Ep. 915 - My Global Journey To Answer The Ultimate Question
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, over the last year I have been on a secret journey, spanning the globe, pursuing an answer to the ultimate question — the question that defines a generation. Today I’m finally ready to begin to reveal what I uncovered. Also, the Supreme Court hearings for Kentaji Brown Jackson continued yesterday, with Democrats and Jackson herself lashing out indignantly that anyone would dare question her stellar judicial record of going easy on child sex predators. Plus, Home Depot goes woke. Democrats push to extend the student loan payment freeze, though they can’t explain why. And even though men and women are exactly equal and no different at all, the Army has still lowered its fitness standards — again — to include more women.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Join Third Thursday Book Club now to be a part of tonight’s Q&A: thirdthursdaybookclub.com
We’re exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL
Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, over the last year, I've been on a secret journey spanning the globe, pursuing an answer to the ultimate question, the question that defines a generation.
Today, I'm finally ready to begin to reveal what I uncovered.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the Supreme Court hearings for Kentonji Brown Jackson continued yesterday with Democrats and Jackson herself.
Lashing out indignantly that anyone would dare question her stellar judicial record of going easy on child sex predators.
Plus, Home Depot goes woke.
Democrats push to extend the student loan payment freeze, though they can't really explain why.
And even though men and women are exactly equal and no different at all, the Army has still lowered its fitness standards, again, to include more women.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
With the ever increasing numbers of car makes and models, it's now impossible to stock all
the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront.
So why endure often pointless or seemingly intimidating questioning about the specifications of your vehicle only to have the counterman order the parts on his computer anyway?
I know one thing about me is I'm so intimidated at auto parts stores and also I call them countermen.
You have computers with access to RockAuto.com at home and in your pocket.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet.
Whether it's your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The RockAuto.com catalog is easy.
Very unique, and you can navigate it with ease.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
So, all you gotta do is go to rockauto.com, see all the parts available for your car or truck, and write Walsh in their How-Did-You-Hear-About-Us box so they know that I sent you.
I think it was about four years ago when I first posed the question, what is a woman?
I had started focusing on the scourge of gender ideology years before that and argued against it in a million different ways, making a million different arguments in a million words or more.
And somehow over those several years, it never occurred to me to ask the most basic question of all.
I had heard the phrase trans women are women so many times and yet for so long, I never thought to respond.
What does that mean?
What do you think a woman is?
What are you trying to say?
Four years ago, for whatever reason, it finally dawned on me, I realized I didn't need a million words, only four.
What is a woman?
Now, once I realized that this is the question, really the only question we need to ask, the question that pulls down the whole edifice of gender ideology, I started asking it, and asking it more, asking it over and over again.
I asked it for years on social media, in speeches and interviews.
It was clear that the proponents of gender ideology, the architects of the current madness which is gripping our society, were not going to answer the question, because they can't.
And they had elected instead to simply ignore me, which was easy enough.
So I reached a point where I realized that either I could keep shouting into the abyss, That's definitely an option.
I do it all the time.
Or simply give it up and move on with my life.
That I can't do.
I can't really give anything up.
Or I could take drastic action.
And I chose the latter option.
If they wouldn't answer my question, I decided that I would force their hand.
And so I hatched an elaborate scheme that, over the past year, has taken me across the globe and got me into the room with some of the leading quote-unquote experts in the field.
I talked to politicians, academics, pediatricians, psychiatrists, trans activists, surgeons, and many, many more.
I went everywhere from San Francisco to the African wilderness.
And yes, I did all of this essentially because nobody on the left would respond to my tweet.
An overreaction, perhaps, but I don't believe in proportional responses, as you've probably noticed by now.
I've had to keep this project secret for a year.
Finally, we can announce it, though.
We announced it today, and there's still so much that I can't say and that will be revealed in the near future.
We'll have a full trailer for it in the coming weeks, but for now, here's a very quick sneak peek.
Watch.
I have traveled all over the world for the past year asking one simple question.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
What is it?
What is it?
I don't know.
People are laughing.
Is that a dumb question?
I've been asking everybody this and almost nobody can answer it.
What is a woman?
What is a woman?
That's a great question.
If one person could tell me what a woman is.
Congressman, thank you for being here.
I think this interview is over.
Let's turn off the cameras.
I just wanted to know, what is a woman?
You're not going to find out.
It's not a complicated question.
Now that congressman very much regretted inviting me to his office for a sit-down.
He was, you know, not the only interview subject to regret their life decisions, I can tell you that.
But I can't tell you much more than that when it comes to specifics, but I can tell you That all I did was ask the most basic questions.
If gender ideology was going to collapse on camera, and it did in spectacular fashion, I wanted it to collapse under the weight of its own incoherence.
I wanted the allegedly smart, highly credentialed advocates of this stuff to just bury themselves, and they did too.
One line in scripture that I return to in my head over and over again as we film this project is Romans 1.22, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
I watched the wise make fools of themselves over and over again.
In fact, much of the real wisdom that I did encounter, and I encountered some, you'll see that in the film also, came from simple, normal people, the kinds of people that the wise would say are fools.
So, we ask the question, how did the left get away with propagating these ideas for so long, while somehow never having to answer even the most basic questions about it?
How did they conquer Western society with an ideology that falls over and shatters into a thousand pieces with a simple flick of a finger?
It's this enormous, seemingly imposing, totally ubiquitous thing, something that has reshaped our civilization, changed the way people see themselves and their own species, and yet all you have to do is walk up and just poke it.
Just poke it.
And it pops like an overinflated balloon.
How could something so flimsy, so thin, have so much success?
The answer is, for one thing, people are scared.
It has threatened the sane into silence.
That was something that became abundantly clear as soon as I set out on my What is a Woman journey, because everywhere we went, almost everybody that we talked to, even the ones who knew the truth and were willing to say it, even them, most of them, still looked kind of from side to side and whispered like they were spies passing state secrets.
There's a lot of fear out there, because the left is always standing in the middle of the crowd with a bomb strapped to its chest, threatening to hit the red button if anybody dares question them.
But what you find so often is that it's a dummy bomb, strapped to a dummy.
People are afraid of a phantom.
Now, it's true that the left owns all the institutions, and so they do have the power to punish you.
I myself have already basically accepted that at least some of my social media platforms will not survive the release of this film.
I'm already expecting that.
This movie is somewhat of a kamikaze mission in that way, which is why I wanted to get it right, because it might be my last act.
Who knows?
At least when it comes to my access to the internet.
I know there will probably be some steep consequences, especially considering the people who we embarrass in this film and how badly we embarrass them.
So, the fear people have is not entirely imaginary, and yet the fear has scared people to such an extent that they think they can't even talk about this at all.
They treat the subject, the subject of what a woman is, what biological sex is, like it's literally radioactive.
The fear causes people to fall silent, and the silence only emboldens the ideological terrorists even more.
The second factor is that the left is very good at making simple things seem complicated.
Not just on this issue, but all issues.
What they do is they try to drown you in jargon and buzzwords and caveats and exceptions to the rule and any other ball they need to throw at you to distract you from the topic at hand.
Soon, before you know it, you're off the path, you're knee-deep in the weeds, can't remember where you were going or why or what you were talking about.
And then, when you're out there, in the muck, off the trail, confused, they'll come along and say, you see, this is all so complicated.
You should stop thinking about this subject.
Just leave it to us.
Rest your puny little brain, child, and let us think for you.
Trust the experts.
What they don't expect is that you'll take them up on it and actually go talk to those experts and ask them the questions they're supposed to be able to so easily answer.
Actually ask the questions.
By that I mean, don't just sit there and let them talk at you, but ask the questions.
Apply some skepticism to what they're telling you, just a little bit.
That's not what they're expecting.
That's exactly what I did.
And the results are tremendous, as you'll see soon enough.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You'll also enjoy, I mean, I don't know, this is what's gonna be hard before we
release the full trailer.
I'm going to want to talk about so much of the stuff in this movie and I can't.
Because I don't want to steal our own thunder here when the trailer comes out.
You did see one clip there in the teaser, in the sneak peek of me at the Women's March with the sandwich board sign that said, what is a woman?
And so I will tell you that if you go to the Women's March, where people are marching For women, and you ask them, what is that exactly?
They do not respond kindly to the question.
So, if you want to know how to get kicked out of a women's march, that's how you do it.
I admit I also had a bullhorn, you know, so I didn't take the most subtle approach in that particular instance, but anyway, you'll see all that.
It's all really good.
Really excited about it.
So let's go to here.
We'll go back to the Supreme Court nomination hearings.
There's a lot of different clips and stuff I want to play.
We're just going to kind of go through these, maybe somewhat at random.
We've been hearing about, of course, the two things that come out of the Supreme Court hearing.
One, very topical for our purposes, is that Ketanji Brown Jackson wants to be Supreme Court justice and yet cannot tell you what a woman is.
And in fact, on that subject, Ted Cruz yesterday returned to it And asked her some questions, making the point that there are some real consequences, obviously, to having a justice who doesn't know what a woman is.
The most basic consequence is that she doesn't have, apparently, or at least is pretending not to have, any kind of grasp on reality.
And you would think that that's something you would want from your justice.
But also, it presents some real legal problems if you don't know how to define this word.
And so Ted Cruz got into that with her, and we'll see how that went.
You told her that you couldn't define what a woman is, that you were not a biologist, which I think you're the only Supreme Court nominee in history who's been unable to answer the question, what is a woman?
Let me ask you, as a judge, how would you determine if a plaintiff had Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based rule, regulation, policy, without being able to determine what a woman was?
So Senator, I know that I'm a woman, I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman, and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.
It sounded as though the question was... But let me ask under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I'm a woman, Um, then apparently I'm a woman.
Does that mean that I would have Article 3 standing to challenge a gender-based restriction?
Senator, to the extent that you are asking me about, um, who has the ability to bring lawsuits based on gender, those kinds of issues are working their way through the courts and I'm not able to comment on them.
Now, Ted Cruz had one line of question he was trying to go down and trying to get an answer out of her, and I appreciate that.
I do wish that he had interjected with a follow-up when she said, I know I'm a woman.
Obvious follow-up is, how do you know that?
And that is also a question that comes up in the film that I discovered.
That's like, there's the evasions.
Okay, well, are you a woman?
Yes.
How do you know that?
And then you see the meltdown happen even more.
I wish he'd asked that question because there's no... How do you know you're a woman?
You have to give a biologically based answer.
Or you can say, I just feel like one.
Okay, so anyone who feels like one is one?
And what do you mean you feel like one?
Like, what is a woman feeling?
And how can you differentiate that between... I mean, if you're a woman already, then whatever feelings you're having are the feelings that a woman's having, so how can the feelings determine... So we didn't go down that, but it does create, of course, all kinds of problems, especially with the way our legal system is set up right now, and all of these gender-based laws and everything.
You want to have those kinds of laws, Then how can you do that if you erase the distinction between men and women?
It's just like if you were to declare that race does not exist and that anyone can decide or rather that it's totally fluid and subjective and anyone can decide to be whatever race they want to be.
Well, one of the consequences of that is that now all the hate crime laws that you also support and have created, how do those work out?
How do you determine that?
So, she ducks and dodges there, not even very well, but she ducks and dodges, tries to evade it.
And she does the same when it comes to the questioning on her sentencing of child sex predators, and especially people who have used or consumed or distributed child porn.
Now, the media and the Democrats continue to be very scandalized that this is coming up at all.
We'll see some of that in a moment.
Cory Booker was just shocked and offended.
He was totally floored by what was happening.
This is unheard of for Supreme Court justice to be treated this way.
And again, like we said yesterday, from the Democrats' perspective, it is sort of unheard of and shocking to them because these questions are all about her actual judicial record.
And her legal philosophy, her personal philosophies, her worldview.
You know, things relevant to the job.
That's what the Democrats find shocking, because they're not used to that.
All they care about is usually digging into somebody's personal life, looking at their high school yearbook, how much beer did they drink in college, and so on.
The question, obviously, about sentencing for child pornography is incredibly relevant Because this goes down to just a real fundamental level, her concept of justice.
You know, she's a judge.
She wants to literally take on, she wants to be someone who we call justice, Justice Jackson.
Which does actually sound kind of cool, I gotta admit.
It sounds cool, anyway.
That would be the only good thing, is just how it sounds, just the name.
Everything else would not be good, having her in the Supreme Court, because although she would have this name of Justice, she doesn't have any concept of it.
Just like she has no concept of what a woman is, even though she's a woman.
You know, when you think about justice, what is justice to you?
I think we should know that if you want to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
Her concept of justice, apparently, is to, on every occasion, when she had the opportunity, to give a lighter sentence to child porn offenders than the federal guidelines allow.
On every single occasion.
Now, she was asked whether she regrets any of these decisions.
You know, federal guidelines call for years, and she decides to give somebody a few months.
Does she regret that?
And here was her answer to that.
I regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we've spent a lot of time I regret that you're talking about my judicial record.
upset of my sentences and I've tried to explain.
You regret that we're focusing on your cases?
I don't understand.
No, no, no, I'm talking about the fact that you're talking about-
Child pornography cases.
Very serious cases.
I'm glad we agree on that.
I regret that you're talking about my judicial record.
That's what she regrets.
Yeah, it may have been a minority of the cases that she dealt with, but
they're very important cases.
And the reason why you harp on them is because unlike some of the other cases that she may have dealt with, this speaks again to her fundamental concept of justice.
And based on her record, I'm not sure she has any concept of it at all.
Or if she does, her idea of justice is to, if you have someone who's already victimized children, sexually victimized children, and by consuming child porn, by obtaining child pornography, you have participated in the abuse of children.
Obviously, I would think it was obvious.
So her idea of justice is, someone is convicted of that.
You know, slap on the wrist basically, a few months in jail maybe, and throw them back out into society, give them another shot, give them another try.
And I doubt very much that there have been very many cases of somebody convicted of child pornography, they spend a couple months in jail, and then go back out into society, and that's the last time they ever go near any of that stuff.
That's just not the way it works.
There's a trajectory with these kinds of things.
When somebody has that in their soul, and they're falling down this pit, it doesn't just stop in the middle, you know, kind of mid-air, and they end up flying back in the other direction, towards the light.
I'm not going to say it's impossible.
Nothing is impossible with God, but it is not common, and it's not likely.
Usually somebody starts with child pornography and then, it doesn't take very long, soon they're physically victimizing children in real life.
Although even the child pornography, I mean those are children who are being physically victimized in real life and that the person who is obtaining it is participating again in that abuse.
So this all is relevant, but she says that it's not.
But it's also not just child pornography.
I want to go back a day before this.
This is a clip we didn't play yesterday, but she also has a habit of light sentences, not just for child pornographers and people who have obtained child pornography, but also drug kingpins as well.
Let's listen to that questioning.
Judge Jackson, before you granted this fentanyl kingpin's motion to reduce his sentence, did you contact any of the victims from his case?
Senator, thank you for allowing me to address Mr. Young's situation.
I asked a simple question.
Did you contact the victims in his case or not?
Senator, Mr. Young was not released.
His sentence was reduced and I did not contact the victims in his case because there were no victims.
He committed a crime, a drug crime.
There were no identifiable victims in his case.
Drug crime is not a victimless crime.
100,000 Americans were killed by overdoses.
Understood.
There were no victims of a fentanyl drug kingpin.
How many people does fentanyl kill every year?
Thousands?
A victimless crime?
That's an especially peculiar view from someone on the left, although that is basically what people on the left think, but it doesn't really make any sense because these are also people who don't believe in free will at all.
And so, given that you don't really believe in free will, you of all people should agree that, you know, a drug lord, someone who's selling drugs, that's not a victimless crime.
There are victims of that.
But then going back to yesterday, Cory Booker, after listening to all of this and all of these Republicans who would dare, dare ask her questions about the kinds of sentences she's passed down and what her judicial record is, her judicial philosophy, he's listened to all of this and he's totally outraged.
And so we'll play, we got a couple of clips here.
We'll play as much of them as we can.
Let's start with clip four.
I got letters from leaders of victims rights groups, survivors of assault, all saying sort of the same thing with the National Review.
Feel proud about yourself.
You brought together right and left in this, in this, in this calling out of people that will sit up here and try to pull out from cases And try to put themselves in a position where they're the defenders of our children.
To a person who has children, to a person whose family goes out in streets and defends children, I mean, this is a new low, and what's especially surprising about this is it didn't happen last year.
Shut up, Corey.
Stop that there.
He's getting geared up.
We've seen this before.
He especially likes it during Supreme Court hearings.
Famously, this is a guy that declared that he was Spartacus, so he's getting geared up for another Spartacus moment.
This guy, he's a performer.
He loves the theatrics.
This is a classic theater kid.
You know, situation here.
He's not a very good performer like so many theater kids in high school, but he loves it.
And so he's getting into the motion.
He's about to really, he's got a full monologue.
He's got prepared.
We're going to get to that here in a second.
But he points out that, well, how could they make these claims about someone who's a mother Well, yeah, that's actually a good point.
If you're a mother and you have kids, even if you don't have kids, I'm not sure I understand how you could go so lenient on a crime as heinous as child pornography.
You don't need to have kids to see why that is so horrible.
But considering that you do have kids, that's all the more reason why you would think you would sympathize 100% with the victims, who are children, and not at all with the With the criminal, who's a violent, sexually abusive scumbag.
So he's shocked by this.
He can't believe that's happening.
And then we get to, this is when he's going for the Oscar here.
This is what he wants on his Oscar reel.
And let's watch.
That is the story of how you got to this desk, you and I and everyone here, generations of folk who came here and said, America, I'm Irish.
You may say, no, Irish or dogs need apply, but I'm going to show this country that I can be free here.
I can make this country love me as much as I love it.
Chinese Americans forced into mere slave labor, building our railroads, connecting our country saw the ugliest of America, but they were going to build their home here and say, America, you may not love me yet, but I'm going to make this nation live up to its promise and hope.
LGBTQ Americans from Stonewall, women to Seneca, hidden figures who didn't even get their play until some Hollywood movie finally taught them.
I feel so bad for the woman in the background there.
How is she keeping a straight face through all this?
Look at this guy's face.
Can we just put... Look at his face.
What a lunatic.
At least he's playing one on TV.
Well, he had to throw in, so we've got to... He starts with Irish Americans, and then we get to LGBTQ, of course.
And now he's really getting ramped up.
He throws in hidden figures.
He's just throwing everything into it.
Let's keep playing it.
This is fun.
About them and how they were critical for us defying gravity.
All of these people loved America.
And so you faced insults here that were shocking to me.
Well, actually not shocking.
But you are here because of that kind of love and nobody's taken this away from me.
Isn't that nice?
So you got five more folk to go through.
Five more of us.
And then you can sit back and let us have all the debates.
And I'm going to tell you, it's going to be a well-charted Senate floor, because it's not going to stop.
They're going to accuse you of this and that.
Heck, in honor of your person who shares your birthday, you might be called a communist.
Well, yeah.
But don't worry.
Reason to suspect.
Don't worry.
Oh, here we go.
God has got you.
And how do I know that?
Because you're here, and I know what it's taken for you to sit in that seat.
Yeah, Cory Booker pretending to be religious is about as believable as what he was pretending to date Rosario Dawson or whoever it was.
And then Jackson is crying there.
She's getting emotional.
Remember when Kavanaugh got emotional during his Supreme Court hearing?
There might have been some tears welling up in the eyes and he got angry and a little indignant himself.
And you can recall all of the mockery coming his direction from people on the left.
Cory Booker was there.
He didn't come to his defense.
He didn't find that shocking.
He was participating in it.
So we made fun of Kavanaugh for getting emotional.
Meanwhile, he's sitting there On the biggest stage, in front of the world, being accused of being a serial gang rapist.
And for that, he wasn't supposed to get emotional.
It showed that he didn't have the right temperament to be on the Supreme Court.
Because if you get a little bit upset and perturbed after sitting there for three days and being told over and over again that you're a serial gang rapist, then you don't have the right temperament.
Well, what does that say about Jackson?
That she's getting emotional and crying.
She got a little bit angry.
And all they're doing is asking about her judicial record.
That's it.
Great performance, though, from Cory Booker.
Very good performance.
I mean, by political standards, I mean, it's, you know, it's about as good as you get when it comes to the theater.
There's one other clip I want to play for you.
So the media Of course, as well, coming to Jackson's defense, especially on the child porn part of this.
Now, in fairness to the media, there's really no non-creepy way of defending lenient sentences for child porn distributors and people who use child porn.
So there's no non-creepy way to do it, but the media is choosing the creepiest possible way.
So let's play this clip from NBC.
They spent a lot of time on this specific issue of an 18-year-old from Washington who the sentencing guidelines would have called for an eight-year sentence.
The prosecutors recommended a two-year sentence, and Judge Jackson imposed a sentence of three months.
And so there was some discussion about why she did that.
I've looked at the records in this case, and I think, apparently Judge Jackson just doesn't recall this case, and that's understandable.
She had many, many sentencing and something like 500 court decisions.
But the specifics in this case suggest that this was an 18-year-old who was curious about this kind of sexual activity that he sought out.
The court records show that a detective, when he realized that this young man was uploading
some of this, contacted him and said, "How would you like to have real sexual activity
with my 12-year-old daughter?"
Which was make-believe.
And this young man never responded to him.
And there was a psychiatrist who evaluated the young man and said this was basically
his sort of curiosity about a specific kind of sexual activity.
He wasn't interested in younger people.
He was just sort of curious about this for his own purposes, that he was not a pedophile.
So those were the kinds of things, apparently, that Judge Jackson took into account in that specific case that Senator Hawley spent a lot of time on.
That's Pete Williams with NBC.
I think we should put his... MSNBC.
We should put his name with that.
So, Pete Williams.
Just saying, well, he was curious.
He's not a pedophile.
He was just curious about child pornography.
These people are just degenerates.
All of them.
Okay, let's move on to a couple other topics.
So here's some material from a Home Depot in Canada talking about privilege.
This was posted by Libs of TikTok.
Always doing the work.
Really, it tells you the state of the media.
I would say that probably the top journalist in the country right now is the anonymous person who runs a Libs of TikTok account on Twitter.
This is actual journalism, finding real stories about things that are happening, and telling people about it.
So, here's something.
It says Home Depot has gone woke, and there's this worksheet that was handed out at Home Depot in Canada, and it says, Leading Practices, Unpacking Privilege.
Privilege, noun, a special benefit or advantage that may be earned or unearned.
And then it goes into, there's two kinds of privilege, social privilege, That's a special unearned advantage or entitlement used to one's own benefit or to the detriment of others.
These groups can be advantaged based on social class, age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion.
And that certainly, that definitely exists.
There's no question about it.
I mean, there are people who have, because of their demographic category, they have social privileges.
There are people who have social privileges based on their quote-unquote gender identity.
In fact, the kinds of people who use phrases like gender identity and think that that's a real thing, those are the ones with social privilege.
If you can claim membership to the LGBT club somehow, Fit your way under that ever-expanding umbrella, then you have social privilege.
But that's not the kind of privilege that we're talking about, I assume.
And then also white privilege.
That's societal privilege that benefits white people beyond what is commonly experienced by people of color under the same social, political, and economic circumstances.
And then it goes into, so those are the two broad categories, and then there's sort of these subcategories, and it says what privilege looks like.
If you're confident that the police exist to protect you, you have white privilege.
That's what white privilege, so if you do not believe that you're being hunted down by cops who want to execute you while you're just walking down the street, then you have privilege.
I would think of that, okay, if that's privilege, that's just the privilege of not being paranoid.
If, while growing up, college was an expectation of you, not a dream, you have class privilege.
If you can expect time off from work to celebrate your religious holidays, you have Christian privilege.
If you can use public bathrooms without stares, fear, or anxiety, you have cisgender privilege.
So that's nobody, by the way.
Does anyone feel 100% comfortable in public restrooms?
It would be kind of strange if you did.
There's always a little bit of anxiety in public restrooms.
And then also able-bodied privilege and heterosexual privilege.
And can I also say, just a note on the Christian privilege thing, I've always seen it as the other way around.
Like, if you're getting off of work and you get time off of school for someone else's religious holidays, doesn't that mean that you have the privilege?
It seems like you get the extra privilege.
It's not even your holiday and you get to take off.
So, what's the privilege exactly?
If we're inviting you, we celebrate Christmas and we're saying, you know what, we're going to give everybody off.
You're not even Christian.
We're going to give you a Christmas gift and you get to take off also.
What is that?
You being oppressed?
You're being attacked?
No, the privilege would be, we're gonna take off for Christmas,
but all of you still have to work.
Yeah, able-bodied and heterosexual privilege.
So this is a Home Depot.
This is what they're doing at Home Depot.
Now, Home Depot responded.
The AP reached out to them.
Here's what the AP says.
Home Depot said Wednesday that a worksheet about privilege that went viral is an unauthorized document
from the company's Canada division, an anonymous Twitter account with the handle libsoftiktok.
Posted it, we know that.
And they said that Home Depot issued a statement saying that while it supports diversity at the company,
the worksheet was not created or approved by its corporate diversity, equity,
and inclusion department.
The company said this was a resource in our Canada division and not part of any required programming.
So, this has already been labeled online as misinformation and debunked and everything, and it's not.
This was something that was used at a Home Depot, and that was handed out to employees, apparently, at a Home Depot.
It just didn't come down from the top.
I mean, eventually it will, though, because they admit that they have... Well, you know, we have a corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion department.
It's just like, that particular bit of brainwashing isn't something that came from us.
So we have each individual Home Depot can do their own brainwashing, but we have the corporate version, and that's not part of it yet.
But that's all inevitable.
The whole point of having a diversity, equity, and inclusion department is precisely for things like this.
And it's kind of significant, too.
There's a certain significance to Home Depot starting to go woke, because as far as I know, up until now, they were one of the few companies that had basically stayed neutral.
They were one of the few companies that, up until this point, at least hadn't gone out of the way to display their wokeness.
And that apparently is, that was never going to last, I suppose.
Okay, finally from the Daily Wire, it says, a group of congressional Democrats is pushing for President Joe Biden to continue the payment freeze on federal student loans at least through the end of 2022.
In a letter to Biden on Monday, a group of 43 House Democrats led by Pennsylvania Representative Conor Lamb said the Biden administration needed to continue the progress made by Democrats in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic by extending the pause or else the rapid transition to repayment Would risk borrowers being delinquent of defaulting on their loans.
So we know the tactic now.
They want to get rid of student loans.
They want to have student loan forgiveness.
Which just means that, of course, that somebody else will be forced to pay for them.
You can't actually just snap your fingers and make the loans go away.
But I think that they've found what they believe to be a way around it.
So instead of having student loan forgiveness, we'll just have a pause on student loans, and then we'll just keep on extending it.
No reason can really be given for this.
And everybody else with all their other debts, they still have to pay back those debts, but we're going to make an exception for student loans.
Of course, they can't explain it, but they can't explain anything else, of course, as we've seen.
Like, what is a woman?
We'll get now to the comment section.
My school and the APA are woke beyond belief.
Yeah, I hear this from people inside the psychiatric industry all the time, and I don't even need to hear it because it's quite obvious to me.
It's not much of a secret.
That the psychiatric industry is far, far, far left and has been for a long time.
And that's a problem that we need to start talking about in a serious way.
On the right, at least.
We talk about the bias in the news media.
We talk about indoctrination by Hollywood.
We talk about it in the school system.
And it matters in all those places.
Obviously, it matters a lot, especially in the school system.
But at a certain point, we got to talk about therapists, psychiatrists, because most of these people are dyed-in-the-wool, full-blown ideologues, leftists, and they're dealing with very vulnerable people who tend to trust them implicitly.
Now, schools are in the same position.
They're dealing with vulnerable people who are children.
Children tend to trust the teachers, and so they take advantage of that.
by indoctrinating. Same exact thing is happening all over the place with psychiatrists and
therapists. The more that we can talk about that, the better. Let's see.
John says, I've been a loyal subscriber of Matt for a couple years now.
I think his points are really well articulated and he's helped me realize how bad the delusion in today's society has gotten.
However, today I found out he pronounces the word crayon, how he pronounces the word crayon, and I'm not sure I can look at him the same anymore.
Well, this is, well, because what do you want me to say?
Crayon?
Crayon!
This is anti-Marylander bigotry.
I get made fun of all the time for the way I pronounce certain words.
Some of the pronunciation is just the fact that I'm stupid.
A lot of it is the fact that I'm from Maryland.
And in Maryland, if you've ever been there, the accent doesn't really make sense.
It tends to pop up.
It's sort of schizophrenic.
It pops up in these... There isn't a...
A real pattern to it all the time that you can always notice, but the one thing is we just pronounce, we have a strange way of pronouncing basic words.
And at least that's my excuse anyway.
And finally, Vakula says, thank you, Matt, for your kind words of encouragement to those in despair.
I suffer from depression and I can attest to the truth of your words.
Go outside, play with a pet, talk to another human being.
It all helps immensely, even when the pills fail.
Yeah, well that's... I appreciate you saying that because, yeah, you would think that just pointing out that, hey, get some exercise, get some sun, think about what you're eating, what you're putting into your body, think about your diet.
You'd think that all this would be seen as just sort of helpful encouragement, some good advice, basic advice.
You don't have to be a genius to know this.
But people tend to get really upset when it comes to any mental issue.
If you go outside of just saying, okay, go to a psychiatrist, get some pills, take the pills.
If you go anywhere outside of that, then you're accused of being, you know, cruel somehow.
When, of course, exactly the opposite is the case.
Well, as you heard right at the top of the show, telling you again, I've been working on a top secret project for over a year.
It is called What is a Woman?
And I believe this could be the most important question and film of 2022.
I actually do believe that, that I think that this is the most important Film that you'll see at least this year We fearlessly and unflinchingly question the logic of a trans movement that has taken aim at women and children And we're going after that.
It's it's it's not just around the fringes here that we're dealing with this issue We are going right at the concept itself.
That's what we're doing.
This fight is for everything.
It's for the truth itself What is a woman coming 2022 go to what is a woman calm and also?
As the beloved author of the best-selling children's LGBTQ plus book, Johnny the Walrus, I am now a very important voice in the transgender conversation.
And I can add, you know, I'm a documentarian now that I can add to children's author.
That's why I was invited on to Dr. Phil to discuss these issues, which if you haven't seen those clips, you should watch that too.
Some of that might factor into this movie as well, maybe.
Even more importantly, if you haven't picked up a copy of my best-selling children's book, you should do so immediately.
It sold out in 48 hours when it was released, but don't worry, more copies are on the way.
Reserve Johnny the Walrus now on Amazon.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, every Hollywood action film these days must, it seems by law, feature at least one ass-kicking woman who can tussle with men three times her size and knock anyone to the ground with one swift punch to the jaw.
Most movies now tend to feature multiple women of this type, all of different races and sexual orientations, and all united by the fact that they don't need no man to bail them out, fight their battles, rescue them from dragons, open their pickle jars.
They don't need any of that.
Now, I have in the past confessed to a certain annoyance when it comes to this familiar trope.
I admit that I can't really take a young, attractive, 110-pound actress seriously in the role of an assassin or gunslinger or enforcer or any other sort of ruffian.
Now, sure, movies are fictional, but a woman of this type Who can physically dominate strong men is so outside of the realm of actual human experience that every film which features such a character automatically becomes kind of a cartoon.
If you're going to have Scarlett Johansson slapping dudes around, it might as well be Minnie Mouse doing it.
Of course, I say that I can't take a young, attractive woman seriously in this role, but she still rates higher on the believability scale than a middle-aged woman.
I mean, Queen Latifah is 50 years old, out of shape, female, and yet she stars as the violent, imposing, rough-and-tumble protagonist in the CBS show The Equalizer.
It's like if they took Liam Neeson out of Taken and replaced him with your Aunt Betty.
Action movies have always been absurd.
I mean, of course we admit that.
Featuring many scenes where vastly outnumbered and outgunned good guys somehow manage to single-handedly disarm and defeat rooms full of bad guys.
But at least it used to be like Bruce Lee or Bruce Willis doing that.
But if they remade Die Hard today, John McClane would be Jane McClane and he'd be played by Brie Larson or somebody.
It's a whole new level of absurdity.
These psychological ropes suspending disbelief can only carry so much weight.
And yet, if I were not such a terrible, quote-unquote, sexist, and I took Hollywood at its word, and feminists at their word, and the left in general at its word, and believe that there's nothing inherently ridiculous about a woman physically going toe-to-toe with a man, then I'd be all the more confused by the latest news from the U.S.
Army, as the Daily Wire reports.
On Wednesday, the U.S.
Army revealed its new fitness test called the Army Combat Fitness Test, which has changed requirements so that it boasts different scoring standards for men and women.
Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston, the service's top enlisted leader, declared, I'm really proud we're moving forward.
We're there.
We're doing it.
In most cases, the standards will be lowered, quote, following a congressionally mandated report from RANDCOR, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, that found nearly half of the services women could not pass earlier standards for the tests.
Military.com adds, "The most significant changes to the six-event ACFT is that it no longer is meant to prepare soldiers for
combat, but instead built as a general fitness assessment."
Military.com explains some differences in the expectations for men and women.
For example, a female soldier between 17 and 21 years old now has to deadlift between 120 and 210 pounds, while a
male soldier has to deadlift between 140 and 340 pounds.
In that same age group, female soldiers have to run two miles between 23 minutes, 22 seconds, and 15 minutes, 29 seconds, while male soldiers must perform that exercise between 22 and 13 minutes, 22 seconds.
But they aren't just lowering the standards for each exercise.
They're also completely getting rid of Any exercise that women have struggled to complete, historically.
So, going back to the article, it says, Leg tucks, which were required by the previous standard, have been eliminated to measure core strength.
The new test requires planks instead.
Quote, Test designers were concerned that the leg tuck doesn't strictly measure core muscle strength, but also requires that a soldier spend a lot of energy on upper body and grip strength.
Previously, the plank was introduced as an alternative event during the ACFT's beta phase, when it was discovered women were struggling with the leg tucks.
And why are we doing all this is the question.
What's the point of frantically changing and lowering the fitness requirements, especially at this particular moment in history, with the possibility of war unfortunately hanging over us?
I mean, we are looking at the possibility still of a world war, and so right now is when you decide to lower the fitness test?
Well, here's the answer.
Quote, "STEAM picked up for army planners to create a new test around the time when
combat arms jobs such as the infantry and cavalry were opened to women in 2015.
The force initially sought to create a gender neutral test and attempted to juggle dueling
goals of creating a more inclusive force while also creating a fitter force.
Researchers at RAND found that only 52% of enlisted active duty women were able to pass
the original design for the ACFT compared to 92% of men in their congressionally mandated
study released Wednesday.
Only 42% of women in the National Guard and 41% in the Reserve could pass.
41%.
Yes, this certain group of people Are widely incapable of living up to the traditional fitness requirements for the military and so obviously what we must do is lower the requirements so that more members of that group can be in the military.
Now this is logically unintelligible on a number of levels, starting with the fact that the very people who advocate for and impose these kinds of changes are also likely to claim in the next breath that men and women are the same, women are no weaker than men, and in fact, to stay on the subject of the day, the entire category of woman is essentially non-existent.
How can all of these ideas coexist?
How can women be equal to men, while at the same time the word woman means nothing, while at the same time In the name of inclusion, we have to lower the standards for women because these women who are totally equal are also, it turns out, generally much weaker than men, yet exactly the same.
How can you make sense of all this together?
Well, you can't.
At least if you're looking for, you know, coherence grounded in anything resembling objective reality or truth.
But it starts to make sense in its own way when you understand first that leftists are relativists.
This means that the truth itself changes depending on the situation.
At some level, these people are able to contradict themselves in the same sentence and yet believe both contradictory claims simultaneously.
Cognitive dissonance is their stock and trade.
It comes with relativism.
The truth is relative to whatever their needs, feelings, desires, and goals are at any given moment.
Also, we must understand that the leftists running our institutions, to include the military, are not only engaged in a war on truth, but also in a war on this country.
They want to destroy it.
They want to tear it down.
They want to reduce it to rubble, so that they can rebuild something new and hideous from the wreckage, something conceived in their own image.
You would not actively work to make your military weaker unless you wanted to destroy your country.
So, if it seems like this is deliberate, that's because it is.
And that's why today, maybe not the army itself, but the people in charge of deciding these kinds of policies, And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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 Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Katonji Brown-Jackson says she's a neutral arbiter of the law, but also refuses to define the word woman.
