Ep. 775 - Dangerous, Radical, Far-Right Mob Promotes Science And Common Sense
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media is reporting that I was part of a radical, chaotic, extremist, dangerous mob at the school board meeting a few days ago. That’s not exactly how I remember it. This is just one of the lies they are telling as part of their latest push to convince you to panic over COVID all over again. Also, a woman in California has been charged with murder after throwing her infant off of a roof. She obviously deserves to rot in prison for what she did, and yet I can’t help but notice that if she had killed her infant only a few months earlier, and for the same reason, we would be told to celebrate her. And, Media Matters publishes a report highlighting the supposed “transphobia” of the Daily Wire in a transparent effort to get us booted from YouTube. Finally, in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll try to figure out whether it is actually sexist to describe a woman as “nice.” Jen Psaki says it is.
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 media is reporting that I was part of a radical, chaotic, extremist, dangerous mob at the school board meeting a few days ago.
That's not exactly how I remember it.
This is just one of the lies they're telling as part of their latest push to convince you to panic over COVID all over again.
Also, a woman in California has been charged with murder after throwing her infant off of a roof.
She obviously deserves to rot in prison for what she did, and yet I can't help but notice that if she had killed her infant only a few months earlier, and for the same reason, we would be told to celebrate her.
And Media Matters publishes a report highlighting the supposed transphobia of The Daily Wire in a transparent effort to get us booted from YouTube.
And finally, in our Daily Cancellation, we'll try to figure out whether it is actually sexist to describe a woman as nice.
Jen Psaki says that it is.
We'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
There is nothing in this life more important than protecting your online data.
Well, maybe a few things.
Food, shelter, whiskey, that kind of thing.
But still very important to protect your online data, and that's why you need ExpressVPN.
And it is the best VPN on the market for a number of very clear reasons.
ExpressVPN doesn't log your activity online.
Lots of cheap or free VPNs.
Make money by selling your data to advertisers, but ExpressVPN doesn't do this.
They even developed a technology, Trusted Server, that makes their VPN servers incapable of storing any data at all.
Also, their speed.
ExpressVPN now uses Lightway, a new VPN protocol they engineered to make user speeds faster than ever.
I've tried many VPNs on the market, and I've found that they always kind of slow the connection down.
And that's a big problem, big hurdle, but that's not the case with ExpressVPN.
It's also easy to use, which is another important thing for me, anyway.
No technical skills are needed.
You just fire up the app, you tap one button, even I can't screw it up, and you connect, and it's as simple as that.
So protect yourself with the VPN that I use and trust.
Use my link, expressvpn.com slash Walsh, today.
You get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
An article in the Texas Tribune yesterday garnered a lot of attention, and it's not hard to see why.
The paper reported the incredibly startling fact that 5,800 children in the state had been hospitalized with COVID in just the span of one week.
Now that is, needless to say, shocking.
Horrified.
Nearly 6,000 in a week.
And the story was shared far and wide, including by prominent people in the media who were amplifying this message.
And it helped us cement into people's mind that COVID is now suddenly a significant danger to kids.
The only problem is that the incredible fact was incredible, but not a fact.
The Tribune sometime later issued a correction, which is really more of a retraction, and here it is.
They said, An earlier version of this story overstated the number of children who have been hospitalized in Texas recently with COVID-19.
The story said over 5,800 children had been hospitalized during a seven-day period in August, according to the CDC.
That number correctly referred to children hospitalized with COVID-19 since the pandemic began.
In actuality, 783 children were admitted to Texas hospitals with COVID-19 between July 1st and August 9th of this year.
Ah, so the central detail, the point that precipitated the article in the first place, was wrong.
No, not just wrong, but wildly, fantastically wrong.
This, again, is not a correction, that's a retraction.
That's like publishing a whole article saying, Bigfoot was spotted, he's real, we know!
And then the correction comes, oh, never mind, actually this was just a bear walking in the woods.
That's not a correction, that is going back on the whole point of the story.
Rather than nearly 6,000 hospitalized in a week, it was fewer than 800.
And not in a week, but in 40 days, in a state with 7.5 million children.
And that's assuming, of course, you can even trust the 800 figure.
And what I certainly don't trust is the excuse that this was all a mistake.
Far from a mistake, it would seem to be another intentional fear tactic, a purposeful ploy to exploit every parent's deepest fear.
I mean, it cannot be a coincidence that suddenly, When most people are tired of mask mandates and have no patience for lockdowns, now the media starts focusing on children, trying to convince us that children are dying left and right from the virus.
Why?
Well, it's the one thing that can make even reasonable people panic.
If you're screaming, COVID is coming for you, and people are no longer reacting to that like you want them to, try, COVID is coming for your kids, and then see what happens.
Yet still, if you dig into the numbers, The truth continues to reveal itself.
An article on the medical news site MedPage Today speculates that the dreaded Delta variant might be more severe in kids, maybe, perhaps, but qualifies this speculation by admitting that there's no data to support it, only anecdotes.
As far as the data goes, it says, reading from the article, As for hospitalizations, which the AAP tracks in 23 states
and New York City, kids accounted for 1.5% to 3.5% of total cumulative
hospitalizations, and 0.1% to 1.9% of all pediatric COVID cases resulted in hospitalization.
CDC's COVID data tracker shows a total of about 46,000 hospital admissions for kids under
18 since August 1, 2020, with a current seven-day average of 203 pediatric hospitalizations
daily, close to the peak seven-day average of 217 during this past winter surge, for the week
ending on January 9, 2021.
This week's figure is up from a seven-day average of 168 the week prior.
AAP collects mortality data from 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, tallying 371 pediatric deaths since mid-May 2020.
Children accounted for 0% to 0.2% of all COVID deaths in those areas, and seven states reported no child deaths at all.
Of all pediatric COVID cases in those areas, 0% to 0.03% resulted in death.
The AAP report stated, quote, at this time it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is uncommon among children, which is everything we already knew.
And by the way, as you just saw in the report, we haven't even yet reached, as far as child hospitalizations, we haven't reached the peak, which is thankfully a very small peak, compared to what it was even in the winter.
Yet in the winter, The media wasn't really talking about child hospitalizations.
That's what they're talking about now.
So to summarize, the data tells us what the data has always told us.
COVID is not a serious threat to kids.
Despite the fervent wishes of the lunatic hobgoblins in the media, it's not.
Thank God it's not.
But no worries.
You know, if they can't win the debate with the facts, they can always retreat to the tried and true method of casting the other side of the debate as violent extremists.
If you listen to the reports about the school board meetings and protests in Tennessee this week, and were dumb enough to somehow believe them, you'd come away with the impression that we so-called anti-maskers, and some of us, by the way, might actually be anti-maskers, as in we don't want to wear masks anyway, anywhere.
That's where I fall on this question.
But there are a lot of people who Maybe don't mind the masks, they just don't want their kids to be forced to wear them.
Those distinctions aren't made, we're all just anti-maskers, whatever.
And they tell us that these school board meetings descended, that we kind of descended onto the scene like Mongol hordes, subjugating our enemies, leaving them trembling at our feet.
And frankly, that sounds kind of appealing, I must admit, to me, but it's not what happened.
What happened is that concerned parents gathered, spoke their mind, some of them had signs, and that was about it.
There were some raised voices, perhaps a smattering of impolite words were shouted, but that's as far as it went.
Which is not the impression you would get from, first, the local media reports.
For example, the local website Nashville Scene reported on the meeting that I attended with this headline, Mask Mandates Lead to Chaos at School Board Meetings.
On a national level, Salon reports anti-mask mob swarm school board meeting.
This latter headline is in reference to the meeting down in Williamson County, which I have learned from Salon, I attended myself.
Now that was news to me, as I thought I attended the Nashville Metro meeting.
I didn't think I was at that other one.
Salon says that I was.
All right, I'll go with them.
What do I know?
In any case, the Williamson County meeting was by all accounts, you know, a larger and noisier crowd, but there was no violence.
No crimes were committed.
Nothing that lives up to the image of chaos and a swarming mob.
Emotions were high, that's for sure, and for good reason.
And those emotions ran both ways.
As pro-mask parents melted down in tears, trembling in terror at the thought of their child being murdered by a maskless student breathing on them.
The Daily Beast, though, takes the propaganda prize, I think, with this headline.
They report, Proud Boys are teaming up with anti-maskers to threaten school boards over COVID mandates.
Proud Boys?
All I've seen are middle-aged parents upset that their children are being forced to wear masks all day without anything approaching a proper justification for it.
Where are the Proud Boys?
Well, the writer explains about a dozen paragraphs into this article.
We're told that a few Proud Boys showed up at a couple of school board meetings in Florida a month ago, and they also tell us that some Proud Boys spoke out about critical race theory in New Hampshire in July.
They put Proud Boys and anti-maskers in the headline, and one of the examples they give us of two doesn't even have anything to do with masks.
This part of the article confused me as well.
It says, quote, Meanwhile in Nashville on Tuesday night, conservative commentator Matt Walsh took the microphone at a school board meeting despite being a vocal advocate for homeschooling.
Walsh, who did not return a request for comment, because I never got a request as far as I know, claimed that masking students was child abuse pushed by adults experiencing Munchausen syndrome by proxy and that there was no evidence that COVID-19 affects children, the Tennessean reported.
COVID-19 can affect children, and the Delta variant has resulted in a spike in child hospitalizations.
Yeah, one problem here.
I mean, I did say this stuff about child abuse and Munchausen by proxy.
All that is true.
But I never said that there was no evidence that COVID affects children.
Never said that.
A reporter for The Tennessean, who was at the meeting and sitting three feet from me, did indeed report that I had said that, but she was lying.
She was, like a truly courageous warrior for the truth, sitting right next to me and tweeting lies about what I said, unbeknownst to me at the time.
Now, I corrected her publicly, and at any rate, the video is available to watch.
The Daily Beast is repeating a lie from a local reporter, even though they could watch the video and hear the truth for themselves.
And I know they did watch the video because they accurately quote it elsewhere.
It's a pretty big difference.
No one is claiming that COVID-19 doesn't affect children.
Of course it does.
Even if they get a mild case of the sniffles, which is what it is for most of them, that's still an effect.
It has an effect, just a very mild effect most of the time.
This is what the panic pushers are reduced to.
Misinformation, mischaracterizations, flat-out lies, all while painting the opposition as dangerous extremists and militant radicals.
And what is the position that we radicals, so-called, are taking?
It's worth emphasizing this point.
Our radical position is the position that all people everywhere in the country held unquestionably until last year.
Our radical plot is to simply continue living as we all had lived up to now.
Taking reasonable precautions, practicing good hygiene, all that's great, I mean, I was doing that before.
I don't know about you guys.
I didn't start washing my hands with COVID.
The way some people talk, it's like they just discovered it during COVID, which is a little gross, but doing that, but also willing to endure the minor risks involved in walking around with our mouths and noses showing, breathing fresh air, interacting with people face-to-face.
Okay, that's all we're saying.
That's how everyone has lived.
Even during pandemics, that's how almost everyone has lived.
And there have been a lot of pandemics in the past.
They're the ones pushing for a truly radical change to society.
They want us to wholly transform the way we live our lives.
They want us to completely adjust how we perform basic risk calculations.
They want us to agree that a risk of death which doesn't even approach anywhere close to 1% is intolerable.
All of this is new.
It's extremely new.
Radically new.
As always with the left, they insist on the radical change, while casting us as the radicals for wanting to keep things as they were.
That is, we want to do what they themselves were doing yesterday.
They were walking along a path and verged off of it, and we didn't follow right away.
So then we're not only wrong, but somehow we turn into violent, dangerous revolutionaries.
That's the game.
It's worked for them many times, and so I imagine they'll keep on playing it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Now a quick word from Legacy Box.
They say that you can't know who you are unless you know where you've been.
I think they say that.
Or if they don't say it, then I'm saying it.
And it is true.
It's an important truth.
Because so much of our identity is tied up in our memories of ourselves.
And the problem is that a lot of those memories now are stored in antiquated technology.
You got them on camcorder, physical pictures and that kind of thing.
Maybe you got them in a basement or up in an attic in a box.
And you don't have access to them, you're not really using them, and they can also be destroyed, and that's why you need LegacyBox.
With LegacyBox, you can reclaim all the priceless footage you haven't been able to see in years.
The service couldn't be simpler.
Use their kit to safely send the moments that you want preserved on whatever technology it's on.
Their team will create a digital archive by hand, and then you'll receive your new copy stored on the cloud, a thumb drive or a DVD, whatever you want, along with all the original media that you sent them.
Having done this myself, I was impressed by how easy it was.
Throw it in the box, send it, they send it back.
And also how quickly they were able to do all of this.
Legacy Box has helped over 1 million families restore and protect their most cherished memories.
So visit LegacyBox.com slash Walsh to take advantage of this limited time offer for 50% off and discover the magic of bringing your past back into view anytime, anywhere.
Take advantage of this exclusive offer today and then use their kit whenever you're ready.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Walsh to save 50% off.
LegacyBox.com slash Walsh.
Okay, so staying on sort of the same subject here, Joe Biden yesterday, talking about what happened in Tennessee, the chaos, the swarming mobs, he stood up for those who are mandating masks, and in fact said that they are not only right, but they're heroes.
Let's listen to that.
I know there are a lot of people out there trying to Turn a public safety measure that is children wearing masks in school so they can be safe into a political dispute.
And that this isn't about politics.
It's about keeping our Children safe.
I saw a video and reports from a Tennessee, uh, protesters threatening doctors and nurses were before school board making the case that to keep kids safe, there should be mandatory masks.
And as they walked out, these doctors were threatened.
These nurses were threatened.
You know, our health care workers are heroes.
They were the heroes when there was no vaccine.
Many of them gave their lives trying to save others.
And they're heroes again with a vaccine.
They're doing their best to care for the people refusing to get vaccinated.
And unvaccinated folks are being hospitalized and dying as a result of not being vaccinated.
Okay, first of all, every time you hear these people say, it's not about politics, why are you making it political?
Always remember that these are the same people, including Joe Biden himself, who said during Trump's presidency that they probably wouldn't trust the vaccine if Trump is in charge.
That was the position that many of these people took, including Joe Biden himself.
Oh, but it's not political.
No, no, no.
What he means is don't take politics into account now, now that I am in charge.
You're supposed to simply trust me without hesitation.
Also, as far as heroes, you know, a few things there.
Even if someone is a hero, that doesn't make them above criticism.
So that's not a defense.
Of what these people are advocating.
The doctors and supposed medical professionals who are advocating for masking kids, even if they're heroes, that doesn't make them right about what they're saying, so the fact that they're heroes is irrelevant.
If they make a claim, and then I say, I disagree with that claim and here's why, it is a non sequitur for you to respond to me, but they're heroes!
So?
And also, no they're not.
Some medical professionals might be heroic.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that.
There are heroic medical professionals out there who have done heroic things, both in the field of medicine and outside of it.
But simply doing your job as a medical professional does not make you heroic.
This is your job.
You're paid to do it.
You don't have to do it.
It's a line of work you chose to get into.
Which is great.
I'm glad you found a line of work that you are passionate about.
And we need people to do these jobs.
But nobody... This is a blanket statement.
Nobody is a hero simply for doing a job that they're paid to do.
There are jobs that provide you A greater than average number of opportunities to act heroically.
Police officers would be one example.
I'm not going to sit here and say that every single police officer is a hero.
It would be absurd.
Of course they're not.
There are bad cops out there.
There are a lot of cops who are just kind of like average.
They react like any average person would, given the dangers that they face.
And then there are some cops who actually are heroes and act heroically.
Same goes for medical professionals.
But this is a tactic we always see from those in power.
You know, and it kind of changes depending on what they want us to believe or they're trying to get us to do.
They'll take a certain profession or a certain group of people and say, these are all heroes.
There was a time, not all that long ago, when politicians used to say, all cops are heroes.
And now they flip that around and now basically all cops are villains.
And then one other point about heroism.
You can't be a hero when someone else is making the sacrifice.
So when it comes to masking children, there is nothing heroic, leaving aside whether it's right or not, which it isn't, there's certainly nothing heroic about advocating that all children have to wear masks every day for eight hours a day.
Because that's not a sacrifice you're making.
You're forcing your kids to make it.
Or other people's kids to make it.
That's not heroic on your part.
Real fundamental fact about heroism here.
Heroism is a sacrifice that you make.
You're asking kids to do that.
And by the way, with these mask mandates for kids, they're the only ones.
Along with the staff in the school.
But our kids are going to be among the only ones that are actually required to wear masks for that amount of time every single day for seven or eight hours sustained time.
Like they have to wear the mask every single second they're in the school.
Presumably they can take it off for lunch, at least I hope, and put it right back on.
But almost seven, eight straight hours of wearing masks.
I got news for you.
The medical professionals don't do that.
They wear the mask if they're dealing with a patient, which is what a lot of doctors and people working in hospitals had always done, but then they leave the room and they take it off.
They're not just walking around for eight hours straight wearing a mask.
So that is an enormous sacrifice.
That we are asking kids to make specifically, and almost nobody else.
Now, you are requiring kids to make a heroic sacrifice against their will.
Which makes you a lot of things, but one of the things is not going to be a hero.
All right, let's go here from, this is from the New York Post, it says, this is a horrific story, but there's An important point to be made in relation to it, so I'm going to read some of this story to you.
A California mom has been convicted of pushing her seven-month-old son to his death from the fourth story of a hospital parking garage, according to prosecutors.
Sonia Hermosillo, of 41, was found guilty Wednesday of one felony count of first-degree murder and one felony count of assault on a child causing death.
The jury will determine whether the mom was legally sane when she sent Noah Medina Jr.
plunging to his death at the Children's Hospital of Orange County.
Hermosillo allegedly suffered from mental health issues after the birth of the boy, who has received treatment for medical issues such as congenital muscular torticollis.
It's a condition in which an infant holds his or her head tilted to one side.
Prosecutor of the case said he was sick and his mother didn't want him.
She made a cold-hearted decision to kill her child.
Prosecutors allege that Hermosillo drove to the hospital on a day that the boy didn't have an appointment, then took off the helmet he was wearing, and pushed him off the garage.
The DA said Hermosillo then walked inside the hospital, validated her parking, and drove away.
The boy died two days after the fall, so he suffered immensely.
For two days and then died.
In her police interview, she allegedly told the police that she had hate, resentment, and anger toward the boy because he's sick.
And that's why she killed him.
If found legally sane, she could face 25 years to life in prison.
Well, 25 years would be yet another enormous injustice.
Obviously, what this woman did is... The word monstrous doesn't come close to capturing it.
This should be a death penalty situation, which it's not going to be in California, but it should be.
I personally would be in favor of you convict her in a court of law legally, pass down the sentence.
And if I was the judge and it was a legal option, the sentence would be, we're going to take you up to the 10th story or the 20th story of this building and toss you out.
And that's going to be your penalty.
That's your, that's your method of execution.
That to me would be justice.
And I got news for you.
I don't care if you're legally sane or not.
That makes no difference.
You did something horrifically evil and you will suffer the consequences for it.
And we're not going to keep you around.
Why?
Why should we?
I don't buy it.
At all.
Most of these insanity pleas, I don't buy it.
You know, an actual insane person who doesn't know what they're doing, that is, that's like someone, those people, you know who those people are, because they don't have homes, and they don't drive cars, and they don't function in society at all.
You find them sitting on the side of the road, on the sidewalk, talking to themselves, okay?
Those are the insane people who really don't know what's happening, they don't know what they're doing.
Those are the people who, if they commit a horrific crime, they should still go to prison, but maybe the insanity aspect comes into play because they literally have no grasp on reality whatsoever.
But if you have someone who's basically functioning in society and is showing some knowledge that what they did was wrong, then that's... I don't care about their mental health problems.
They knew enough and should suffer the consequences.
All that being said, let's think about this for a second.
Seven-month-old son was murdered.
Why was he murdered?
Because he had suffered physical disabilities and the mother was a selfish, monstrous sociopath and didn't want to take care of him and hated him for the way that he was infringing on her lifestyle.
And so she killed him.
Now let's consider the fact that take this exact same boy, turn the clock back by seven months, and if this mother had killed him for the exact same reason, she would not only be going to prison, not only not be going to prison, but we would be told to celebrate her.
It's not just that we would be told to sympathize with the choice in that case, but rather it's a celebration.
We should literally throw a parade for her.
She should shout her abortion from the rooftops.
There would be, you know, Democrats in Congress, if they heard about the case, defending her.
I mean, that would be someone who the President of the United States would say is, maybe she's a hero too.
If she had done almost the exact same thing, Granted, she would be killing the child through a different method, not throwing from a roof, but crushing his skull.
So in the end, it's basically the same method.
So doing the same thing to the same child for the same reason, but only a few months earlier.
And magically it goes from a horrific murder where we all agree that it's murder and this is a monster and she should suffer the consequences.
It goes from that to she is a woman exercising her autonomy.
She is a powerful and beautiful person.
This is a wonderful thing and we should celebrate it.
That is incoherent.
That makes no sense.
And sometimes I hesitate to make arguments like this.
Ultimately, I do make them because I think intellectual consistency is so important.
I'm a big fan of intellectual consistency.
You figure out what your principles are, what your beliefs are, and you take them to their logical extent.
And if what you discover is that your beliefs and your principles, when taken to their logical extent, lead to horrific things, then that should tell you something about your beliefs and principles.
Maybe they need to be changed.
So that's why I make the argument.
But also, I do sort of worry that we're going to get to the point, and I think we probably will get to the point, where the left will hear an argument like this, and they'll say, you know what, you're right, actually.
Why can't a mother kill her infant?
We'll probably get to that point.
And when we get there, at least you're being intellectually honest.
The results will be terrible, and there will be even more bloodshed, but you're being intellectually honest.
Because if you would support killing a child A second before he's born, which almost every pro-abortion person does, by the way.
They support abortion through all of pregnancy for any reason.
That is the mainstream pro-abortion or quote-unquote pro-choice position right now.
Long gone are the days when we talk about abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Well, they want it to be legal, and they pretend that it can be safe, even though, of course, it can't be safe, because, by definition, in an abortion, at least one person is dying.
But rare?
They don't care about that anymore.
But that's the fact.
There is no substantive moral difference between these two things.
And you can't say, well, it's different because a baby in the womb is dependent on his mother.
Because first of all, how does dependence on a person mean that that person can kill you?
Let's take that to its logical conclusion.
What about elderly people in nursing homes?
What about people on welfare who can't take care of themselves and need the taxpayer?
I'm a taxpayer.
Can I just go kill them?
They need me, they're dependent on me, without my consent.
But even more so, this infant, seven months old, physically disabled, was 100% dependent on his mother, on her body, on her time, on her very life.
In fact, a baby outside of the womb, and any mother will tell you this, a baby outside of the womb requires much more from you than a baby inside the womb.
requires more from you in every sense, is even, is, is, uh, if not more dependent, requires
greater sacrifice from you.
So if that's a reason justified in the womb, then why not outside the womb?
All right, let's go, uh, we'll check out this from the Washington Post.
They report that the number of white people fell in this country for the first time since 1790.
Quoting the report, it says, the report marks the first time the absolute number of people who identify as white alone has shrunk since a census started being taken in 1790.
The number of people identifying as non-Hispanic whites and no other race dropped by 5.1 million people to 191.7 million, a decrease of 2.6%.
The country also passed two major milestones on its way to becoming a majority-minority society in the coming decades.
For the first time, the portion of white people dipped below 60%, slipping from 63.7% to 57.8% in the span of just 10 years, and the under-18 population is now majority people of color at 52.7%.
in the span of just 10 years, and the under 18 population is now majority people of color
at 52.7%.
That's the report.
And there have been a lot of reactions to this report like this from Jennifer Rubin,
who responds, "A more diverse, more inclusive society."
This is fabulous news.
Now, now, uh, now we need to prevent minority white rule.
Hmm.
Okay.
Now we are told that, um, if you speculate that the powers that be in this culture want to replace white people, We're told that this is the Great Replacement Theory, and it is a white supremacist conspiracy theory, and it's pretty much the worst thing you can ever say.
If you are to say this, speculate about this, then you are a white supremacist.
That's what we're told.
You can't talk about replacement.
And yet, huh.
I'm just trying to work through this in my head here.
Help me out.
So we're bringing in a flood of immigrants over the southern border, non-white.
We're putting policies in place with the express purpose of having fewer white people in universities and in positions of power.
And we're celebrating the reduction in the white population.
I mean, it sounds like you want to replace white people.
So this is replacement, is it not?
And you're happy about it?
I mean, Jennifer Rubin is celebrating that there's fewer... You could never do this with any other race of people.
Can you imagine if there was a report about, you know, there are fewer black people in the country today than there were 10 years ago?
Can you imagine anyone reacting to that and saying, this is fabulous news?
Anyone who did that would be seen as a genocidal maniac.
And if you were to accuse that person of wanting to replace black people, everyone would say, well, yeah, that's exactly what he wants to do.
Clearly.
Yet with white people, I mean, you can advocate for replacing them explicitly, but if anyone correctly identifies what you're doing, then they're the racist.
It's completely absurd.
Now, in fact, I would even give people on the left, because what I'm saying right now, this is probably going to get clipped by Media Matters, that's my prediction right now.
And I hope it is, because I want to get this out in front of people on the left.
And you say that the replacement theory is white supremacists, white nationalists, it's a horrible, horrible thing.
Okay.
So do you not want to replace white people?
Are you saying that you don't want that?
You don't want to replace white people in the population with a greater portion of non-white people.
You don't want to replace white people in universities and positions of power.
You're saying you don't want that.
Because while you condemn replacement theory as a white supremacist, you know, conspiracy theory, I noticed that you don't deny it.
I mean, you don't come out and say, oh, no, we don't want to do that.
But if you don't, then just say so.
And then we're gonna have some follow-up questions about like, okay, well then what's going on down here on the border?
And why do we have these affirmative action policies in place?
And why are you popping champagne and throwing confetti when there are reports saying that there are fewer white people?
All right, let's see.
Speaking of media matters, I wanted to mention this as well before we get to reading the comments here.
This is, read now from a Yahoo News article about the Media Matters report.
It says, YouTube offers platform to anti-trans hate, says new report.
And the article says, for transgender people, YouTube is sometimes hate tube, according to a new research report from Media Matters for America.
I bet they were proud of that.
Pretty clever.
While the platform hosts many trans creators and influencers, it also hosts far-right figures who deadname and misgender trans folks, and it polices their hateful speech inconsistently, says the report, released Thursday morning.
The offenders include Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and a pair known as the Hodge Twins.
They've gone after prominent transgender people, such as Assistant U.S.
Health Secretary Rachel Levine, actress and model Lena Bloom, and political candidate Caitlyn Jenner, along with everyday trans Americans.
For instance, in February, Walsh, a commentator with The Daily Wire, a right-wing site, derided Levine's support of gender-affirming health care for trans youth.
That, quote, should qualify you for a mental institution or prison, not for a position in government, he said.
I mean, I did say that.
But we should clarify that the gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, what that means, the euphemism there, what we're talking about, is the chemical castration and sometimes genital mutilation of minors who, to begin with, cannot possibly offer their consent for that.
Because according to our laws and our understanding of childhood psychology, they can't offer their consent for anything.
Which is why we don't let them choose, we don't let them make any significant, serious, life-altering choices of any kind.
And so it is hateful speech to suggest that maybe that way of viewing children should just be extended to this issue of trans healthcare, quote-unquote, as well.
Uh, Knowles, also associated with the Daily Wire, an infamous bigot, repeatedly deadnamed a misgendered Jenner in an April episode.
He said, if you're a man who thinks you're a woman who presents yourself as a woman, you are a seriously confused individual.
It might not be a good idea to give you a ton of political power.
Shapiro and the Hodgetwins aimed hate at a trans couple with a child deriding the mother's effort to breastfeed the infant.
Shapiro, editor emeritus of the Daily Wire, called the mother a pervert and misgendered both parents.
While right-wing influencers, the Hodgetwins said, if you guys was my parents, man, I'd probably be a serial killer.
Now, you may remember that video.
That was a biological male attempting to breastfeed a child.
And there's a reason to come out pretty strong against something like that.
Because if you do that, especially if that's the only source of nutrients that you're trying to give each other, you're going to kill it.
The child's going to starve to death.
Because men can't breastfeed.
But, you know, trying to protect children from being chemically castrated and generally mutilated at a point when they cannot consent to it, they cannot possibly psychologically consent to it, or trying to defend babies from starving to death because biological males are trying to breastfeed them, this is anti-trans hate.
But what you see again, as always, And I'm not going to read the entire report.
You get the idea.
But I won't read it on air anyway.
But I did myself read it, personally.
There was never any attempt to explain how we're wrong about any of this.
No attempt.
Because at some level, they know they can't.
At some level, they know.
They see a video of a biological male trying to breastfeed a child.
And they know that this is crazy.
And that if you did that too much, and if a biological male was to really believe that he can breastfeed his child, just like any woman can, then the child will die a horrible death of starving to death.
So at some level, even the people at Media Matters, they know that.
Which is why they don't make any attempt to respond to the arguments.
Instead, they say, shut these people down.
Kick them off of the platform for suggesting that males can't breastfeed.
All right, let's go now to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Brandon, says, you would most definitely still have your own head.
Oh, we're talking about, okay, we're going.
I was talking yesterday about this discussion I had with my four-year-old about what would happen if he switched heads with his brother.
Important conversation.
Brandon says, you would most definitely still have your own head and Luke's body.
Everything that makes you you, personality-wise, is in your head, so you'll go wherever your head goes.
I guess the real question is, would Luke's body still be Luke's body?
After all, Luke's body is now occupied by your head, and you are your head, so I suppose Luke's body would now be your body occupied by your head, and your body would now be Luke's body occupied by his head.
Conclusion, nothing would change except, of course, for the bloody and messy death.
Yeah, you know, I think that's the obvious answer for what would happen if you switched heads, but It's more complicated than it may seem.
I mean, aside from the logistics of it, because when I talk about you, I'm not just talking about your head, right?
I'm not sure it's true to say that you are located in your head entirely.
After all, your DNA, your nervous system, your bone structure, et cetera, all of this is also you.
And then you add the concept of a soul into it, and then that complicates things even more.
Does your soul travel?
With your head to your other body?
How does that work?
Is the soul located in the body or in the head?
Well, no.
Not in a literal sense.
And given that so much of what happens in your brain is determined by what happens elsewhere in your body, like in your nervous system, wouldn't putting your head and your brain on someone else's body change your brain enough that you would no longer even exist?
So maybe this would really be the obliteration of both people and the creation of new people.
I don't know.
A more interesting form of this question is, and maybe I'll ask my four-year-old this tonight, right before bed, because it's the best time for these questions, is what happens if you split your brain in two, pretending this was medically possible, if you split your brain in two and gave half of your brain to someone else?
What happens then?
Where do you go?
Are you in both places?
Nowhere?
These are the important questions.
Sean says, "At the restaurant I manage, we've gone through 14 people in the past three weeks.
Either they quit showing up, they can't flip a burger, or they have terrible attitudes when
their only job is taking people's money. We have four people working 60-hour weeks
to keep this restaurant afloat."
No millennials worth hiring.
They're incompetent, lazy and or entitled.
Well, just by the way, if you're managing a restaurant and you're hiring like 19 and 20 year olds and having this problem, those are not millennials.
So, hey, you know, back off a little bit.
Don't blame us for this.
That would be Gen Z.
And look, this is always a complaint.
Every older generation always says this about the younger generation, a bunch of good-for-nothings.
And it's never true of everyone in a generation.
And very often, the generation making that accusation, they're overlooking all of the great significant flaws of their own generation, such as baby boomers when they've complained about millennials, and the baby boomer generation basically destroyed American society almost single-handedly.
But it is true that this is a growing trend in the culture.
And it will be, as each successive generation is raised in this environment, it'll become a greater and greater problem within that generation.
J.R.
Krash says, it's not hard to imagine so many young people choosing to take an early retirement on the government dime.
The problem with retirement in old age is you're usually too tired and broken to really enjoy it.
Plus, a lot of your friends have drifted away or died.
It's a tough sell convincing a young person to go back to work while their friends make more money hanging out at the beach, getting drunk.
Yeah, it's a tough sell to people without ambition, right?
It's definitely a tough sell to them.
But hard work is always a tough sell to people without ambition.
But if you have ambition, especially as a young person, then it's not difficult at all.
It shouldn't be difficult to sell the money.
Anyone likes the idea of relaxing.
But if you're a person with ambition, and you want to go places in life, and you want to accomplish things, and you want to have success, then you actually wouldn't want to sit back on the beach every single day.
That would sound like a horrible fate.
If that's all you could do.
Because you have bigger dreams to go chase.
And I think that's the saddest thing to see in... Again, we can't cast a... This is a broad brush that is true only in a general sense.
It's not true for everyone.
But that's the saddest thing to see in younger generations and younger people.
Kind of the death of ambition.
Because you've got to have the ambition first, and then the hard work follows.
Because no one's going to go and do any kind of hard work if they don't have some concept of what the goal is, what they're hoping to accomplish.
And that's the hardest thing.
Because when you're young, I mean, that's the time especially when you talk about the energy that you have and everything.
Yeah, you could whittle that away doing nothing.
But that's also the time with all of that energy.
We talked about it a few days ago also.
In most cases, you don't have any kids.
You don't have any dependents.
You're a free agent.
You can go anywhere.
You can do anything.
You can take big risks.
You've got all that energy as well.
That's the time to really go chase your dreams.
And you find with a lot of young people now, they don't have that desire.
You see that evidence also even in seemingly less important things like you look at little indicators like the average age for to begin driving has been ticking up and not because of the laws.
But these days, kids start on average driving later than they did when I when I was a kid or when my parents were kids.
Because they don't really have the desire to get out and drive.
They can, but you know, they figure I got everything I want right here in my house.
I got my, my, my phone.
That's like my whole life.
I don't need to drive anywhere.
And I can remember when I was a kid, I wanted nothing more than to get in the car and have that independence.
I didn't even care where I was going, but the idea of having that independence, being able to go out and do my own thing was very appealing to me.
For a lot of kids today, it's just not appealing.
And Max says, okay, no, actually Dustin, I'm sorry, says, why weren't we wearing masks before?
Well, because we got new information that encourages us to act and change the ways we acted previously.
Why did doctors stop recommending you smoke cigarettes in the mid 20th century?
You'll learn new things.
It wasn't accustomed to wear masks in our culture.
Washing hands isn't in others.
Perhaps no one answered you in this because it's obvious.
Okay, Dustin.
That's the answer to the question that I've been asking.
If you think that it's self-evident to wear a mask now, and it's a really basic thing on the level of washing your hands, then why didn't you wear a mask before?
Haven't really got an answer.
You give an answer.
I give you credit for that.
The problem is the answer is very dumb.
Because you say that, well, because we got new information.
And then you also say it wasn't a custom before, but it's a custom now.
First of all, which is it?
Pick a lane.
Are we doing it because it's a custom now?
I think you're right about that.
It has become a custom forced on us.
But many customs are not data-driven.
You also claim this is data-driven, we got new information.
What is the new information?
Okay, smoking, you give that example.
As science progressed and our understanding of physiology, human biology, and how these things affect our bodies progressed, we learned that smoking causes cancer.
That wasn't known before.
What did we learn about masks in the last 18 months that we didn't know before?
Tell me one thing.
That's all.
I'll give you one.
Just give me one.
One bullet point.
Give me one thing that we learned about masks Since March of 2020 that we didn't know before March of 2020.
And I'll give you a chance to answer, but also answer it for you.
Nothing.
We didn't learn anything new.
There have been no great advancements in our understanding of masks and how they work.
It's all, it's, we knew all of this before.
I knew all of this before, and I'm not even a medical professional.
And that's the whole point.
There has been no new information.
So you tried to answer the question, but unfortunately, you failed.
Thanks for trying, though.
And now it's time for everyone's favorite part of the show, the Daily Wire promos.
Buckle up, because America is at a turning point.
The media and the government have used fear to spread hate, effectively dividing the nation into warring factions that are easier to control.
With that comes a government that's gone mad with power, is becoming more tyrannical by the day.
The onus is now on freedom-loving Americans to stand up and say no, and that's why Ben Shapiro wrote a book Which is called The Authoritarian Moment, and it does a deep dive into the history of authoritarianism, how it's creeping into our own government, and what we can do to stop it.
The Authoritarian Moment is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or any other major bookseller.
Also, it's no secret that Candace Owens knows how to light up Twitter with her conservative takes.
But if you haven't heard, she's now opening her studio to one lucky VIP winner.
If you sign up now as a Daily Wire member with code VIP, you'll get 25% off your new membership and be automatically entered for a chance to win a trip for two.
You and a guest to the Daily Wire studios to see Candice live.
Not only will you meet Candice, you get an inside look at her studio and front row seats to watch her take down leftists live and in action on her talk show, Candice.
So get a great deal on a new Daily Wire membership at dailywire.com slash subscribe with code VIP and 25% off so you can automatically be entered for a chance to win.
The VIP experience.
And finally, everyone sing along with me.
The Morning Wire is now available and it's top of the charts.
Apple and Spotify dominating the charts.
But we want more and more people to experience the Morning Wire, which is a daily news podcast that values your time and the truth.
So go and subscribe.
Start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts and leave that five star review.
Tell all your friends about it.
And now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we finally have a chance to cancel Jen Pisaki.
She has teetered close a few times, swerving precariously near the edge of being canceled, but now she's finally gone over the cliff, and she needed some help from Vogue magazine to get there.
In an especially glowing and sycophantic profile of Pisaki, one which would have induced nausea in me if not for my trusty relief band, the writer Lizzie Whitticombe, which is somehow the perfect name for a Vogue writer, Lizzie Whitticombe, tells us, quote, Obama world was famously harsh with the press.
We'll take a side note right after one sentence.
Yeah, we all remember the famously contentious relationship between Obama and the press.
I mean, the same press that spent two weeks talking about Obama's tan suit while he was sending drones out to assassinate American citizens.
Anyway, it says, Pasaki recalls of the Obama people, they're my friends, and they're some of the absolute, the most talented and best people I worked with in politics.
But the culture was to yell at reporters, slam the phone down.
After traveling with journalists for weeks on end, and in many cases bonding with them, Pasaki realized, that's never going to be comfortable to me.
Instead, she developed a more personable report.
Charming her interlocutors with little jokes, asking about their hometowns and families.
She's not a pushover, though.
At one point, she tells me that she hates when people describe her as nice.
She says, quote, it's like nails on a chalkboard and it still happens.
I was introduced to a foreign delegation in the hallway the other day as this is Jen.
You may have seen her do the briefing.
She's a really nice person.
I'm like, really?
You can't think of a better description?
The word is sexist and a little diminishing, but she says it's also this desire to put people in a box.
Yes, sometimes I'm friendly and joyful and sometimes I'm tough and sometimes I'm straightforward.
Now, you have to appreciate how there's no attempt at an explanation here.
It's simply asserted that the word nice, which is, last I checked, a compliment, is not only sexist but diminishing.
It's assumed that the reader will understand how and why this is the case, and no further details are required.
Now, I admit that I may be a little out of my depth with this discussion because I have so little experience with being called nice.
If I was called nice, I may actually take it as an insult, but only because I'd assume that the description was sarcastic.
Like, oh, there's Matt.
He's a real nice guy.
Kind of like the one and only time in my life when I participated in singing the happy birthday song to someone.
And afterwards, a person standing next to me turned and said, wow, great singing voice, Matt.
And walked away laughing.
While I ran and locked myself in the bathroom and wept for hours.
The whole scene really ruined my son's birthday, but this is all beside the point.
How can a word like nice be considered not only insulting, but sexist?
You know, I think there are two potential answers.
Well, three.
Because the first answer is just that everything is stupid, and everyone is stupid, and our culture is a cyclone of stupid, leveling everything in its path.
But more specifically, here are two other points worth considering.
As we've covered extensively on this show, in the words of Philip Reeve, we live in the age of psychological man.
And all that matters in our age, indeed, the only true reality in our age, is how a person feels about themselves.
From the perspective of the individual self, fully immersed in the spirit of the age, the job of everyone else is to affirm those feelings.
And in fact, it goes one level deeper than that, and it's more schizophrenic than that.
Because your job as an outsider in relation to me It's not so much to affirm how I feel about myself, but to affirm how I want to feel about myself.
After all, I might feel like an ugly lump of moldy lard, but I want to feel strong and brave and stunning and beautiful.
Those are the feelings I'm trying to desperately to engender within myself.
Your job is to somehow identify how I want to feel, which may or may not be how I actually feel, and affirm it as a reality.
My self-actualization, to use the New Age jargon, is your project.
By simply coming in contact with me, you have been thrust into my own internal drama, and you now play a central role, whether you want to or not.
How does this relate to Jen Pisaki?
Well, she wants to feel like a tough person, at least sometimes.
If you encounter her in one of those moments where she wants to be, as she says, tough and straightforward, and you make the mistake of describing her in a way that conflicts with that desire, then you are attacking her.
You're diminishing her.
If it sounds like we're at a point where you simply can't describe another person or even refer to them without potentially causing devastating psychological harm, that's correct.
I mean, that's where we're at.
To say anything about another human being, even to refer to them in a neutral but grammatically correct way, is to potentially undermine the feelings they want to feel about themselves.
And those feelings and desires can change by the minute, especially for women.
No offense.
Which makes the whole thing a minefield.
The second point is the familiar irony That Jen Pisaki is a feminist.
And feminists hate men, but idolize them at the same time.
I mean, what's wrong with being nice?
Well, because Jen Pisaki associates niceness with women and toughness with men.
And she would rather be seen as having manly qualities because she has decided that manly qualities are superior.
This is what makes female bosses and managers sometimes so miserable to work for.
I mean, men can be real jerks too, of course, and bad bosses, but females in positions of authority are more likely to want to be seen as jerks.
They're more likely to overcompensate, rejecting their nicer instincts in this effort to approximate the manliness that they idolize.
So it's a twisted picture, really.
Feminists worship masculinity.
But rather than simply appreciating men and being grateful for them, these people who harbor masculinity, they would rather take the place of men, becoming pale imitations of the thing they admire.
I mean, ultimately destroying the very thing that they admire.
And you see it on the other side, too.
You see men who worship femininity, but rather than appreciating women and being grateful for them, they try to literally transform into women and take their place.
Once again, destroying the very thing that they idolize.
So it's quite a confused picture.
It creates a cultural environment that is, well, not very nice to live in.
So maybe Jen Pisaki gets her wish in the end.
Even so, she is still today, we must say, cancelled.
And that'll do it for the day.
That'll do it for the week.
Have a great weekend, everybody.
Godspeed.
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 Bickley here, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief.
Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire.
On today's episode, a battle over mask mandates erupts in Texas, Oregon schools make big changes over alleged racism, and a Hollywood Me Too group is caught up in a Me Too scandal.
