very sorry for that.
It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone.
The worst thing that I could do as a human being is be offensive.
His offense, using the term pregnant woman.
This is in medical school.
We're going to go right past the statement, the worst thing I can do as a human being is be offensive.
How revealing is that?
Someone who believes that the worst thing you can do, it's not murder, it's not rape, the worst thing, it's not pedophilia, no, the worst thing is to offend someone with your words.
And he really believes that.
Quote, I said, when a woman is pregnant, which implies that only women can get pregnant, and I most sincerely apologize to all of you.
It wasn't the first time that Lauren, had it hurt an instructor, apologized for using language that, to most Americans, would seem utterly inoffensive.
Words like male and female.
Why would medical school professors apologize for referring to a patient's biological sex?
Because, Lauren explains, in the context of her medical school, acknowledging biological sex can be considered transphobic.
When sex is acknowledged by our instructors, it's sometimes portrayed as a social construct, not a biological reality.
In a lecture on transgender health, an instructor declared, biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender are all constructs.
These are all constructs that we have created.
I can't read it.
It's worth going to Barry Weiss's subsect, finding that and reading the whole report.
It is, this is bone-chilling stuff.
Not surprising.
We knew it was going to get to this.
Gender theory had made its inroads into grade school.
You know, into undergraduate courses, and it was only a matter of time before it would fully intrude into medical school.
Of course, the problem, it's a pretty significant one, is that you cannot do medicine if you don't recognize biological reality.
That is the foundation of medicine, is human biology, and understanding human biology.
You cannot be a doctor who doesn't understand human biology.
Because this is what you're working with.
This is what you're trying to treat.
So if you don't understand it, or are not going to allow yourself to acknowledge it, then medicine ceases to exist.
We also know that this was inevitable.
We were always going to get to this point.
Once we allowed this artificial bifurcation of sex and gender.
Gender, up until the 1950s and 1960s, nobody talked about human beings having a gender.
There was no need for the term.
There still is no need for it.
We don't need to talk about that.
You have a sex and that's what you have.
There's no need for it to go any further than that.
And we have the words masculinity and femininity to talk about the way that men and women typically act and the way that they interact with the world.
So we already have those terms.
And if you had a man who acts in a more feminine way, then you could just say that.
You don't need to talk about, well, his gender, his sex is male, but his gender is female because he acts in a feminine way.
Adding this extra label into it only confuses matters intentionally.
But the gender theory proponents, the gender theory cultists really, for decades, after introducing, after taking gender from the realm of language, which is where it had been before, words had gender.
Okay, obviously you can't talk about a word having a biological sex, but a word can have gender, gendered language, which is now offensive.
So we took that out of the realm of language, started applying it to people, and for decades, we were told, It's two different things.
You have your biological sex and you have your gender.
Lots of people went along with that.
That became a kind of this mainstream understanding that people had, even though it really didn't make any sense.
And now what we're watching over the last couple of years, and it is a very significant development, and it was also entirely inevitable, it was always going to go this way.
We're watching that distinction once again collapse.
Now it's just, it's the same thing.
Sex and gender, once again, are the same thing.
Except that, now, really, when we talk about the distinction being collapsed, we've just erased biological sex.
And now there is only gender.
And you can use sex to refer to gender, but that's all there really is.
All there is is the human construct.
Something to keep in mind, you know, going forward when you go to the doctor.
You might want to do a quick quiz before deciding who your primary care physician is going to be.
This might be an important thing to do.
You know, they'll do a checkup with you.
They'll do a kind of a preliminary physical.
Well, you might want to do a preliminary checkup with them and ask them a few questions like, hey, hey, doc, by the way, can a man get pregnant?
If they say yes to that, if they say anything but no, go find another doctor.
All right, finally, before we get to reading the comments, as we've been talking about how cowardice is being repackaged as courage, here's another great example, also from this week.
As you know, the Cleveland Indians got rid of their name because it's offensive, even though it's very much not offensive at all.
And now they put out a PSA or a promo video, voiced by Tom Hanks, trying to sell this change, trying to sell their new image as the Cleveland Guardians.
And really, it's heroic and inspiring how they've given up on the name that they had for a century.
Let's listen to that.
And now it's time to unite as one family, one community, to build the next era for this team and this city.
To keep watch and guard what makes this game the greatest.
To come together and welcome all who want to join us.
We are loyal and proud and resilient.
We protect what we've earned and always defend it.
Together, we stand with all who understand what it means to be born and built from the land.
Because this is the city we love and the game we believe in.
And together, we are all Cleveland Guardians.
We are loyal, proud, We defend ourselves, we defend who we are.
No, that's the exact opposite of what you did.
You apologized for who you were and you changed because people were mad.
Just admit that.
It's the same thing with Simone Biles, trying to repackage cowardice, giving up, caving, as some sort of inspiring and courageous act.
Don't give me that.
We all know what you did.
People were mad, and you don't want people to be mad at you, so you changed the name, even though there's nothing wrong with it.
That's it.
I'm not gonna say I respect that move, but I'd at least respect the honesty.
Alright, let's move now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from a user, also named Matt, said, Matt's entire demeanor, even his voice, changes when he starts yelling.
If he was my dad, I'd be terrified of him because I would just assume there's a different person who isn't my father that comes out when he's mad.
Doesn't everyone's voice and demeanor change when they yell?
Isn't that a pretty common thing for yelling?
How would you yell if your voice didn't change at all?
Not quite sure I understand that.
Mike says, been a self-absorbed coward all my life.
Finally, it's cool.
Well, congratulations.
And you joke.
Well, maybe you're joking.
I don't know if you are or not.
But that is actually what's happening here.
It's a very self-serving thing.
We talked about this on the backstage last night.
The people who are defending Simone Biles and not just saying, oh, we should be understanding of her quitting, but saying it's actually courageous because she's protecting her mental health and she's living her truth and all this stuff.
She's looking out for herself.
Putting herself before her team and her country.
The people who are doing that, there's a very self-serving reason for it.
Because if now, if it's courageous for Simone Biles, To quit when it's hard.
To put her mental well-being above everybody else.
That means it's courageous when I do it, too.
And I can do that.
That's very easy.
You know, to say that it's courageous for an Olympic athlete to not cave under the pressure, but to keep trying in spite of it.
And to persevere and push forward.
If I say that that's courageous and admirable, and it is, well, that is something that I can't do.
And so I'm admiring someone for something that, I'm not an Olympic athlete, I can't be one.
I can never pull that off.
So I'm admiring someone for doing something that I can't do.
And admiring someone for doing something you can't do, there has to be a certain element of humility in that.
But admiring someone for doing something that you do all the time, There's no humility, it's very self-serving, and I think that that's what a lot of this is about.
Michael says, Matt, you should have a series where you respond to other conservatives calling you out.
It would be very entertaining.
For example, The Amazing Lucas, who is hardly amazing, recently posted a video about the Olympic subject, calling you out by name.
I have no idea who that is.
The Amazing Lucas is what he actually calls himself.
Is he a magician?
Garf says, I want to call my boss and tell him that I'm going to be radically courageous.
Well, you can now, and he has to respect you, living your truth.
The conservative midwife says, no one had called them, speaking of the Officer Dunn, the officer who said that he was called the N-word by the capital writers, said no one had called them the N-word in their whole careers, not even after 45 years, yet suddenly that specific day, multiple people did it several times.
He had an entire crowd of people.
And I noticed that, too, in the claims that he made before Congress.
He said he went his whole career as a black police officer.
Never been called the N-word before, which is great.
And then you have whole crowds of people doing it.
And none of it's on video.
And Robert says, Matt, in the 22 years of our marriage, my wife has caught me crying just once.
It was the ending of Oh Yeller.
There are movies, I said Rudy yesterday, the end of Rudy, when he goes out there, he's finally living his dream.
He has persevered through everything and he makes it out there and he makes a tackle.
You know, it's a meaningless game, it doesn't matter, but it means so much to him.
You can cry for that.
A few dignified manly tears.
There are a couple other movies that I would throw into that, too.
Not Ole Yeller, though.
Like a dog?
I can't give you a pass on that.
And Joshua says, Matt's comments on what it means to truly be a man were so beautiful that it made me cry.
Well, there you go.
There is another exception that certainly I think we can all agree is an exception.
Uh, if you were moved to tear, and I will say this, in fact, it's important for me to say this right now.
If you're a man listening to this show, um, and you're moved to tears of, of, of joy and inspiration by anything that I say, that is perfectly okay.
I know that my words are that powerful, and I would never judge you for it.
You absolute pansy.
You may have heard us mention a time or two that Ben Shapiro's new book, The Authoritarian Moment, has finally hit shelves, and it's time to read up on some truth.
Ben's book couldn't have been written at a time more important in our country's history.
As the left increases their iron grip on our institutions, entertainment, media, education, everything else, our country becomes further divided and more susceptible to authoritarian control.
For example, the CDC's guidance on masks and vaccines, as we have talked about, is just another example of the authoritarianism that we're Witnessing today.
The authoritarian moment is all about all of that.
It gives you all the tools you need, not only to understand what's happening, but to respond to it as well.
And it's now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or any other major bookseller, so you can get your copy today.
You can also pick up an autographed copy for just 30 bucks at dailywire.com slash ben and leave a five-star review to help amplify conservative voices.
Speaking of conservative voices, it seems we can't go a day without fresh, terrible news about how our authoritarian overlords are attempting to squeeze Americans of every last bit of our freedom, which is why I think it's important that I actually provide some good news for you right now.
If you've ever thought that it'd be cool to travel on the Daily Wire's dime to the Nashville studios to smoke a cigar with the hosts, Then you just might be in luck, because if you're not a member yet, this is your chance.
Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code backstage to get 25% off your new membership and be automatically entered to win two tickets to Lounge with the Daily Wire legends.
Oh, we've been promoted.
We're Daily Wire Legends now, backstage.
And that's not all.
You get to take home signed copies of Michael and Ben's newest books.
And Matt's book.
No, it's not on here.
Okay, you don't get my book.
Doesn't count.
If none of that entices you, just remember, you, unlike most people, will get to meet me as well.
But you won't get my book.
So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe with code backstage to get 25% off your membership and a chance to win the ultimate backstage experience.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we'll be canceling the internet rage mob that has been coming after me for the past two days.
The rage mob is once again, really taught me a lesson by causing my name to trend nationally on Twitter.
I have to say as a media personality and podcast host, there is nothing worse than nationwide attention.
That's why I begged the outraged masses to stop giving me traffic.
I pleaded with them.
I said, no, no, please don't.
Please don't make me into one of the top subjects of conversation on social media.
That is the last thing I want.
Please, please stop talking about me.
But they didn't listen.
And so tragically, I was forced to gain many new podcasts and newsletter subscribers and Twitter followers.
By the way, you can subscribe to my newsletter, mattwalshreport.com.
My enemies have completely owned and destroyed me by giving me publicity.
It's not the first time that they've done that, and I fear that it may not be the last.
The source of the outrage has been, so far as I can tell, my tweets on two of the subjects we discussed on this show yesterday.
One of those subjects is, of course, Simone Biles.
Many thousands of people have eagerly informed me that I am a horrendous monster, a bigot, a racist, a sexist, an ugly loser, an idiot, among other things, for failing to applaud Biles for her courage in quitting on her team and her country.
One person after another, including lots of people in media, Hollywood, the sports world, and so on, lined up to let me know how wrong and stupid I am.
And most of them especially took issue with a comparison that I drew to Michael Jordan, where I pointed out that Jordan would never have quit in the middle of a game in the playoffs in order to protect his emotional and mental well-being.
He never would have done that.
Famously, he was horribly sick with the flu and he still went out and played.
Now, I've been told many times over, That this is a stupid analogy because Michael Jordan did quit.
He left the game in his prime and played baseball and then went back to basketball.
Aha!
You see?
It's the same thing.
How much of a moron can I be?
I have been dunked on.
They got me.
How will I recover?
What can I possibly say in response to that?
Well, there is one thing I could say.
I could point out that Michael Jordan didn't leave the game of basketball.
During a game of basketball.
That's not what we mean when we say he left the game.
Jordan, in fact, waited until the off-season, and that's when he retired.
The off-season is not the same as during the season, much less during a game.
Off-season as opposed to in-season.
You see the difference?
Outrage mob, do you?
I'm speaking slowly and using small words.
Because I want to help you.
Off versus in.
Does that distinction register at all?
You see, I'm not claiming that no athlete should ever retire from a sport.
I'm not over here castigating Terry Bradshaw because he isn't still playing quarterback for the Steelers at the age of 72.
I am aware that athletes at a certain point will stop being athletes.
It's just like, you might notice, you know, I am not currently playing checkers, though I have played checkers in the past.
I have played checkers, and then I have stopped playing checkers, but I stopped playing it after the game is over.
I stop playing after the game is over, and that means you can't call me a quitter.
If I stop playing during the game, then I am a quitter.
Athletes who decide to stop playing in the middle of a competition are quitters, by definition.
Athletes who stop playing after a competition are retired.
I'm not sure how to explain this if you're still confused.
Perhaps maybe draw pictures.
I could make my point through some sort of interpretive dance.
I just don't know how to make this any clearer or simpler.
Hopefully that'll be enough.
But the outrage directed towards me over my Simone Biles opinions has paled in comparison to the fury that has greeted my position on the subject of men crying.
As I mentioned yesterday, I tweeted that men should not cry in public because it's dishonorable and unmanly, though I allow for certain exceptions, which I have outlined in further detail in the past.
Perhaps I should publish an official list, you know, with an index and a glossary and a bibliography and everything, so that any man, if he's considering crying, can quickly consult the rulebook and find out if his upcoming sobbing fit meets the requirements.
You know, is this going to be sanctioned crying or not?
But that's a project for another day.
For now, I can tell you that people have been very, very, very upset about this.
Ironically, thousands of men have cried publicly over the fact that I said they shouldn't cry publicly.
There have also been some unexpected voices chiming in to castigate me, including one of the guys from Blink 182, which was funny.
And speaking of funny, there have been lots of responses like this from a guy named Andy Ostroi, who described himself as a filmmaker and a proud Democrat.
He said, I cry.
I cry often.
And I'm more man than you'll ever be.
Now, it's not often that you hear someone unironically use the phrase, I'm more man than you'll ever be.
And you certainly don't hear it said right after the words, I cry often.
But these are the kinds of landmarks, like landmark occasions that Twitter has made possible.
And we should be grateful for that.
I should note that some of these crying men have made physical threats, including a guy named Ronnie Ficarro, some kind of musician.
And he said, quote, I don't know who the F you are, but I don't like you at all.
Actually, I'd love to punch you in your stupid little face and make you cry, you little b**ch boy.
Toxic waste of space.
Immediately after writing that, Ronnie deleted the tweet and blocked me.
I'm gonna punch you!
Runs away crying.
Now I have to say, I have never felt less threatened by physical threats.
Look, it's easy to mock and make fun of these people, and to point at them and say, ha ha, you're crying.
And frankly, it's a lot of fun.
And we should do that.
But what I'd really like to respond to are the accusations leveled repeatedly at me over the past day or two.
That I only say things like this, like it's dishonorable for men to cry in public, because I'm trying to shock and offend.
Someone actually called me a shock tweeter, which, incidentally, is how I describe myself on my resume.
Shock tweeter.
Is that true, though?
Do I say these sorts of things merely to cause shock and outrage and offense?
The answer is yes.
At least partly.
The first reason that I say what I say is that it's true, and it's always worth saying true things.
But I am aware that a statement like the one I made about crying in public will provoke a reaction.
I know that.
I say it anyway, not in spite of the reaction it will cause, but yes, partly because of that reaction.
The point is not simply to selfishly profit off of the outraged mob's anger, though that is one perk that I quite enjoy.
The greater point is that most of the things I say, including the idea that men should usually refrain from crying in public, That's all that is really being said here.
Usually, men should try not to cry in public.
That's it.
These are completely common sense, completely unobjectionable things.
The kinds of things that if I had said at any other point in history, in front of almost any other audience, anywhere, people would have yawned and said, well, yeah, what's your point?
It would have seemed utterly obvious to almost everyone who has ever lived And yet now, we're supposed to believe that these obvious, common-sense statements are not only wrong, but absurd, outrageous, insane.
I have actually been accused of insanity, literal insanity, for saying that men shouldn't go around crying all the time.
We can think of many other common-sense statements that provoke this kind of reaction.
A statement like, for example, men can't get pregnant.
That will even shock people in medical school now.
Or women are weaker than men.
Plenty of other examples come to mind.
It's not simply that the mob will disagree with these claims now.
It's that they will treat the claims as outright lunacy.
They will react to a man speaking common sense as if he is a raving maniac.
And this tactic is extremely effective.
Because after a while, if you're not careful, you're going to be browbeat into thinking, well, if everyone thinks that the idea is that offensive, I must be wrong.
But you're not wrong.
You have not only rationality and logic on your side and common sense, but the near universal consensus of all mankind until about 12 seconds ago.
Only now, you know, is it that you're not supposed to say those things anymore.
And that's exactly why I say them.
The more that people scream and cry in the face of normal, inoffensive statements, the more I will say them.
The more we should all say them.
Simply out of principle.
And because it's true.
And because it's funny to see you so mad.
So, to the outraged mob today, I must say, you are cancelled.
And please stop crying.
You're embarrassing me.
That'll do it for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev, our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
John Vickley here, editor-in-chief of Daily Wire.
Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire.
On today's show, the Biden administration moves to impose federal vaccine mandates, Canadian churches are targeted by arsonists, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could impact Roe v. Wade.
