Ep. 838 - College Professor Wants To Destigmatize Pedophilia
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we will expose the people who are openly trying to normalize and destigmatize pedophilia. It’s shocking and you need to hear about it. Also, Dave Portnoy goes on offense after the media smears him with a Me Too hit piece. Plus, the media runs cover for Biden after he uses some very un-PC language during a speech. And a male rapper wears a dress to an awards show, and we are still supposed to be shocked and impressed by this kind of thing. Finally, in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the claim that the only way to save our planet is to stop having babies. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u
Read the Daily Wire’s bombshell Loudoun County exposé here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-schools-tried-to-conceal-sexual-assault-against-daughter-in-bathroom-father-says | Support the Daily Wire’s investigative journalism for only $4/month — use discount code REALNEWS for 25% off your membership: https://utm.io/udQ0u
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, we will expose the people who are openly trying to normalize and destigmatize pedophilia.
It's shocking and you need to hear about it.
Also, Dave Portnoy goes on the offense after the media smears him with a Me Too hit piece.
Plus, the media runs cover for Biden after he uses some very un-PC language during a speech.
And a male rapper wears a dress to an award show, and we're still supposed to be shocked and impressed by this kind of thing, I guess.
Finally, in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the claim that the only way to save our planet is to stop having babies.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
So did you know that there are over 10 million job openings, but only 7.6 million unemployed job seekers?
And this issue is being worsened due to a mismatch of employers and qualified talent.
So employers are having to go above and beyond to entice people to want to work for them,
offering all kinds of things, providing discount programs, offering legal services,
providing identity theft protection.
Apparently, I'm told also, employers are now offering pet insurance as well
to try to get people into, look, if it's someone,
the only way you can get them to work for you is by offering pet insurance,
and that's probably someone you don't want working for you to begin with.
But if you need to find the right person for your team, ZipRecruiter is where you need to go.
And you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter uses powerful technology to find and match the right candidates with your job, then it proactively presents these candidates to you.
You can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job, which encourages them to apply faster.
This is all about being proactive.
You know, and actually going out and finding the right talent.
And you could do that with ZipRecruiter.
And now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
So we must unfortunately begin the show today discussing some extremely disturbing things that you don't want to hear and I don't want to talk about.
But then again, the show almost always consists of things you don't want to hear and I don't want to talk about.
So today it starts with the organization called The Prostasia Foundation.
If it already sounds creepy and dystopian, well, you don't know the half of it.
It also has kind of a pharmaceutical ring to it, which may or may not be intentional, I don't know.
Prostasia has been around for a few years, it would seem, and it bills itself as a child protection organization, quote unquote.
That might sound pretty good.
Child protection organization, that's a good thing.
Until you go to their website and you spend 10 or 15 seconds Well, you will quickly see that this child protection organization concerns itself with such causes as kink awareness and sex workers' rights and decriminalizing sexting for children.
That's one of the things they want to do.
Prostasia insists that there is a sex-positive approach to childhood sexting.
The organization is also right now planning, and this is quoting now from the website, planning, quote, research into the use of fictional or fantasy sexual outlets like sex dolls, cartoons, and fictional stories among people who have sexual attractions to children.
Now, as you may be clued into by now, this is not a child protection organization, quite the opposite.
But if you need to be further convinced, here's an introductory video from their website.
Watch this.
Prestasia Foundation is a new child protection organization dedicated to promoting laws and policies that are both effective and constitutional.
We're a child protection organization and a human rights organization.
We're actually the first to bring mental health professionals, human rights activists, sex experts, and internet platforms together.
Prestasia takes an evidence-based approach based on preventing abuse before it happens.
I think we're living in a time when people are frequently willing to I think that making policy based on belief is a good idea.
I'm not sure that's correct.
We don't shy away from controversy.
For example, the idea that maybe we can change the behavior of people with a sexual interest in children.
Or the fact that the best placed people to keep minors out of sex work or the consensual kink community are sex workers and kinksters.
And so my thing when I encounter minors and change is, first of all, that's great that you're interested.
Please come back when you're 18.
Here are some books to read.
We believe that it's possible to protect children while upholding our society's most important values, such as tolerance, diversity, and freedom.
We are Prestasia Foundation.
So I have that mental filing cabinet open and I'm going through all of the potential things I could say to describe the people in that video that won't get me banned from YouTube.
There's nothing.
So we'll just forge ahead.
Yes, our society's most important value, tolerance, they say.
Now, notice how she says that we have to protect kids, but we need to also make sure that we're staying true to society's most important values.
Now, me, I would say that society's greatest priority is protecting kids.
But that, for them, is an afterthought in comparison to tolerance.
And what should we be tolerant of?
Well, Prestasia makes it abundantly clear through its website and videos that we should be tolerant of, we should de-stigmatize, what it refers to as minor attracted persons, otherwise known as pedophiles.
And they are not waging this war for pedophilia normalization alone.
First of all, one of the men, using the term very loosely here, one of the men affiliated with this organization is Noah Berlatsky.
And he's a media figure who has written for The Atlantic, The Washington Post, NBC.
I mean, he's been all over the place, mainstream publications.
And he works with this organization that wants to de-stigmatize pedophilia.
Because openly supporting pedophilia will not preclude you from earning bylines in major publications.
Quite the opposite, it would seem.
And there are others outside the organization joining in this fight for pedophilia acceptance, including, of course, college professors.
In fact, just a few days ago, or last night, as libs of TikTok on Twitter brought to our attention, Prostasia's YouTube channel, they haven't been banned from YouTube, of course.
I mean, they're still on YouTube.
They had an interview with a non-binary professor from Old Dominion University by the name of Alan Walker.
Alan Walker has just written a book available on Amazon, hasn't been banned on Amazon of course, arguing for tolerance of MAPS, Minor Attracted Persons.
Here's Alan talking about the book and its arguments.
I use the term minor attracted person or MAP in the title and throughout the book for multiple reasons.
First of all, because I think it's important to use terminology for groups that members of that group want others to use for them.
And MAP advocacy groups like Before You Act have advocated for use of the term MAP.
They've advocated for it primarily because it's less stigmatizing than other terms like pedophile.
A lot of people, when they hear the term pedophile, they automatically assume that it means a sex offender.
And that isn't true, and it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors.
I've definitely heard the idea that you brought up, though, that the use of the term minor-attracted person suggests that it's okay to be attracted to children.
But using a term that communicates who someone is attracted to doesn't indicate anything about the morality of that attraction.
You know, maybe once the FBI is done investigating soccer moms at school board meetings, they might want to have a look at Alan Walker and the Prostasia Foundation.
If it isn't too much trouble, that is.
This is all quite horrifying and nauseating and infuriating, but we could learn something important by listening to the blood-curdling freak in that video.
Now, Professor Them says that we should call pedophiles minor attracted persons because it's polite.
You know, it's what the members of that group have requested that we do.
We should allow groups to define themselves and we should use whatever language they assign to us.
The last thing we'd ever want to do, Professor Thames says, is rather stigmatize them.
Now, you see here how the most hideous kinds of evil can be dragged up from the bowels of hell and sanitized and normalized all in the name of politeness and being respectful to communities.
That's step one, by the way.
Once they start putting the label community on a group of people, that's step one towards normalization.
So now we're talking about the pedophilia community.
Much like maybe we talk about the serial killer community or the rapist community.
This is all under the assumption, of course, that groups and individuals should be able to define themselves and that we should never stigmatize anyone.
Is what we're being told.
Of course, the people making this argument, they don't really believe it.
I'm sure that if a white supremacist group asked politely that they not be referred to as white supremacists, nobody on Professor Them's side of the ball would care about respecting their group identity.
In fact, the left will stigmatize people who are not white supremacists by calling them white supremacists, even though the people being labeled as such don't want that label and also don't warrant it.
So there's no consistency here, except in the sense that the left only applies this de-stigmatizing rule to sexual groups.
You know, it turns out that they're big fans of stigmatizing things in general.
They stigmatize all manner of groups, people, ideas, beliefs, value systems.
They stigmatize a new thing every day.
It's almost impossible to keep up.
So the de-stigmatizing campaign is reserved specially and exclusively for sexual behavior and orientations and groups.
Pedophiles are a sexual group, in a sense, and it's always been only a matter of time before the campaign begins in earnest to push for full mainstream acceptance of their quote-unquote lifestyle choices.
I mean, the left has marched under the banner of love is love, right, for years, and this is where that kind of slogan leads, by design.
Now, we'll be told that Prestasia and Alan Walker and their allies are fringe, And if that were true, you know, if they were alone on the field fighting this battle to normalize pedophilia and sexualize kids, you might not worry about it so much.
It would be enough to chalk them up to a small collection of disgusting anomalous dirt bags.
And if we lived in a sane society, they'd all be going to prison.
And that would be it.
But the problem is that they're not alone.
Just a few days ago, we played for you that news report out of Fairfax County, Virginia, where adolescents in public schools are being asked explicit questions about their sexual lives, their sex lives, which isn't even a thing that should exist for kids, being asked that by their school for a survey.
Yesterday, we had the video of a young boy in a dress and makeup paraded around by his mother for applause, applause which she does indeed receive.
We've talked about the dramatically increased prevalence of LGBT identification among kids.
Trans identification in particular has skyrocketed in recent years.
This is the result.
This result has been engineered precisely by sexualizing kids from a young age.
And as you know from this show, the men who invented the sexual revolution, who invented modern sex ed, and the modern approach to these subjects, men like Alfred Kinsey, wanted to convince the public to see children as sexual beings.
That was their goal.
Kinsey even worked closely with pedophiles in his research.
He did experiments to study orgasms in babies.
And the Kinsey Institute still exists today.
And is very well funded.
So, fringe?
No.
Not at all.
And beyond all that, of course, there's pop music and Hollywood and so on.
Altogether, you see that the effort to sexualize kids, and thereby to normalize the sexualization of kids, is already mainstream.
If Prostasia and Alan Walker are unique, it's just that they have taken all of this to its inevitable conclusion.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Have you gotten GetUpside yet, the app that we've been telling you about?
Because if you haven't, I don't know what you're waiting for.
It really is, it's just free money.
They're trying to give you free money and some of you are turning it down, you insane people.
My listeners are making up to 25 cents for every gallon of gas, every time they fill up.
Just download the free Get Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
You can use promo code WALSH and get a bonus 25 cents per gallon on your first fill-up.
So that means your first fill-up, you get 50 cents cash back.
Don't pay full price at the pump anymore.
Get cash back using GetUpside.
Just download the app for free and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank and 25 cents a gallon from there on.
Some people who drive a lot are making you know as much as two or three hundred dollars a month in cash back.
The cashback gets added right to your account.
It's as easy as that.
You cash out anytime to your bank account, PayPal, e-gift card, for Amazon and other brands, whatever you want to do.
It's very easy.
There's no catch.
There's no fine print, anything.
It's as simple as this.
Just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code Walsh and get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
That's code Walsh, the GetUpside app.
All right, so You know, it was nice last night.
We had a birthday.
My son turned five.
Thank God.
Thank God he turned five, because I tell you what, four is a battle.
I mean, I've said before, when you talk about the terrible twos, the twos are way overrated in terms of how difficult they are.
Two-year-olds are really easy.
Four is when the real battle starts.
So he turned five.
We went to, and this is just a recommendation that I give to parents.
We took them, you know, it's his birthday dinner.
We went to the Rainforest Cafe.
I don't know if you've ever been to a Rainforest Cafe or if you have them around where you live, but we love the Rainforest Cafe.
It's great.
It's horrible.
I mean, it's great because it's hard.
It's absolutely terrible.
The food is awful.
The service is awful.
Everything about it is bad, but it's loud and it's obnoxious and it's tacky.
And it's, you know, it's like kind of a little dirty.
And so you feel comfortable sitting down there with, you know, we got four kids, eight and under, and sitting in a, there's like no pressure.
You don't have to worry about annoying anybody.
You can barely even hear your own kids across from you at the table, which is another positive, another bonus.
And you just have to accept the fact that when, you know, as a parent, and you've got young kids, if for whatever reason, you're crazy enough to bring them out to a restaurant, This is not about you.
You're not going to have a good time.
So that's off the table.
So forget about that.
And this is all about minimizing the stress and just getting through it.
And as far as that goes, you go to a Rainforest Cafe, it's just very loud.
They've got these animatronic animals all over the place and these animal noises.
And it's just, it's fantastic.
All right.
Terrible, but fantastic.
So, we'll start with this.
Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports continues to wage war against Business Insider, justified war, a just war, I would say, for their Me Too hit piece.
We talked about this last week on Friday, right after the hit piece came out.
We talked about it on the show, and I defended Dave Portnoy because, first of all, he was accused Well, I mean, he wasn't accused of rape or sexual assault.
Not in those words at all.
He was not accused of that.
This is a Me Too kind of... What they did with the article is they wanted to give the impression that he was a rapist, and they wanted to give the impression that he'd been accused of rape by multiple women, but he hasn't been.
And even in the article, which was, of course, behind a paywall, Um, which means that many people didn't read it.
All they saw was the headline.
And the headline said something about, Dave Portnoy had violent and disturbing sex.
And I said to you last week, that's a big red flag.
I mean, violent and disturbing sex, that sounds bad, but if he was being accused of rape, they would put that in the headline.
They wouldn't describe it some other way.
They would say, Dave Portnoy allegedly, you know, commits rape or alleged rape.
They would put that in the headline.
The fact that they didn't put it in the headline, they tried to find other words that sort of suggest it, but don't say it.
Big red flag.
Then if you actually read the article, you find that, yeah, they spent eight months digging through Dave Portnoy's life because they decided ahead of time they want to take him down.
And they figure this is a single guy and he's successful and he's very open about the fact that he has a lot of casual sex.
So he's got he has a lot of sex partners out there.
And they said, "We're gonna talk to all of these women "until we find a few that will accuse him of sexual assault."
They couldn't find any that would accuse him of sexual assault, so they kind of went,
I guess they went to their plan B, their backups, and they found women that had sexual experiences
with Dave Bourne, don't like him anymore, and don't feel great about the experience,
but they don't say that it was rape.
They say it was consensual.
So they spent eight months doing that, and then that's what they found.
found I guess two...
Really, they found two women who felt icky about their dalliance with Portnoy, and they felt that he was a creep or whatever.
Portnoy has been on the offensive ever since then.
He had a press conference yesterday, which was really more of a live stream, where he went through the allegations, he dug up text messages that he's had with these accusers, and he showed how they were, in one case, one of the women accusing him.
And again, I gotta keep putting quotes around accusing, because it's not even clear what exactly are they accusing him of?
That's never made clear.
So, one of the quote-unquote accusers, he showed how after the fact, She was texting with him, all happy and flirtatious, and then later claimed that she was traumatized by the experience.
And the other accuser, the first one mentioned in the, and this is where the headline comes from, of violent and disturbing.
This is the woman who contacted Dave Portnoy and told him she had a rape fantasy.
And then they set up that she was gonna come to his mansion and they were gonna have sex.
And so she came for that reason.
Portnoy in his video shows how she, after this hit piece came out, she has been in public, I guess on, I think this is on her TikTok account, she has been saying publicly that she was not raped, that this was consensual.
Let's watch some of that here.
She messaged him, said she wanted to explore her rape fantasy.
That's a fact.
She came over.
They did.
We did not explore rape fantasy.
We did not.
She is of age.
She never said no.
Sounds consensual to me.
The creator?
Her.
The article never said the sex wasn't consensual.
I am getting crucified and dragged through the coals.
On a girl who is openly in the public being like, I never said it wasn't consensual and it wasn't rape.
Again, they keep stopping short because they know that's an investigation.
And if something happened, police or whatever, she's saying that.
She doesn't even know I'm looking at this, by the way.
So it's not like she's being provoked.
This is she's doing on her own, answering it.
We dig a little more, like where did this animosity come from?
from Exhibit 14, July 20th.
So that is when she left.
Dave Portnoy equals little bitch.
Again, doesn't sound like, I told you, we didn't get along.
That's what you write when you don't get along with somebody.
You do not write that, I don't think, I don't know, when you've been assaulted.
Like, little bitch is like, he's an asshole.
Exhibit 15, please.
This is all dug up after the fact.
That net worth, thanks to this fucking hit piece, is probably like half that shit now.
Below it, so that's my celeb net worth.
Thanks for the update.
That's her.
I don't know how she didn't delete that.
Venmo at me.
How much money am I worth?
Venmo.
Okay, interesting.
Okay, so this was like the headline accusation that they made the Business Insider was apparently from this woman, Dave Portnoy says, and she has now said publicly that, well, this was not non-consensual, which means it was consensual.
It's either consensual or not, right?
I mean, does anyone on the left want to say that you could have that there's some in between, between consensual and non-consensual.
No, it's consensual or it's non-consensual.
This was consensual.
So she said that publicly.
And then he brings up how, again, after they had sex, she was tweeting at him.
She put her Venmo up on his Twitter account.
Like, this is just a full-on hit piece.
That's all this is, trying to destroy somebody.
And I think there are two points to make about this, which both of them I already sort of made, but I'm gonna reiterate.
The first one is, okay, a lot of this is hookup culture.
This is what these women are experiencing, to the extent that they're being honest at all about their feelings.
And he goes on to talk about how that woman, the first one, You know, the reason why it didn't work out is because they're on very different political sides of the aisle, and so she's far, far left-wing, and so for her, she might be motivated entirely just by politics.
But to the extent that they're being honest about their feelings, what happened was they went for a consensual hookup, and it was consensual.
As everyone agrees, that's the crazy thing about this, that you've got, you know, usually you talk about a he said, she said.
Well, in this case, you've got a sexual experience, There's only two people involved, only two people were there.
Both of them are saying it was consensual, and yet you've got the media and people in the peanut gallery saying it wasn't, who weren't there and don't know anything about it.
So what really happened is they went, they had a consensual experience, and they didn't feel good about it the next day.
They had regret, they felt used.
She talked about in the article how she felt like she was used like a sex doll.
Well, yeah.
I mean, she was, but that's also what she was doing to him.
That's what hookup culture is.
You're using each other like sex dolls.
You are using, in hookup culture, you are using another human being like a glorified masturbatory aid, okay?
That's what hookup culture is.
It is sex with another human being reduced down basically to the level of masturbation, where the other person almost doesn't... They don't exist as a human being.
You're not worried about who they are.
You might not even hardly know their name.
You don't know anything about them.
You certainly don't love them.
You have no commitment to them.
So you're not engaging with them as a human.
You're not worried about their humanity and their deepest fears and worries and values and all that.
You're just trying to get something out of them.
You're trying to get this sexual experience out of them.
And in a way, it's like they might as well just be a sex robot.
That's how you're treating each other.
That's what hookup culture is.
And yet, you wake up the next morning and you're feeling used.
Well, you were, but you weren't raped.
And as I always say, because we have gotten rid of all of the language to describe sexual morality, we've chipped it all away, and all we have now is consent.
That's the one sexual boundary that we have still left in place.
And so when someone wakes up the next day feeling bad about what happened, the only language that they have The only boundary they recognize is consent, and so they figure, well, I guess consent was violated.
Because they think that as long as sex is consensual, then it's supposed to be good.
And I'm supposed to feel great about it. And if I don't feel great about it, then I guess it wasn't consensual.
And the second thing, of course, is poor noise showing how to respond to cancel culture, which is really important.
It's a really important lesson.
Being falsely accused, staying on the offense, and he's going after Business Insider.
He is addressing this directly.
He's not, like, apologizing for anything, because he didn't do anything wrong.
Except to engage in hookup culture, which I would say is morally wrong, but that was equally wrong on both ends.
And that's also not why he's being attacked by Business Insider.
Unless Business Insider wants to put out a, you know, Wants to wage some campaign against hookup culture in general, but you better, you better, you better throw a bunch of other people into that pot with Dave Portnoy.
He's certainly not the only one.
So he's not apologizing.
He's defending himself.
You know, he's, he's going after business insider.
He's putting these text messages out there and that's exactly what you need to do.
And another benefit, I think, is that he's kind of indirectly and unintentionally putting pressure on the next guy who is me too'd in a dishonest way like this.
Because the next guy, now really if this happens to you, and you do what so many other men have done and just clam up and start apologizing, While not exactly admitting guilt, but you clam up, you don't say anything.
People are going to say, well, wait, why, you know, Dave Portnoy came out and he was aggressive about it.
Why aren't you?
What are you doing?
Are you guilty?
And hopefully that will push people to say, no, do the exact same thing.
Get out in front of it.
Defend yourself.
Look at what happened to Aziz Ansari.
I mean, there's so many examples.
Aziz Ansari is one example.
It was a very similar sort of thing, where there was a Me Too hit piece on him.
He wasn't really accused of sexual assault.
It was never clear exactly what they're even accusing him of.
Except that they were trying to sort of gin up the impression that he committed sexual assault without saying it, which is exactly what they're doing to Dave Portnoy.
And Ansari's response was kind of, you know, he didn't say much, and then he sort of apologized, and then he kind of went away.
And so this label has just stuck on him, rather than coming out aggressively head-on and meeting this, as you should as an innocent person.
OK, so we have to play this just for fun.
Here is Joe Biden using well, maybe I'll just play the clip and then and then, you know, we'll talk about how to interpret this.
Go ahead.
You know, I've adopted the.
The attitude of the great Negro at the time pitcher in the Negro Leagues went on to become a great pitcher in the pros in the Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson.
His name was Satchel Paige.
Yeah, the great Negro at the time.
That's what he said.
Now, the media has been running cover for Biden on this, of course.
They've done it already.
We get the fact checks.
I'm sure Snopes is already on the case and they've done the fact checks.
And I bet this is something where already if you were to put something on Facebook saying that Joe Biden used the word Negro, you know, Facebook would fact check it probably.
So they're they're running the fact check.
They're running cover for Joe Biden.
On this.
But he did say it, and we know of course, no doubt whatsoever, that if Donald Trump had said exactly that, those words verbatim, this would be headline news everywhere and they'd be talking about it for the next 10 years.
They'd never shut up about it.
Um, and it would be, there would be probably marches in the streets and it would be a crisis of the president's arrest.
They would probably impeach him.
I think, I think he would have gotten impeached a third time if he had, uh, if he had said something like that.
But in reality, of course it is, I'll admit it is a little, even though we know they would do this to Trump.
The attack on Biden here from the right, it's a little cheap.
I mean, I think, I do think he meant to say great Negro League pitcher originally, and then he kind of, because he's Joe Biden, he stumbled over his words.
So that's, that's three out of, and also it's all arbitrary anyway.
Why exactly is Negro politically incorrect?
But you could still say Negro League.
So that, that exists.
I mean, that's, that's the name of something.
So you can't, but you can't, you can't, so that's okay.
But in any other context, you can't use that word.
It's just like person of color versus colored people.
I love that one.
That's the most arbitrary switch in PC language.
It's actually pretty funny.
You say colored people.
Whoa, that's racist.
Well, what am I supposed to say?
People of color.
What possible difference is there between those two things?
You're just flipping the words around.
And if you ask somebody that, what they'll tell you is that, well, well, uh, you know, people of color is, is, is better because it puts the humanity first.
It puts humanity before race.
And if you say colored person, then you're putting the race before humanity.
But that's why you want, and that's why, and that's why, that's why it's better.
That's why one is horribly racist and the other is, is the most PC thing to say.
Well then, but what about black person?
I can say that, can't I?
And that's putting race first.
So it doesn't make any sense.
It's entirely arbitrary.
And the real reason, though, anytime you do this with the left, when it comes to PC language or anything else, and you're trying to understand, well, why is that the rule, though?
Like, explain to me.
Because you can't tell me it's putting humanity first, because as I've already proven, that can't be it.
So really, why?
Why can you say one and not the other?
Honest question.
I think it's a perfectly valid question.
The real answer is, from the left, most of the time, the real answer is the same answer I give to my kids when I'm annoyed with their questions.
The classic parent answer is, because I said so.
And that's actually the answer from the left on this, or on so many other things.
But especially when it comes to the words you're allowed to use versus the words you're not allowed to use.
And they might try to come up with some kind of justification or rationale for their arbitrary declarations.
But when it comes down to it, the real answer is, because I said so.
Because the left said so.
That's it.
We said it, and that's why you have to do it.
All right.
More from the media here.
The media basically realizes, I think at this point, that Rittenhouse is innocent.
They're not going to come out and say that directly, but they realize it.
And they realize that he should be acquitted, and there's a pretty good likelihood that he will be.
So now they're looking for a different narrative.
A way that their priors on this case can still be confirmed, even if everything they said about Rittenhouse is wrong.
And Chris Hayes, in his monologue the other night, he thinks he's stumbled on what the narrative should be.
That's the message that was being pushed to a 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, a child.
He heard warnings about the boogeyman of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, and he took this illegally acquired assault weapon, which he admits, not for hunting or for home defense, and he throws himself at the fray in Kenosha.
And he kills two people.
The boy who killed people, the boy who killed people, is then celebrated by the same pro-gun law and order culture that produced him as a hero and a martyr.
And he's bailed out with the help of right-wing activists, and he poses for a photo grinning in the t-shirt of a long-gun-themed coffee company that then courted controversy from the right when it distanced itself from this person, this boy who'd killed two people accused of homicide.
There's a legal question before the jury right now of Kyle Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence.
It's being determined.
It will be determined.
From what I've seen, I think it's pretty likely he'll be acquitted, honestly.
But there's also the broader question of what kind of society do we want to live in?
Ask yourself that.
If you're watching this and you're a gun owner, or someone who considers yourself a defender of the Second Amendment, abstractly, right?
Ask yourself, do we want a society in which political conflict is settled on the streets between people with guns?
Right.
So, predictable.
I mean, nothing if not predictable.
But predictably, this becomes a case of a gun culture gone wrong, and this is what this is really about.
He says in that monologue, he acknowledges that there's a pretty good chance he's going to be acquitted.
And he doesn't say because he's innocent, but he realizes that they all do.
There's no getting around it.
And so now we're going to have a conversation about gun culture.
And why was this boy there in the first place?
By the way, now he gets to be a boy again.
Did you notice that?
Now he's a kid.
So for a while he was like a grown man.
When they thought they could hang the murder charge on him, he was a grown man and that's what it is.
But now that they want to make this about guns specifically, now that they've moved, now that they realize that they're not going to get the murder thing, and now they want to make it about guns, now it's convenient for him to be a boy, a child again.
Because why does this child have a gun?
So you notice how that switch has happened.
And they want to make it a discussion about gun culture.
When of course it isn't.
But if you want to talk about culture as it relates to the Kyle Rittenhouse case, well, we could do that.
Like the culture in America and in our cities now that allows for rampant lawlessness and rioting.
That is what actually led to everything that happened that night.
As I said from the beginning, you know, you want to put anybody on trial For what happened in Kenosha, aside from all the rioters who should be in jail, and almost none of them are, almost none of them were convicted or even charged with anything.
But how about the mayor of the city and the governor of the state who allowed this to happen?
We keep hearing how Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't supposed to be there.
He shouldn't have been there.
What was he doing there?
And we're just supposed to accept that all of the rioters rampaging through the streets, burning down buildings.
Okay, so they're allowed to be there.
Why was Kyle Rittenhouse there?
I mean, why was he actually there?
Because Kyle Rittenhouse had determined that law enforcement was not going to do his job or was not going to be allowed to do his job.
You know, law and order had been, in Kenosha, like in many cities in the summer of 2020, law and order had been abandoned.
It had been officially abandoned, basically cancelled.
It was the purge.
And we're not going to have law and order, and we're just going to let these animals run through the street and do whatever they want.
And there were some people who felt called.
They felt like they had a responsibility to step into that void.
You could say that they shouldn't have done that, that it was a stupid thing to do.
As I said, I would call that more courageous.
Doing what you think is the right thing.
Doing the right thing, even when you know you're putting yourself in harm's way.
I mean, we used to call that courageous.
They used to be considered brave to do that.
But no matter how you describe it, the problem is that that void existed in the first place.
The people who created that void, they're the ones that we should be blaming.
Here's something I want to just mention briefly from the New York Post.
There's a 16-month-old Alabama boy who weighed less than a pound when he was born at 21 weeks and one day has set a world record, being named the most premature infant to survive, according to Guinness World Records.
Curtis Means and his twin, Siasa, had a less than 1% chance to survive after they were born To Michelle Butler at UAB Hospital in Birmingham in July of 2020, a full-term pregnancy is usually 40 weeks, making the siblings about 19 weeks premature.
Sadly, the twin sister died the following day, but her brother, who weighed a mere 14.8 ounces at birth, has survived and he set a new world record.
So this was a child born at 21 weeks and survived.
We shouldn't need to connect the dots here and spell this all out, but if a child can survive at 21 weeks, maybe that should tell you something about the people who want... They tell us, well, we can have an abortion at 21 weeks.
It's just a blob of cells, a clump of cells.
This child was delivered at 21 weeks.
Is he still just a blob of cells?
Or did that magically change upon delivery?
How does that work exactly?
And the thing is, as medical science progresses and progresses, the idea of viability, you know, the threshold is going to go down and down and down.
It's going to be lowered.
So anyone who tries to draw lines in terms of viability to support abortion, well, medical science is making that very, very difficult.
And you also see how medical science has only vindicated every day more and more the pro-life position.
Every medical advancement in this realm has only shown more and more, has only continually affirmed the humanity of the unborn.
All right, Kid Cudi got up to some antics at the CFDA Fashion Awards this week.
Now, most likely, the majority of that last sentence means nothing to you.
That's OK.
You don't need to know much about it.
Only that Kid Cudi is some kind of rapper, I guess, and the CFDA Fashion Awards are fashion awards.
And Mr. Kid decided to attend this prestigious event.
I assume it's prestigious.
I don't know.
Wearing a dress, a wedding dress specifically, complete with a veil and everything.
And his date was a man in a tuxedo.
And you could see the pictures there.
And this, of course, being celebrated by by the media, I think it was Vogue.
So this is a bold fashion choice.
And you see this kind of thing, and it's just... I mean, look at this guy.
It's just... It's kind of sad and awkward and weird.
Because there's nothing at all even unusual about this anymore.
About a guy dressing up like a girl.
Certainly nothing revolutionary about it.
Like, they always want to pretend each time... This happens a million times.
And every single time, we're told, it's a revolutionary act.
It's certainly not revolutionary.
It's not even unusual.
Every single award show now, there's like 50 men in dresses all competing for attention on the red carpet.
And because it doesn't have any of that, doesn't have any of the novelty, it just becomes even more obvious how kind of sad and awkward it is.
It's just like this sad, awkward guy.
It looks like a sad, awkward guy in his sister's clothes begging for attention, which of course is all he is.
Very revolutionary there.
Good stuff.
Okay, now let's get to our comment section.
Timmy Shue says, "Matt, you're missing the significance of the dislike button."
They're trying to stop people from having a voice and they want to make you feel like you're alone.
Go to Trending, click on a CNN video, and the dislike ratio is major.
People think, I can't stand CNN, everyone agrees with me.
Same reason why Netflix removed the star rating system.
Amy Schumer special was one starred.
Yeah, that of course is... I understand in reality.
You know, I was talking yesterday about how they're getting rid of the dislike button.
For YouTube creators, and I really appreciate YouTube.
As a YouTube creator myself, I appreciate YouTube looking out for my feelings, but I realize I'm not that stupid.
I realize they don't care about my feelings.
It's not me that they're looking out for.
They're trying to save, yeah, CNN and all these left-wing accounts who get a lot of dislikes because people don't like the content.
And it's not even so much that they want to protect The feelings of the left-wing content creators.
I mean, that's part of it.
But as you point out, you know, they don't want other, they don't want you to know as a viewer that you are not alone in disliking this content.
They don't want you to know how many of you are out there.
And so that's why they, I do understand that.
And then a bunch of, Kayla says, sorry buddy, 109 dislikes on this video, still visible.
And a lot of comments like that.
Apparently, so you could still, at least on my videos, you look down there right now, you can still see, I guess the dislike button.
And that, that will be, will be funny.
This is how it all turns out that they, they, they only disable the dislike button for certain accounts, but for me, they'll keep it on there.
109 people disliked my show yesterday.
You bastards.
Um, Let's see, Bryce says, the IVF story from today is a pro-choice contradiction, isn't it?
If the baby simply became a human upon birth, then whoever carried it would have to be the mother.
A statement that says a baby can belong to someone other than the woman carrying it implies that the baby is a distinct entity prior to its birth.
Very good point.
I wish I had drawn that connection, made that point.
Very well done.
I should have just pretended I didn't read that comment and made the point on my own and claimed it for my own.
Sean says, if Kyle was fake crying, give him an Oscar.
Yeah, that's the claim that people don't understand, I think, the fact that most people are very bad actors.
Acting is actually a rare skill.
And so when you see Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand and you see him having a panic attack and crying, well, you know it's genuine.
Because of what he's going through and how any human would react that way.
But also, that's not something, you can't fake that.
Unless you're a trained thespian, you can't fake that.
That is raw human emotion.
No way around it.
Eric says, you're wrong.
The prosecution doesn't need to prove Kyle shot three people.
That was stipulated by the defense.
The burden of proof is on the defense to prove an exception to the murder statutes, which is self-defense.
Please do some research before creating your videos.
Thanks.
The burden of proof is on the defense.
No, Eric.
That's... You're extremely confused about the basic facts of our legal system.
As I always stipulate, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't claim to be a legal expert.
But I do know this at least.
The presumption of innocence is like the foundation of our legal system.
It's the most fundamental thing.
Is perhaps the most fundamental principle of our legal system is that you have the presumption of innocence as an accused person.
So no, the burden of proof is not on the defense at all.
It never is.
At least it's not supposed to be.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
Yeah, we know that Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people.
Guess what?
Shooting people is not against the law.
There's no law anywhere that says you don't shoot people.
Killing people also isn't against the law.
It depends on the reason and the motivation and the circumstance.
Self-defense is legal everywhere.
So, if there's a presumption of innocence, then the presumption has to be that it was self-defense.
It's up to the prosecutor to prove otherwise.
And they didn't.
So, a little legal 101 for you today.
Quick trip into law school.
Glad I could do that for you.
You know, last week, The Daily Wire filed a lawsuit against the federal government for the unconstitutional mandates that the Biden administration is forcing on large employers and their employees.
This isn't something we enjoy doing.
No one likes being involved in a lawsuit, but we're happy to do it to see that and be able to apply pressure and create change.
It's already working.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay preventing Biden's mandate from going into effect, citing grave statutory and constitutional issues That's a good first step, but this is not over yet.
Not by a long shot.
Really, the fight is just beginning.
And we're not just fighting for the Daily Wire employees.
We're fighting for medical freedom for all people.
This is an urgent matter, and your medical freedom depends on it.
If you want to support the fight to make your personal medical decisions without government interference, sign our petition against Biden's authoritarian mandate today.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already signed the petition in just a few days, but we need many more people to stand with us to reach our goal.
So please head to dailywire.com slash do not comply to sign the petition today.
Also, Daily Wire's own Andrew Klavan is a brilliant suspense novelist, and his newest book, When Christmas Comes, is available everywhere you buy books.
Described as wonderful gripping and a pure delight by the great Dean Koontz himself, the book centers around the story of a sleuthing English teacher who will need a Christmas miracle to prove a condemned man innocent.
It's a seasonal tale of tradition, family, and of course, murder.
It's Chilling Twists, our best experience curled up beside a burning Yule log.
Go pick up a copy for yourself or your thrill-seeking loved ones at Amazon or anywhere you buy books today.
Just in time for Christmas.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel Population Matters, which is a charity, quote-unquote, that campaigns for, as it puts it, a sustainable human population, which is another way of saying that they want fewer people on Earth, right?
Traditionally, you know, charities have focused on helping humans flourish.
But these days, especially in self-loathing, predominantly white Western countries, we have charities with the exact opposite intention.
Population Matters, just a few weeks after giving an award to Harry and Meghan for pledging to limit their family size, they had a big presence at the UN's Climate Conference where they unveiled a giant inflatable baby to raise awareness of the fact that there are too many babies in the world, or at least in the West.
You'll notice again that all of these organizations worried about overpopulation, they always focus on mostly white countries.
And that's not a coincidence either.
Let's hear what they have to say.
So Population Matters is here in Glasgow at COP26 and you can see we've got Big Baby who's just been inflated and we're drawing attention to the fact that in a rich developed country like the UK, like Scotland, like England, choosing to have a smaller family is the best thing you can do to take the heat off the planet.
And also, of course, we have choice here, whereas hundreds of millions of women across the world don't have that choice, don't have that right.
We want to draw attention to that, because if we can meet that unmet choice and right for safe modern family planning, For the number of kids you have, when, whether you have kids, that is also not just brilliant for people and for their well-being, but it's also great for the well-being of the planet.
It will save more carbon dioxide than all onshore and offshore wind power combined.
It's the number two solution to climate change, and yet we've hardly heard population talked about at COP26, other than from Population Matters.
Right, so let's go through a few points here, both in response to population matters and to the overpopulation myth generally.
First of all, overpopulation is indeed a myth.
And this all hinges on the obviously absurd notion that the Earth has some sort of max capacity for human life, and we've almost reached it or already exceeded it.
The overpopulation myth was invented out of thin air a few decades ago, around the time that environmentalists and eugenicists were telling us about the imminent Ice Age, which apparently came and went and destroyed mankind without anybody noticing.
In reality, the Earth really has no carrying capacity.
Or if it does, we'll never get close to it.
As it stands, we have enough room on Earth to fit the entire population of the world into Texas, and enough resources to feed them all three times over.
It's not a coincidence that articles and news stories about overpopulation, they always come accompanied by images of people in Manhattan or Tokyo, all crammed together in a train or on a sidewalk.
For some reason, they never show you the vast swaths of empty land where nobody currently lives.
They never show you, like, North Dakota or rural China.
It's our choice to mostly not live in North Dakota.
Perhaps our cities might have a population limit, and even that limit is quite flexible, but the Earth is enormous and ancient and resilient, and it can handle all of us.
This goes for the climate, too, by the way.
The Earth has endured massive swings in temperatures, highs and lows, ice ages, warm periods.
The Earth has been hit by asteroids the size of cities.
There have been supervolcano eruptions, cataclysm after cataclysm.
The idea that it could be crippled, brought to its knees because we're having too many babies is ridiculous.
Also, let's keep in mind always that climate change was supposed to have already brought about the extinction of the human race several times by now.
It hasn't, probably because climate change isn't that big of a deal.
Which isn't to say that climate change doesn't exist.
Of course it exists.
Of course the climate is changing.
It always changes.
The Earth has warmed very slightly over the past century and a half.
It's now mostly stopped warming, and there's no real evidence that human beings contributed to it in any significant way.
It's probably for this reason that there isn't any scientific consensus on climate change.
It never was.
Second thing.
Human beings are not commodities.
Even if it could be proven that an excess of children may lead to this or that problematic outcome, it still would not be morally justified to treat children as if they can be in excess.
Either we believe that human life is sacred and each life holds infinite value, or we don't.
And if we don't, then I'm not sure why we're having this conversation or any conversation.
Life is meaningless.
Therefore, the polar bears and the trees and all the fish in the sea are also meaningless.
Therefore, the Earth is meaningless.
Therefore, we may as well kill ourselves and escape this painful nothingness of existence.
Certainly, if human life has no intrinsic value, then we shouldn't bother ourselves by worrying about, you know, silly things like murder and rape and so forth.
Who cares what one worthless, accidental clump of matter does to another?
It's all the same in the end.
It's only possible and sensible to continue this conversation if we agree that life has value and that its value is inherent.
So if we're moving forward with that understanding, we must agree that each life is worth the trouble that it may supposedly potentially cause.
Life is not a thing that can be measured, counted, rationed, even by an activist standing in front of a giant inflatable baby.
Third thing, speaking of which, why hasn't that dude removed himself from the equation?
It's fascinating to note that those who worry about overpopulation They never seem to put themselves in the over category, right?
As I think it was G.K.
Chesterton observed that a hundred years ago.
But if a person truly believed that the surplus of humanity on Earth has become a moral crisis, is that person not morally obliged to minimize that surplus in the only way he really can?
Yet the overpopulation crusaders continue to breathe, live their lives, annihilating another polar bear family as we speak, refusing to lead by example.
It's unconscionable.
Now let me stipulate that I am not sincerely advocating suicide, I'm only demonstrating the insincerity of their position.
Four, I hate to beat a dead horse, or bear I suppose, but why are we still trying to save the pandas?
To go back to that for a second.
Because I can't make sense of this.
On the one hand, environmentalists tell us that carbon emissions are destroying the planet, and we have to have fewer children to address the epidemic.
But on the other hand, they say that we must do everything we can to stave off the extinction of pandas and koalas and other effectively useless species who seem to want very badly to die off.
We're basically forcing pandas to have sex.
We're so desperate to keep them around.
Why?
I mean, they emit carbon too, don't they?
Why are humans the ones who need to embrace extinction?
If there are too many biological creatures on Earth, and if we need to curb the expansion of this horrid disease called life, why wouldn't we start with the creatures who are near extinction anyway, and who have less value than human beings?
All I'm saying is that don't tell me to have fewer kids while you're out there artificially inseminating koala bears, for God's sake.
Fifth point.
Speaking of sustainability, what's the long-term plan here?
As our birth rate slows and Western countries dip below replacement level, the population is thrown out of balance.
You end up with a population that grows older and older on average, with fewer and fewer younger people, and that's the whole idea, of course, but then who takes care of all these older people?
See, throughout human history, the plan has always been for people to have kids, more than one kid, lots of kids preferably, and as they grow older, they have a whole expanding Family tree to lean on for support.
But our trees in the West are decaying and becoming top-heavy, and once they collapse, what then?
Who's going to care for all of these childless millennials as they grow old?
Well, the government, of course.
That's the plan, anyway.
Breeding dependence on government is the point, in the end, of really all of this.
Yet the government can't take the place of family, much as it may claim otherwise.
And it certainly can't save you from dying alone, unmourned and unloved, if you take the advice to forego having children for the sake of the climate.
Or the planet.
But I suppose you'll have the climate there to keep you company at the end, at least.
And that's why we have to say that population matters, and really the entire overpopulation myth, which is again, once again, a myth, is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today.
And the week.
Have a great weekend.
Talk to you next week.
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.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
