Ep. 810 - The Truth About The Facebook ‘Whistleblower’
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media is promoting the story of the Facebook “whistleblower.” She was on 60 Minutes last night, revealing alleged secrets about the Big Tech giant. But this story is not what it appears to be. We’ll talk about it today. Also, Fauci says that maybe — just maybe — we might be able to “get back to normal” by Christmas, but maybe not. And a Democratic senator is chased into a bathroom, and recorded inside the bathroom, by crazed left wing activists. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss a recent article arguing that God needs new preferred pronouns.
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
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 promoting the story of the Facebook whistleblower.
She was on 60 Minutes last night, revealing alleged secrets about the big tech giant.
But this story is not exactly what it appears to be.
We'll talk about that today.
Also, Fauci says that maybe, just maybe, we might be able to get back to normal by Christmas, but maybe not.
And a Democratic senator is chased into a bathroom and recorded inside the bathroom by crazed Left-wing activists.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss a recent article arguing that God needs new preferred pronouns.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
We're going to talk today to start with about one of the many companies, Facebook, which
is certainly working against us in the culture and is definitely not on our side, even as
so many of us patronize it, which is why I think it's a good thing to start by talking
about one of the companies that is on our side and we can be proud to support it.
That's Charity Mobile.
As an increasing number of companies fall all over themselves trying to appeal to the left, wouldn't it be nice to find one that supports your values?
Charity Mobile What is that company?
It's the ProLife Phone Company.
They partner with you to automatically support the ProLife ProFamily charity of your choice with 5% off your monthly plan price.
And they've sent millions of dollars to charity so far.
You could be a part of that and a lot of other perks too.
You get new activations and eligible accounts.
Get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping when you mention offer code WALSH.
Charity Mobile makes it easy to switch.
You can keep your existing phone.
You may even be able to keep your existing phone number as well.
If you need a new phone, no problem.
Charity Mobile has a variety of options from basic flip phones to low-cost smartphones to the latest 5G phones.
They've got all of that.
So switch to Charity Mobile and support the causes you care about.
Call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com and mention Offer Code Walsh.
So last night, 60 Minutes had a lengthy interview with Frances Haugen, formerly known as the Facebook whistleblower.
Haugen had worked for the social media company, and during her time with them, she began leaking documents which were supposed to expose the dark and dirty details about Facebook's internal workings.
Now, there's no doubt that Facebook's internal workings are indeed dark and dirty.
There's no question that it needs exposing as well.
And I'm certainly not here to defend Facebook.
Far from it.
This whistleblower story that the media is telling us is not as simple as they want us to believe.
And we know that from the start, because they're the ones telling it.
Now keep in mind that the corporate media and Facebook are part of the same machine, the same system.
A whistleblower that was really interested in exposing that system wouldn't be so warmly welcomed by it.
60 Minutes gave a platform to Haugen, and the rest of the corporate media has reported breathlessly on the things that she revealed during that interview.
And that's not how things would have worked if Haugen was really an avenger for truth and justice, as she's being portrayed, with no political agenda.
You know, it seems like it shouldn't be necessary to say this anymore, but somehow it is.
You cannot trust a single thing the corporate media tells you.
Not a single thing.
The corporate media are storytellers.
Not especially good or engaging ones, but that's what they are.
They tell a story, a story about the world, about society, about us, about you, and all of the news that they report has to fit into that story somewhere.
If it doesn't, they're not going to report it.
And if they do report it, they'll report it in a way that gels with the story.
We have to realize that the relativists have long since taken over our culture, and what that means is that our society is being run by people who literally do not believe in the truth.
They don't believe in it as a concept.
They don't think that the truth exists.
The truth is whatever they tell us and whatever they can get us to believe.
And that's something to keep in mind as we look at the story of the Facebook whistleblower.
Haugen's basic charge is that Facebook promoted misinformation and divisive and unsafe content and that it does all this for profit.
They put profit over safety, she says.
Listen to this.
Haugen told us the root of Facebook's problem is in a change that it made in 2018 to its algorithms, the programming that decides what you see on your Facebook news feed.
So, you know, you have your phone.
You might see only a hundred pieces of content if you sit and scroll off for, you know, five minutes.
But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you.
The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past.
And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is optimizing for content that gets engagement or reaction.
But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions.
Misinformation, angry content is enticing to people and keeps them on the platform.
Yes.
Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, they'll make less money.
Now here's the problem.
Most of that is certainly true.
Facebook does promote divisive content and misinformation.
But remember that Haugen and the 60 Minutes reporter, Scott Pelley, are on the same team.
They're part of the same system.
And that means they're speaking in code to each other and to the audience.
What they mean when they say divisive content and misinformation is right-wing content.
These words are all interchangeable in their minds, according to the story that they're telling, right?
It is, after all, angry, divisive, and false content that's propelled hundreds of BLM riots.
Millions of people today now believe that guys like Michael Brown are martyrs, and cops are Nazi assassins out hunting and murdering black men, and that America is a systemically racist dystopia where it's essentially legal for white people to kill non-white people.
I mean, people believe this.
And it is thanks to the work done by both social media and the corporate media, hand-in-hand.
But when Haugen talks about dangerous and unsafe content, she's not referring to any of that.
If she was, she wouldn't be on 60 Minutes.
For her, it's all about the right-wing perspective.
That's all it is.
And she finally makes that clear by tying everything back to the quote-unquote insurrection.
Complaining that Facebook had shut down the so-called civic integrity units before January 6th
Hougen said quote, "They told us we're dissolving civic integrity. Like they basically said, oh good
We made it through the election. There wasn't any riots. We can get we can get rid of civic integrity now."
Fast forward a couple months. We got the insurrection.
And so there it is.
If she had linked Facebook to the Capitol riot and also the BLM riots
Then we might be able to trust her motives a bit more But then again, if she had done that, we never would have seen this interview.
We see it because she's on the same ideological team as the people who are amplifying her.
She's on the same team as Facebook too, which is why I don't even buy that she is any kind of whistleblower at all.
Facebook already tries to suppress conservative content.
That's what it wants to do.
Yes, right-wing content is successful on the platform, relatively speaking, and this is, you know, the left uses this absurdly to claim that Facebook is biased in favor of conservatives because they point to how successful The Daily Wire is, for example, on Facebook.
That's only because it's the content people want to see.
That's why we're successful.
The company can only go so far in suppressing the very content that people using its platform want to access.
It would like to go further in that regard, no doubt.
And the pressure from this whistleblower gives them the onus to do so.
Best case scenario for them would be legislation forcing them to suppress it.
The social media companies would like very much to control the information that you can access, the ideas that you can encounter, the opinions that you hear.
They already do in large part, and yet iconoclastic voices still sneak through.
That's in spite of big tech's efforts, not because of them.
The media feels the same way.
The reason that they hate social media, at least as it's currently constructed, is because it gives people an avenue to ideas that the corporate media has not sanctioned.
The corporate media believes that it's entitled to be the gatekeepers, determining what you believe, what you're told, and especially who is doing the telling.
When they talk about the dangers of social media, that's what they mean.
It's the danger of them losing control.
And that brings us to the other big revelation from the whistleblower.
That social media, especially sites like Instagram, are harmful to kids.
Here's Haugen on that.
One of the Facebook internal studies that you found talks about how Instagram harms teenage girls.
Oh yeah.
One study says 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse.
17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.
And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed, and it actually makes them use the app more.
And so they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more.
Facebook's own research says, it is not just that Instagram is dangerous for teenagers, that it harms teenagers.
Again, I mean, this is certainly true.
Social media is bad for kids.
of social media.
Facebook said just last week it would postpone plans to create an Instagram for younger children.
Again, I mean, this is certainly true.
Social media is bad for kids.
But is the media really worried about your kids?
If they were, they'd be more concerned about the fact that millions of nine-year-olds are
accessing hardcore porn through Pornhub and similar sites.
Besides, when it comes to your kids using social media, there's a pretty simple solution.
As I've argued in the past, don't give them smartphones.
On average, kids are now given their first smartphone at the age of 10.
That means millions are getting them at 9, 8, 7, even younger.
There's no valid reason for it.
Oh, you want to be able to get a hold of your kid at any moment?
Well, you know, I think that's a bit excessive, but fine.
Get him a flip phone with no internet access.
They still sell those.
Why does he need a phone with internet and apps and games at the age of 8 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13?
Why does he ever need one?
Why would you ever buy him one before he has a job and is able to buy it for himself?
Answer, there is no good answer.
He doesn't need a smartphone.
No child in history has needed a smartphone, which is how so many children manage to survive without them.
You know, I've had this discussion with parents many times, and the only justification I've ever heard is that, well, the world is different now, and this is what kids do, you know, they all have phones.
Yeah, it is what they do.
They do it because we allow them to do it.
We don't just allow it, we facilitate it, fund it.
We make actual financial sacrifices to ensure that they can have this device that will destroy their ability to relate with other human beings and have a normal childhood.
Why do we sit here as parents acting utterly powerless to exercise any influence over the children we're raising?
Who runs your household?
Who owns everything and makes all the money?
If you don't want your 10-year-old to spend his entire childhood staring lifelessly into the void like some kind of lobotomy patient, you have absolute power to impose that desire on him.
Just don't buy him a phone.
It's very simple.
What's he gonna do?
Beat you up?
Rob a bank so he can buy one himself?
Well, that would at least be some form of physical activity.
So what are you afraid of?
Why are people so petrified of not obeying their child's every demand?
The only defense of the phone itself is that maybe it won't be that bad.
Well, if I oversee their phone habits, maybe they won't be completely addicted to it.
But they will become completely addicted to it.
And anyway, in that defense, you have admitted that nothing really good or constructive will come from the phone.
You've conceded that it's a bad thing by and large.
Your only hope is that it won't be so bad.
So that's the answer.
A part of the answer.
A big part.
When it comes to social media's effects on kids.
But the 60 Minutes report never even mentions parents.
It never acknowledges the possibility that we might be able to address some of these problems on our own, in our own homes.
That's because it's not interested in solving problems.
Not the actual problems, anyway.
It's interested only in telling its story and convincing us to believe it.
And we need to all be smarter than that.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
Now a quick word from 40 Days for Life.
You know, the new Texas law banning abortion has abortion advocates going insane, and that's good news, but you need to be prepared as abortion is coming up in daily conversation more now than ever, more now than ever.
So if you're struggling on what to say and how to say it when abortion is the topic of conversation, you need to check out a recent new book, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
Since its release, it's already been number one Amazon new release, and number two Amazon
bestseller, and it's already on its second printing, and that's because it's a very easy
book to use, and it's very useful.
It tells you what to say and what not to say, and it gives you the proven arguments that
have worked with everybody, people on the fence, abortion supporters, even plant-parented
workers.
The book is from 40 Days for Life, which is the largest grassroots pro-life organization
in the world.
They've held peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities in 1,000 cities in 64 countries,
They've already helped to convert the hearts of 221 abortion workers.
So they really know their stuff, which is why you gotta go check out What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
Go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 Days for Life at 40daysforlife.com.
A couple things before we jump into the headlines.
I saw this just a second ago.
It's a terrible tragedy, a really unfortunate situation where another George Floyd statue was vandalized.
It's not funny.
I would never laugh about it.
It's more of a nervous laughter, you know, because this is not the first time this has happened.
It's like every time a George Floyd statue goes up, it's vandalized very quickly.
And there's video, there's a guy skateboarding.
This was in Union Square in New York, and it was this big monument to George Floyd.
You know, the guy who barged into a woman's home at gunpoint and robbed her, which is the only significant thing he ever did in his life.
The only thing that made any real impact was that.
He didn't do anything else.
Just a violent felon and drug addict, and then he died.
And that's why we have a monument to him.
But so apparently this skateboarder guy felt like he wasn't very happy about the fact that we have this big monument to this violent felon who contributed nothing positive to society at all.
And so he vandalized it and it's all on tape.
And man, there are still other monuments out there of George Floyd that have not been vandalized yet.
And I would never say That if you come across any monument or mural of George Floyd, you should do exactly the same thing.
I would never say that.
I would never say that.
I would never say it.
Okay?
And, okay.
Also, one other note, I was in D.C.
yesterday, or this past weekend, and the mask cultists in D.C.
are just, it's probably the worst city as far as the mask cult goes.
It's absolutely out of control there.
That's one of those places where I was actually yelled at by at least one person who said, put your mask on!
Very simply like that.
And then I just said, no, and kept walking.
And I have found the simplicity.
I've worked on different responses in these situations where someone's like, oh, just wear your mask, put your mask on.
And there are different comebacks you can come up with, but I think the simplicity of just saying, no, and keep on, and just keep walking, I find that to be the most powerful.
And it's especially bad now in this, COVID panic has made elevators, has turned elevators into, elevators were already awkward.
And now that's awkward on steroids because of COVID.
I don't know how often you've been on elevators while this is happening.
It kind of depends where you are regionally.
But people feel like they have to ask permission to come on the elevator with you now.
If you get on the elevator without asking, that scene now is a social faux pas.
And so it's sort of flipped the other way and I'm starting to enjoy it.
Because now I get on an elevator without asking, especially without my mask on, and the other people in the elevator will crowd to the other side, like huddling in a corner, especially in a place like DC.
And I have come to enjoy that.
You have to, I guess you have to find ways to enjoy these sorts of things.
Now, I think on a similar note, Dr. Fauci was, Doing an interview, as he so often likes to do, and he was asked if we might be able to get back to normal, maybe we'll be past all this stuff with the masks and the elevators and everything, by Christmas.
Can we get back to normal by Christmas of 2021?
And if this feels like deja vu, we were having the exact same conversation before Christmas of 2020.
And back then he said, maybe we'll see.
And fast forward a year and he's saying the same thing.
Let's listen.
But we can gather for Christmas or it's just too soon to tell.
You know, Margaret, it's just too soon to tell.
We've just got to concentrate on continuing to get those numbers down and not try to jump ahead by weeks or months and say what we're going to do at a particular time.
So maybe we could get back to normal by Christmas.
Which is always funny to those of us who have been normal since last Christmas and since before that.
Those of us who never stopped living a normal life.
But what I will say is Now, I don't have this experience in my family, so I can't relate to it.
Thankfully, all the people in my immediate family, anyway, are sane people.
So I have all sane people in my family, which is very nice.
So no one in my family has been waiting around for Fauci to give them permission to gather together for a family reunion or to get together for the holidays.
No one's been doing that in my family.
But if someone in your family is still doing that, I don't care who it is.
If there's someone in your family who's still sitting there waiting, say, hey guys, we can't make Christmas plans yet because Fauci hasn't given us the go-ahead, then you're better off without them at the family gatherings anyway.
We gotta be at a point now where you see this as a blessing.
Because you've just weeded out the people who are so mentally and emotionally unbalanced that it's better not to have them there.
So I wouldn't be worried about this at all.
Go do what you want to do.
If there's anyone in your family, anyone, who still, even now, is hesitant about getting together with you because Fauci hasn't said so, then it's better off.
Just move forward without them.
You have no choice now.
Also, Fauci, over the weekend, had some thoughts on on your responsibility to society.
I had a little bit of lecture about, and he's been doing this more now, how do we balance freedom versus our responsibility to society, and he had some more thoughts about that.
Listen.
But you are a member of society.
And as a member of society, reaping all the benefits of being a member of society, you have a responsibility to society.
And I think each of us, particularly in the context of a pandemic that's killing millions of people, you have got to look at it and say, there comes a time when you do have to give up Would you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society?
Well, no, you don't.
That's the exact opposite of the ideas that lay at the foundation of this country.
It's the exact opposite.
And he's outright saying now, well, give up your freedoms and your rights for society.
And the other problem is, you notice how he's not saying, because on the left, they don't have language for patriotism.
So he's not saying, well, give up your rights for the good of the country.
I wouldn't agree with that either, because especially if you're living in a country that's founded on the notion of human rights, you can't give up your human rights for the good of that country, because you're undermining the very thing it was founded upon.
So you're destroying the country for its own good, which doesn't make any sense at all.
But he's not, you notice how they don't say that.
He's not saying it's for the good of the country or even like Western civilization or anything like that.
It's just this broad kind of amorphous concept of society.
What do you even mean by that?
What are you referring to?
So we're left with this kind of generalized, amorphous idea of society.
Not the country, but society.
Which, of course, raises the question of what exactly are you talking about?
Our duty to society in general?
What precisely are you referring to?
And it doesn't matter what he's referring to, because, again, in this country, you don't sacrifice your basic human rights.
There's nothing that's more important than that.
But even so, you notice again what the left always does, and it's effective, is they're always framing things around the notion of duty and responsibility, moral obligation, calling you to make sacrifices.
Now, they're always calling you to make the wrong kinds of sacrifices.
They're asking you to sacrifice the wrong things for the sake of the wrong things.
And their ideas about our moral obligations are completely twisted and perverse, and same for our responsibilities and our duties, but that's always the way they frame their messaging.
And it's compelling to people.
And this is why I'm always saying to the right that we need to pick up on that and realize, because for too long on the right, we've had this idea that, well, you can't talk, you know, we don't want to talk about obligations, responsibilities, sacrifice, because that's scary to people.
You know, people don't want to make sacrifices, so let's just always, let's talk about nothing but their rights and all of that.
But rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.
You can't have one without the other.
And this is something that's compelling to people.
You call people to make sacrifices.
You talk about what their responsibilities are.
Especially in our society today, where people are lost, with no sense of purpose.
This is the kind of message they're looking for.
And they only get it from the left.
That's the only place they get it.
Listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speak.
or Bernie Sanders, or anyone in the squad, when they are arguing in favor of their policies and their positions, it's always, well, we need to do this because it's the right thing.
Yeah, it may require sacrifices, but we need to do it because it's right, it's moral.
And still, conservatives are afraid to speak in the same language.
Which is a shame because we actually are the ones who have a notion about what our real responsibilities as human beings and Americans actually are.
And we have, or we should have, an understanding of objective moral truth.
And so we could be the ones representing that.
What are our actual moral obligations?
I say this all the time when it comes to the pro-life conversation.
It amazes me that when we're talking about abortion, why abortion is wrong, you hardly ever hear pro-lifers say anything about parental obligation.
You almost never hear this.
You never hear them say, well, you have a responsibility to your kids.
Yeah, I understand you don't want to be responsible for them, but you are.
You have a responsibility to them.
It's a very basic and fundamental message that we're afraid to say.
And so we surrender all that ground and all that language to the left.
And they use it effectively.
And when you're talking about responsibilities and obligations, it's always going to appear that you have the stronger position, you have the more serious position.
This has been the trick for communists For decades and decades.
Communists are always talking about making sacrifices for the greater good, our obligations to society and to our brothers and sisters, our comrades.
And that stuff is very compelling to a lot of people, especially young people.
The Christian churches that have figured this out They reap the rewards, because you go into these really conservative, serious Christian churches, like especially the Latin Mass, if you're Catholic, and that's where you'll actually hear messages about moral obligation.
And when you look out in the pews, what do you see?
You see tons of young families there, hungry for that message.
All right, so Kristen Sinema is a Democrat senator from Arizona.
She has upset leftists because she's not supporting Biden's agenda all the way.
So I'm sure you followed some of that.
No need to review all of it.
She's not showing proper deference to the leftist agenda, and they're mad at her.
So they tracked her down at Arizona State.
In fact, the day before this, they were at her house with megaphones harassing her.
And they felt like that didn't get the message through, so they tracked her down at Arizona State.
And they caught her in the hallway on the way to the bathroom.
And they followed her into the bathroom to heckle her.
And let's listen to some of that.
Okay, I'll be back.
Today we want to talk to you real quick.
You want to talk to me real quick?
Hi, actually I am heading out.
Right now is a real moment that our people need in order for us to be able to talk about what's really happening.
We need a Build Back Better plan right now.
We knocked on doors.
We need solutions to build that better plan.
We need to have the solutions that we need.
We knocked on doors for you to get you elected and just how we got you elected, we can get you out of office if you don't support what you promised us.
We need $7 million in citizenship for $7 million.
We need to build that better plan right now.
My name is Blanca.
I was brought here to the United States when I was three years old.
And in 2010, my grandparents both got deported because of SB 1070.
And I'm here because I definitely believe that we need a pathway to citizenship.
My grandfather passed away two weeks ago, and I was not able to go to Mexico and visit him because there is no pathway to citizenship.
And if we have the opportunity to pass it right now, then we need to do it because there's
millions of undocumented people just like me who share the same story or even worse
things that happened to them because of SB 1070.
So these are, at least one of them, is an illegal alien tracking a sitting U.S.
Senator into the bathroom.
Now, you can only imagine the reaction if this was a member of the squad, let's say.
This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I mean, think about some right-wing protesters who are upset at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
And they find her in the hallway.
They don't even have to follow her into the bathroom.
If they just followed her down the hallway for 10 feet and said, Congresswoman, can we talk to you?
That would be enough right there.
That would be another insurrection.
And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be doing Instagram live videos about it and crying and saying how she almost died and they... telling wild stories about how they came after her with, you know, nunchucks and spears.
And that's if they just... Think about them following her into the bathroom.
And she's in the stall and they're yelling at her.
And there's a guy in there too.
A guy came into the bathroom.
Now, you can only imagine the response from the media, but in this case, it's Sinema, who is also a Democrat, but she's being harassed by people who are further to the left than she is.
And the basic rule, of course, is that whoever's further to the left is always right.
And so these people are being defended, for the most part, by lots of people on the left and in the media.
Meanwhile, one of these people confesses to being an illegal immigrant.
Now, in what other country could you get away with that?
In what other country could you be there illegally, and then track down a government official on video, and confess on video to being there illegally, and then harass them in a bathroom, and the next day you're still in the country?
What other nation, maybe I should ask, what non-Western nation, I could see that in plenty of European countries, but in what non-Western country could you do that?
Can you think of a non-Western country where I could go there illegally, find one of their government officials, and start harassing them and demanding that they make me legal?
Follow them into a bathroom?
Deportation would be the least of my worries if I did that.
But here, the next day she's painted as a victim.
If we were a serious country, that night she would have immigration officials at her door, carting her butt back to Mexico.
That's what they would be doing in a serious country.
You're here illegally, you're harassing a government official in the bathroom, and you're also recording them in a bathroom, which last time I checked, recording someone in a bathroom against their consent is a crime.
That's what a serious country would do, but we're not a serious country.
And so she's allowed to get away with this.
And she's also allowed to get away with it, she's allowed to get away with it fundamentally because the belief on the left is that if you're not fully on board with the agenda, then you're not worthy of any basic respect or dignity or anything.
There's no treatment of you that could be considered too harsh or out of bounds.
You deserve all of it.
By the way, Let's see.
Someone else, this is Sofia Marjanovic, who is, I guess, one of the people who was involved in this altercation, and she posted on Facebook talking about this, and she said, I will speak about the controversy regarding following Senator Sinema into the bathroom when I have the time.
None of you have a right to tone police my desperate demands for labor protections after what I have endured as a human trafficking survivor due to the effed up gig economy.
For now, connect with the fact that you are on stolen indigenous land, and indigenous women and children go missing and murdered because we don't have access to stable jobs, stable housing, clean water, clean food, or stable, decent health care, despite the fact that indigenous people have upheld our end of the treaty in assimilating and getting educated.
Arizona is among the top three states in the U.S.
where indigenous women and children go missing and murdered.
Give my indigenous relatives to the south of the U.S.-Mexican border citizenship now.
Now, I'm not sure what she means by a human trafficking survivor because of the gig economy.
Is she saying that she was in the gig economy and that's tantamount to human trafficking, I suppose?
But here we go back to this stolen land idea, which doesn't even make any sense.
You're saying that this entire country is illegitimate, it's stolen, And therefore you demand that people be made official citizens of this illegitimate government on this illegitimate land that we don't belong on in the first place?
So you want more people to come in and take advantage of all this stolen land and the stolen rewards that we're reaping?
That doesn't make sense to me, but of course it's not supposed to make sense.
This is an emotional temper tantrum.
And they feel entitled.
I mean, this again, also, the speed with which people develop this sense of entitlement after getting to this country is really amazing.
People come here and immediately feel entitled to everything.
You know, there was, I don't think we ever talked about this, but there was one of the Afghan, a few weeks ago, one of the Afghan refugees on a military base who had been saved from his country, brought over here, you know, arms extended open, even if not everybody feels that way, but the government anyway extended the, and he was brought over here, and he had supposed to went viral on Twitter because he was complaining about the meals that he had been given.
You know, he's brought out of his country, brought to this country, offered a home, and as soon as he gets here, he's complaining because the meals at the refugee, you know, the military base that they're giving the refugees, not good enough.
It's not enough.
Oh, and also he complained that the Wi-Fi speed was too slow.
It's farcical, really.
And this has become, I talk all the time about as Americans, what unifies us, what brings us all together.
We talk about if we are one country, what is it that ties all of us together?
Aside from the fact that we all live in the same geographical sort of basic region of the globe.
Especially when we can't rely on that distinction anymore because the borders don't exist.
And we have no values in common.
If there's anything that ties everyone together, or most people in this country together, it's the sense of entitlement.
All right, finally, this is from Yahoo.
I just love the way that this is written.
It says criminal charges were filed against Teresa Lucas, a 30-year-old black woman, in an unexpected turn of events.
This week, authorities in Georgia revealed they believe a black woman is behind the racially charged notes that have been terrorizing her neighborhood.
Since last December, a Douglasville, Georgia neighborhood has been gripped in fear due to racially charged messages that have anonymously been left in mailboxes of residents of color.
But now officials say police said that they have made an arrest and the alleged culprit is not who anyone would have expected.
Wednesday, the Douglasville Police Department confirmed that they had filed criminal charges against Teresha Lucas.
Lucas is a 30-year-old black woman who they believe threatened people in her community while posing as a Ku Klux Klan member.
In an unexpected turn of events, okay, I already read that part.
Let's see, there was another funny part here.
In the notes, threats were made to burn down homes and kill their occupants.
The author of these disturbing messages also made it a point to describe themselves as a six feet tall white male with a long red beard who did not live in the neighborhood.
Shouldn't that have been your first clue that something is slightly amiss here for all these residents who are allegedly terrified?
Well, the first clue is that you're getting the racist notes from a KKK member in the first place when there are, you know, like seven KKK members in the entire country and they're all in some basement somewhere.
They're not leaving any nasty notes on anybody's doorstep.
So that's your first clue.
And your second clue is that, like, every single racist note that's been written in the last 25 years has been a hoax.
I'm still waiting for an example of one real one.
But then, if that's not enough to get through to you, the fact that this racist Ku Klux Klan member would describe themselves in the note, says a bunch of racist stuff and then signs it, a six foot tall racist white man, With a long red beard.
P.S.
I don't live in this neighborhood.
P.P.S.
I am not the black woman three doors down.
That is not me.
And yet this neighborhood was gripped in fear.
And then Yahoo News says that the outcome that anyone who's been paying attention would expect Who's rocking polka dot and flannel shirts without shame?
Do you know their name?
everyone with a brain. All right let's read now from the YouTube comments.
Who's rocking polka dot and flannel shirts without shame?
Do you know their name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
Okay so the good Texan says Matt Walsh does not own a stove, oven, or microwave
because canceling is a dish best served cold.
That's actually true.
I don't.
Well, we have a stove and an oven, but we actually do not own a microwave at all.
And this has been a point of contention in my house.
We went through a period without a microwave because ours broke or something, and we were just too lazy to get a new one.
My wife, I guess, just liked the idea of this.
This was like a small protest against modern society, I guess.
And everyone has to have at least that one modern convenience that they don't use so they can brag about it.
And so microwaves became our thing.
I didn't want them to be our thing.
I really like microwaves.
So it's a constant argument in our house.
My wife just refuses to put a microwave in the house.
So for that reason, you're actually right about that.
All right.
This is from This Guy's The Limit.
It says, Matt, thought you deserve to know Planet Fitness is a gym for snowflakes.
They don't allow customers to bring water over a certain volume.
A gallon is gym-timidating, they say.
They have lunk alarms, which go off if a lifter grunts or makes too loud a noise.
They have donut and pizza days to celebrate the milestones you've made.
If you want to cancel, you have to send in a handwritten letter.
And to top it off, I once asked another customer, after about two weeks of attending, if he knows where there's a scale.
And he said, do you not know they don't have scales at Planet Fitness because it may offend people?
Well, I'm not going to take this kind of slander of one of our great sponsors, which is Planet Fitness.
And listen, I've been to Planet Fitness.
I know they have the Lunk Alarm.
I've never seen it go off.
And if they do use it, they have good reason to use it.
Don't be a lunk at the gym, whatever exactly that is.
Let's see.
Another comment says, Matt, you said that you haven't seen a great film in several years.
What about the Green Book or 1917?
I haven't seen the Green Book but I have seen 1917 and that was a few years ago.
I said it's been a few years since I've seen a great movie and that might be the most recent great one that I've seen.
I thought 1917 is a very good film and war film and what I like about it as a war movie.
Is the simplicity of it.
Because these days, two of my favorite genres, my two favorite genres, war films and westerns, and the problem with Hollywood now is they think that if they make either of those kinds of movies, they have to kind of like, especially with westerns, this is a problem, but you see with war movies too, they feel like they have to deconstruct the genre and they have to do all these groundbreaking things rather than just make the movie and tell the story within the constructs of that genre.
But 1917, they don't do that.
It's a war film, it's a very simple story, but also a compelling one.
And yeah, that's a great one if you haven't seen it.
Let's see, Michael says, I like ties and all, but who the hell was the first person to decide to hang fabric around their neck and also said it looked good?
Yeah, I don't like ties at all.
This is why women need to stop complaining about, they say, ah, women are, you know, we have childbirth and everything.
Okay.
You have childbirth, allegedly.
I mean, I'm told these days men can give birth too, so I'm not even sure if that's true.
Even for the sake of argument, let's say only women can give birth.
So you've got that, okay.
That is a burden you have to carry.
I don't envy that.
In fact, I quite enjoy the fact that I'm not the one who has to carry children and give birth to them.
But, think about it on formal occasions.
You can wear outfits that are appropriate for the season.
You know, you can take a look outside, look at the weather, look at the temperature, and say, oh, this is what I'll wear.
You know, it's hot out, I'll wear something a little bit lighter.
But for us, we only have, for formal occasions, we just have the one thing.
We only have one option, and it's a suit.
So at a minimum, we're wearing two layers.
If it's 112 degrees outside, doesn't matter.
And you gotta wear the tie around your neck, choking yourself half to death.
That's a cross we bear, ladies.
You don't know anything about that.
Let's see.
This is from Todd.
What did you think of the Ravens padding their stats at the end of the Broncos game yesterday?
Classless move.
Oh, I thought it was great.
Yeah, the Ravens played the Broncos yesterday, and they had the game fully in the bag.
They had won the game.
It was about three seconds left of the game, and they were up by, like, two scores, and they had the ball.
You know, in football, the tradition is If in a situation like that, you just take a knee, let the clock run out.
You don't keep running plays because you've already won the game.
Well, the Ravens had a record on the line where they were one away from tying the Steelers with the most 100-yard rushing games in a row.
They had like 42.
The Steelers in 1970-something had 43.
And so they were one away.
And at this point in the game, they had 97 yards rushing.
And so the head coach, John Harbaugh, ran a play to try to get those extra yards to get the To get the record.
And they did it.
They got five yards and got the record.
And there's been complaints about that.
Oh, it's classless.
Yeah, I don't want to hear about that.
Especially from other players and coaches complaining about it.
You play a game for a living.
Number one.
Number two, if you don't like it, stop them.
I don't believe in that.
Taking a knee.
You play to the whistle.
That's it.
And, uh, let's see.
Oh, Maximilian says, Matt, your sweet babies are worried you haven't given us an update on Pooh for months.
Yeah, well, Maximilian, I haven't talked about it because it's too painful.
All right, my guy Pooh Shiesty is in jail.
He's facing federal charges.
Do you want to bring this up now, this traumatic thing for me?
In the middle of the show?
And they're trying to pin everything on him.
I mean, Pooh would never hurt a fly.
Certainly he would never steal drugs from a fly, and that's what they're claiming he did.
It's ridiculous.
I mean, where would a fly even keep drugs to begin with?
So, the whole thing's a mess.
It's a setup.
And they're trying to take Pooh Shiesty down.
You want to see me cry?
Is that what this is about, Maximilian?
I'm not going to give you that satisfaction.
You're banned from the show.
You know, if you're one of the millions of Americans, male or female, who deals with bags and puffiness under the eyes, let me tell you about GenuCell from Chaminix.
GenuCell serum also uses plant stem cell technology to promote visibly healthier skin and the appearance of younger, healthier eyes.
GenuCell's state-of-the-art technology will become your most powerful weapon against under-eye bags and puffiness.
Customers everywhere have been raving about this product.
That includes my assistant Tessa, who every day when I go into the office and I see her, I say, you must be using the GenuCell.
There's no eye bags there.
It's kind of a weird conversation to have with your assistant, but that's what we talk about.
With its instant effects, you see results in the first 12 hours of your money or your money back.
They guarantee it.
You can order now and save big on GenuCell's risk-free introductory offer.
All orders are up to 50% off.
So if you want to take advantage of this offer, you've got to go to GenuCell.com and enter MAT30 for an extra $30 off.
Again, go to GenuCell.com, enter MAT30, get that extra $30 off.
That's GenuCell.com.
GenuCell.com.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
So for our daily cancellation today, we have an onion of stupid with layers that we must peel our way through one by one.
We start with a priest by the name of Thomas Reese, who a few days ago shared an article from Religion News titled, Why Our Preferred Pronouns for God Should Be They.
Now, if you know anything about these matters, you've already guessed that Reese is a Jesuit.
He's also an author with a large social media following.
The article in question was written by a guy named Mark Silk, who is, according to his bio, the professor and director of Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College, as well as an editor for Religion News.
Now, he begins his screed writing, he says, quote, Writing last week in the New York Times, linguistic professor John McWhorter waxed enthusiastic about the advent of they as our all-purpose third-person singular pronoun.
Now we'll get back to the blasphemy in the first article in just a moment, but I want to take a step to the side here to read a few lines from that New York Times article first, as it apparently inspired the other one.
That piece is titled, Gender Pronouns Are Changing, It's Exhilarating.
And this alleged linguistic professor writes, The other day I had occasion to use the pronoun they in the new way, referring to a specific person, not your grandfather's father's singular they with its generic meaning.
A student can hand their paper in early if they want to.
But they, as in Roberto, wants a haircut.
And they also want some highlights.
I wangled it.
Wangled.
I don't know what that means.
But it required a bit of conscious effort.
Pronouns sit deeply in our cognition, used constantly and bound by habit.
It's their turn to use the kite, don't you think?
I said, thinking consciously about my sentence in a way that I don't have to usually.
I know some find it wearying.
Why does language have to change all the time, with all we have to think about?
But we're not unique.
There are times when the language firmament shifts under people's feet, and they get through it.
And then he goes through a number of examples of times when language has changed in the past, insisting that this is no different.
And he wraps it up this way.
He says, they tell you mountains become sand, but you never get to see it.
Language change happens faster, and you actually get to witness it.
It's something to treasure.
Yes, you see, it is in fact a great privilege to have a bunch of people with blue hair and nose piercings make up new rules of grammar on the spot and demand that you follow them.
It is exhilarating and majestic, like watching mountains become sand.
Granted, some of the people in this group may have the girth of mountains, but the comparison still seems like a stretch.
Anyway, I'll have more to say in response to that.
But first, let's get back to Mark Silk over at Religion News, who in his article, inspired by this New York Times piece, writes, quote, In contrast to being humans, it has long been accepted that God is not gendered.
At least within the main Abrahamic theological tradition.
A phrase such as God the Father should be treated as a metaphor.
And for those concerned about the embedded misogyny of the tradition, to say nothing of post-binary folks, a deeply problematic one.
As a result, we have been faced liturgically as well as theologically with the imperative of gender-neutral language, which means being obliged to repeat the word God, where a gendered pronoun would normally be used, and to have recourse to the unattractive neologism God-self, lest, God forbid, we find ourselves saying himself.
All right, now that we have the whole picture here, confused as it is, a few responses.
as in, "Praise God for whom all blessings flow.
Praise them, all creatures here below," etc.
All right, now that we have the whole picture here, confused as it is, a few responses.
First, on the issue of language evolution in general, we must continue to note that this pronoun stuff
is not a natural evolution.
It's true that language changes over time.
Language is fluid in that way.
Language is a symbol.
It's a sound meant to represent something.
You could argue that language is fundamentally arbitrary in that way.
We say elephant to talk about elephants and camels to talk about camels, but things could have worked out so that we say camels to talk about animals we now call elephants, and elephants for camels.
There's no reason why we had to use the particular sounds we use to represent those animals.
That's just how it worked out.
That's why language can shift and change over time.
That's true.
Now, in the Times article, many examples are given of past shifts in language.
It's argued that what we're experiencing today is just more of the same.
But it's not.
It's very different.
Because most changes in language happen relatively organically.
Due to a wide combination of influences, people begin to slightly adjust the verbal symbols they use for certain things, and eventually the official grammatical rules, as written in grammar textbooks and so forth, will change also.
But they change descriptively, not proscriptively.
They are describing and codifying a change that is already underway.
What's happening with pronouns is not like this.
Rather, it's a top-down change.
The grammar rules are being changed prescriptively.
Our culture elites have decided, for ideological reasons, that we ought to be using different words, and they plan to berate and scold and punish us until we comply.
This is not a natural evolution of language.
This is an intentional manipulation of language, which is a very different thing.
So just look what they're doing with the made-up, nonsensical word latinx, or Latinx.
Nobody in that community uses the word or likes it.
And yet the cultural elites keep using it and pushing it and pushing it, hoping that eventually people will submit and start adopting it in daily use.
If and when that day happens, they'll then turn around and say, look at that!
Language evolved!
But calling that natural evolution is like injecting drugs into a lab rat and calling it natural evolution when he grows a third ear.
Now, there have been other examples of this kind of unnatural, imposed evolution of language.
The Times piece mentions a few, like when African-American became the preferred term in the 90s to supplant black, and then we went back to black again, which was then replaced by people of color, which is considered politically correct, while colored people is horrifically racist.
All of that is arbitrary and ludicrous, and it's mostly the result of cultural elites, again, telling us what words we should be using.
And yet, even this isn't as bad as the pronoun changes, because in this case, the verbal symbols to describe a certain reality are being changed.
But with the pronouns, they wish to change the symbols and the thing that's being symbolized.
The point of making pronouns fluid and genderless is to give the impression that people are fluid and genderless.
They're not just trying to change the way we describe things, they're also trying to change that which is being described.
Overall, you know, language is supposed to convey meaning.
Language, if it changes, is supposed to change in order to make meaning more clear.
But in this case, language is changing in order to make our meaning more obscure.
That's the difference.
And it's a pretty big difference.
And that brings us to the issue of God's pronouns.
Notice how the article refers to our preferred pronouns for God.
That's instructive because the author doesn't seem concerned with God's preferred pronouns for himself.
On that end, if you're an adherent to any of the Abrahamic religions, there's no question about it.
God prefers to be referred to as He.
That's how His book refers to Him.
That's what His prophets call Him.
And if you're a Christian, you know that the Son of God, emphasis on Son here, not only called God Father, but also was Himself a Him.
It's true that God has no biological sex, because God created biological sex.
He created biology.
He transcends male or female.
He does.
We don't.
And yet God wants us to understand his relationship to us as that of a father to his children.
Do I fully understand what that means?
Can I fully comprehend that cosmic analogy?
No.
Neither can you.
But that's what God has told us, and that's what he's given us.
I find it quite telling that, according to some people, like the writer of this article and the priest who shared it, We should respect everybody's preferred pronouns, except for God.
For Him, we can impose our own onto Him.
We have our preferred pronouns for Him, rather than respecting the ones that He prefers for Himself.
Because that's what all of this is really about in the end, isn't it?
It's about putting us at the center, and what we want at the center, rather than subjecting ourselves to any greater truth, like God, or even like grammar.
And that's why everyone associated with that article, they're all canceled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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 Allie Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
An illegal alien harasses a U.S.
Senator in a women's bathroom, Dr. Fauci tries to cancel Christmas again, and a Democrat lawmaker claims that efforts to stop the killing of black babies are rooted in white supremacy.
