Ep. 940 - Amazon's Censorship Fails To Defeat Johnny The Walrus
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Amazon pulls some dirty tricks to suppress and censor my children’s book, but it still managed to become the number one book in the entire country. Also, Joe Biden is considering a hail mary pass before the mid-terms: student loan forgiveness. We’ll talk about why that is a horrible idea. And speaking of horrible ideas, Joe Biden also tells a group of teachers that the kids in their classrooms are “their kids.” And Hollywood actress Megan Fox proudly discusses her satanic blood drinking rituals. But I was told satanism in Hollywood is a conspiracy theory.
Use code WALRUS to become a Daily Wire All Access member and receive a signed copy of my #1 best-selling children’s book Johnny the Walrus:: https://utm.io/uewvd.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
What is a Woman? Help me track down the answer in my new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Amazon pulls some dirty tricks to suppress and censor my children's book, but it still manages to become the number one book in the entire country.
Also, Joe Biden is considering a Hail Mary pass before the midterms, student loan forgiveness.
We'll talk about why that is a horrible idea.
And speaking of horrible ideas, Joe Biden also tells a group of teachers that the kids in their classrooms are their kids, not somebody else's kids.
The kids belong to them.
Also, Hollywood actress Megan Fox proudly discusses her satanic blood-drinking rituals But I was told Satanism in Hollywood is a conspiracy theory.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
And that's why you got to have everything locked down.
And especially if you're a small business owner, you know how important it is to have an effective marketing strategy.
Constant Contact is a digital marketing platform that helps small businesses and nonprofits of all sizes build, grow, and succeed with email marketing, contact management, industry-leading list growth tools, social media ads, and more.
Constant Contact helps small businesses connect with customers, find new ones and sell online all from one easy to use
platform. That's the name of the game here is that it's easy. They've been trusted by millions of
businesses to help improve their marketing with a 97% deliverability rate. You can rest
assured that your customers and potential customers are getting the right messages at the right time
with a simple interface, constant contacts, easy to use platform makes contact
management easier than ever.
Their list growth tools help you find a bigger audience fast.
Lead generation, landing pages, texts to join, and social media ads are proven to grow your list and drive engagement with your brand.
With thousands of integrations, you can sync Constant Contact's tools with the tools you're already using.
Powerful automation tools help you send the right message to the right person at the right time, every time.
To start your free digital marketing trial today, visit constantcontact.com.
You know, there are some who would argue that it's not the smartest long-term career strategy to aggressively antagonize and purposefully make an enemy out of one of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world.
And it's even more reckless, you might say, when this corporation happens to control 90% of the book sales in the country and you make part of your living by selling books.
And you might be right about all of that, but all I can say is that still, it's totally worth it.
There have been a number of big developments since we talked yesterday about the leaked videos over at Amazon of an Amazon meeting where the employees complained and whined and at one point actually cried over my children's book.
As much as I'd love to play those clips again, I'm not going to do that, but you can always go and watch them if you want.
And they're crying about my children's book, Johnny the Walrus, of course, which is available for sale.
Over at Amazon.
Go to johnnythewalrus.com.
They call the book triggering, traumatic, problematic, harmful.
They were also incensed that the book was originally categorized as an LGBT children's book and even more incensed that I was, as they claimed, bragging about it publicly and trolling them, they claimed.
No, I personally take great exception to any accusation that I have bragged or trolled.
That is simply not the kind of thing that I would do.
Does that sound like me?
Come on.
But that's how they interpreted it, and they were very upset.
Now, after the show yesterday, some more developments.
Amazon sent an email to our publishing division, DW Books, and they informed us that our ads for Johnny the Walrus have been banned from the platform.
They said that we were conducting, that they rather were conducting a quote-unquote periodic review, which just so happens to coincide directly with these embarrassing videos coming out, and me making fun of them for it.
So, just like, at the same time, coincidentally, there's this totally random and periodic review that they conducted, and they discovered that, oh, we actually can't run ads for the book anymore because it's not appropriate.
The ads are inappropriate.
Here's what the email actually says.
This is what it says exactly.
Your ad is not appropriate for all audiences.
I mean, in spite of the fact that it's literally a bored book for preschoolers.
But anyway, to ensure a good customer experience, we reserve the right to restrict ads that contain elements that may not be appropriate for all audiences.
This may include erotica, content on sexual preferences, such as BDSM, incestuous relationships, sexual contact with persons under the age of 18, self-help content, such as dating, Get Rich Quick, or weight loss books, Or content that promotes, endorses, or incites potentially dangerous or harmful activities.
I have to say, credit where it's due, I do appreciate how they have put self-help books on the same tier as BDSM and incest.
Self-help books are just as disgraceful and gross as that, they're saying.
And I don't disagree, necessarily.
But which category does Johnny the Walrus fall into?
Like, What do you think Johnny the Walrus is, if that's how you're interpreting it?
Whatever Amazon thinks, I can assure any potential buyer of this book, there is no BDSM in Johnny the Walrus.
There is no incest.
There is no sexual content of any kind at all, actually.
It also doesn't promote dangerous activities.
It promotes the opposite.
So, what is it?
Is it a self-help book?
Is that what they're saying?
Is it self-help for walruses?
Is that the claim?
I don't know.
The answer, of course, is that the book is none of these things, and they know that it's none of these things.
The book and the ad are 100% appropriate for all ages, even by the standards of Amazon's own policies.
They're removing it out of revenge.
It's an act of revenge, quite explicitly and obviously.
And if it wasn't already explicit enough, they also declassified the book from the children's category.
So it's no longer listed on Amazon as a children's book.
Amazon has put it into the political commentary section of the site.
Now, ironically, them placing it in the political commentary section is itself political commentary on their part.
It's editorialization about the book.
They don't like the book.
They don't personally think people should read it to their kids, so they're not going to list it as a children's book.
Even though it unequivocally is just that.
Like, this is not what booksellers are supposed to do.
If you're gonna carry the book, and it's a children's book, then any more than if someone wrote a sci-fi book, and you didn't personally think it was great sci-fi, so you're like, I'm not gonna put it in that section, I'm gonna put it in this section over here.
But you might not like it, but that is, without a doubt, the genre of the book.
In fact, my book is significantly more age-appropriate than many other children's books on the sites, which are allowed to be advertised as well.
But Amazon wasn't done.
Next, and again, this all happened yesterday.
Next, Amazon turned its sights on my other book, What is a Woman, which will be released in June and is also available for sale on Amazon.
You go to whatisawoman.com.
They conducted another conveniently timed periodic review.
So these are two periodic reviews that they happened to conduct yesterday while all this was happening.
And they sent another email to DAW Books announcing that our ad campaign for that book Has been banned as well.
Their reasoning was slightly more specific.
They say, your ad contains content that appears to infer or claim to diagnose, treat, reverse, or question gender identity or sexual orientation.
Now of course, they haven't read the book, so they couldn't possibly know if it contains those kinds of things.
All the book cover does is ask a question.
What is a woman?
They appear to be admitting, I guess, that the simple question, what is a woman, that question itself may have the effect of reversing gender identity.
Like, just asking the question, what is a woman, the question itself invalidates gender identity, which appears to be what they're saying.
In fact, they're right about that, if that is what they're saying.
But what does that say about gender identity in that case?
As for the content of the actual book, it actually contains mostly my conversations with other people, including several supposed experts, quote-unquote, on that side of the conversation.
I mean, it's a book with interviews with gender-affirming therapists, and gender-affirming pediatricians, and gender-affirming surgeons, to use their euphemisms for all those things.
But, you know, the difference is that I don't blindly accept everything these experts say.
I ask them questions, skeptical questions, as questions, you know, questions are supposed to be skeptical by their nature, and apparently that's not allowed.
Now, we're not taking any of this lying down, though.
Amazon didn't like how Johnny the Walrus was originally classified on their site, so we decided If you didn't like that, then you're really not going to like this, Amazon.
We decided to classify my What is a Woman book as a biology text.
After all, Kentanji Brown-Jackson said that only a biologist is qualified to speak about this subject.
It's a biological subject.
And so it made sense that our book is therefore a biology book.
It's a biology textbook.
And so that's how we listed it.
And right now, as you can see, What is a Woman is the best-selling biology book on Amazon, as it currently stands.
I'm sure the employees absolutely love that.
And they can take it out of that category, which I'm sure they're going to do.
But it will forever and always have the distinction as a best-selling biology book.
We got it in there.
We got the screenshot.
There it is.
And this means that for the rest of my life, and you know that I'll make good on this, This is a credential that I'm going to bring with me.
I can now start any argument I have with someone.
Anytime I have to make a point, I can say, well, as the best-selling author of a, or rather, as the author of a best-selling biology book, dot, dot, dot.
Meanwhile, Johnny the Walrus itself, in spite of the efforts to suppress it by Amazon, became and is still the number one book overall across the entire platform.
It is number one on the bestseller list overall.
And given that, as mentioned, Amazon controls nearly all of the book sales in America, we can say, without a doubt, that Johnny the Walrus is right now the best-selling book, period, in the entire country.
Out of all the books being sold, out of the thousands of books, it is number one.
And we achieved this even though no brick-and-mortar stores would go anywhere near this book.
And even though Amazon doesn't want it and is doing everything it can to censor it and suppress it, it is still the number one book in America.
Now, This is all extremely funny, and I tend to focus a lot on the humor of it because that's the most fun thing to talk about.
But we would be missing, I think, a big part of the point if we concentrated solely on the humor of it.
The fact is that the number one book in the country is a preschool board book satirizing left-wing gender ideology.
Now, that would have been unthinkable up until, well, right now, when it actually happened.
And I think this is just another line of evidence that the cultural tide is beginning to turn.
That's not to say that the battle is won by any means.
As I am constantly reminding everyone and myself, if there's going to be a victory in this war, that victory will be generations down the line.
You and I will live and die in a culture that is fundamentally hostile to us.
That's the reality, so you might as well strap in and learn to enjoy the fight.
That's the advice I give everyone when they tell me, well, how are we going to win?
Just learn to enjoy fighting because that's all you're going to have.
That's it.
You're not living in peacetime.
And you never will be living in those times.
Maybe your grandchildren will, though, if you fight hard enough.
And that's enough for me.
I can take solace in that.
And though victory is far down the line, that doesn't mean we're not able to make progress towards that end, which I think we are right now.
Johnny the Walrus is, even I will admit, a very, very small salvo in the war, but even so, a win is a win.
Nothing wrong with enjoying them when they come.
I know I am.
And in fact, I had a chance to celebrate last night.
I was speaking at Wisconsin Superior, and it was a great, great turnout, great speech, great event.
Right outside the building, a group of leftist protesters had gathered to scream about how I'm a terrible guy and all the rest of it.
And they'd been out there for a while, so they ordered pizza for themselves.
And my producer Sean went out and got me a slice, as you can see.
And I imagine the protesters were not happy to find out that I took some of their pizza.
But they should take heart, because they fed a best-selling children's author.
And that is an act of charity.
And it's another win for both of us, I think.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, here's some tragic news that you might have already heard from me, but I'll tell you again.
The grocery carts, they did attack me in my own car in an act of vengeance.
When I was pulling out of my parking spot, a rogue grocery cart crashed into my car, leaving my front bumper scratched.
Almost totaling the car.
I mean, it was a scratch, but it was close enough.
There are two lessons you can take away from this.
One, don't be lazy.
Put your shopping carts away.
Two, you can solve an issue like mine quickly and without breaking the bank by just visiting rockauto.com.
They have touch-up paint and pens that are easy to use as a magic marker.
That's how easy they are.
And rockauto.com, look, talk about easy.
Very easy to find everything you need there.
It's an online family-owned business that sells all the auto parts you could ever possibly need that are specific to your own vehicle.
Their prices are shockingly reasonable, and their shipping is quick, so no matter what's going on with your car, you can trust Rock Auto to get what you need and get it fast.
RockAuto.com has a very user-friendly website, and they make it easy to pick the right parts for your specific car.
You'll see photos, specs, and even installation tips, so you can feel confident that you're choosing the correct parts for your vehicle every single time.
So, what are you waiting for?
It's as simple as this.
Just go to rockauto.com for all of your auto parts needs today.
And remember, when you go there, to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box, so they know that I'm the one that sent you.
That's rockauto.com to shop for auto parts today.
You know, another thing, just another quick note about this, as I was thinking about this today too, and just going back to the more fun thing to talk about, which is just how funny all this is.
That is another, that's a kind of underrated cultural shift.
It's an underrated, but I think quite significant cultural shift that's happened over the last few years.
And that is that on the right now, we are by far and away funnier than the left.
And we're better at mocking and satirizing and trolling than they are.
Miles better at it.
And we're having a lot more fun, too, at the same time.
And that is, like I said, a very significant change, actually.
And it has not always been this way.
So it's not something you can take for granted, by any means.
In fact, for most of my life, it was quite the opposite.
Where the right had the stereotype of being this kind of stuffy, self-serious school marms who aren't laughing about anything, aren't having a good time at all, just constantly complaining about stuff.
And that stereotype was not without some basis, you know?
But there's been, things have just changed radically and pretty quickly over the last few years.
Where at this point, I can't think, like, what's the last Funny kind of stunt, trolling thing, mockery, even meme.
I mean, what's the last funny thing you've seen from the left?
I can't even think of.
Think of what it would be.
They're not having any fun at all.
I think there's a lot of reasons for that.
One is that their, this is just their, their ideology is suffocating them.
And it just, it strangles the humor out of everything.
You're just, you're not a left, you want to be a pure leftist at this point.
You're not allowed to laugh about anything.
Everything is off the table.
Everything's offensive.
And, um, that's part of it.
Part of it is also, I think for, for us, the, the advantage of being, um, Kind of in the cultural rebel position.
Being in the counterculture position.
Where they run all the institutions, they have all the power.
So that kind of puts them in, automatically, this kind of defensive posture where they're defending what they've already gained.
And that's just, it's not as much fun.
And there aren't as many targets for mockery, I guess, also.
So, I think that's also a good thing.
Alright, let's go, speaking of things that are really funny.
Of course, Elon Musk taking over Twitter is just hilarious and everything about it has
been great.
But he tweeted something yesterday that I just wanted to know because I actually disagree
with him here.
It's nice in theory, but here's what he says.
He says, "For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively
means upsetting the far right and the far left equally."
Now, the first part of this tweet here, I agree with.
It should be politically neutral.
That's what I want it to be.
I don't want... I've said all along that we already have... There are social media platforms out there that are quote-unquote conservative platforms, and they've got a conservative bent and, you know, a conservative mission.
And I don't use those platforms.
I don't find them interesting.
They're not fun to use.
I don't really, I don't need to be, I don't want to be in an echo chamber.
That takes away almost the entire point for me, or even being on these platforms in the first place.
They become culturally irrelevant because you've kind of just, you've segregated yourself from the cultural conversation.
And so I don't like them.
And I wouldn't want, there's never any chance of Twitter turning into that, but I wouldn't want that.
What I actually want Twitter to be is politically neutral.
I just don't want Twitter to have any political stance at all.
I want it to be basically what it was in the early days, in the Wild West days of Twitter and of social media generally.
I mean, there was a time when pretty much every social media platform was basically this way, where, you know, you could kind of go and say what you want.
And there were some rules, but not a lot.
And everybody knew what the rules were, and they were pretty basic, like you can't go and threaten to kill somebody or do anything like that.
So I would like to go back to that.
Actual political neutrality.
You get out of the way, you provide the platform, and then we, let us mix it up and do what we're gonna do.
Now, so that part I agree.
It's the second part that I don't agree.
Where he says, well if we're politically neutral that effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.
No it doesn't.
Political neutrality does not upset the far right.
I am on the far right.
I can't pretend to speak for everybody.
In my camp.
But I certainly am on the far right.
I embrace that.
And I can tell you that that's not how I see it.
It doesn't upset me.
That's exactly what I want.
And I think, in fact, I can speak for most people on the, quote, far right.
Because I haven't heard from anybody on the far right who wants Twitter to become this conservative vehicle.
I haven't heard anyone say they want Twitter to become a vehicle for conservatism.
So actually, on the right, that's what we want.
We just want you to get out of the way and stop trying to referee and police everything.
The left, on the other hand, they are upset by neutrality.
They don't want that.
They're actually very specific about that.
They're not hiding it.
There might have been a time when they hid it, but they don't anymore.
They do not want neutrality.
This is where the phrase silence is violence comes from.
You don't often hear people on the right saying that.
If someone is saying that 99 times out of 100, that's somebody on the left saying silence is violence.
You don't even need to know the context, you just know that it's somebody on the left.
And that's what they mean.
If Twitter were to become actually neutral, that means that Twitter itself is being silent about the issues, and that's violence.
You know, so for example, a neutral stance would be Twitter allows us to talk about gender.
And so, God forbid, you could go on Twitter and refer to a male who identifies as a woman and say, well, that's a man.
The neutral position for Twitter is to say nothing about that.
Like, you can say that, then the left can make their claim and say, no, it's actually a woman and we can have the debate.
The left doesn't want that.
No, they want Twitter to prevent you from saying that at all.
They don't want to have the conversation.
They know they can't have the conversation, they can't win the debate, so neutrality is not what they want.
There is one side of the ideological divide which is opposed to neutrality and actually opposed to free speech, and that is the left, without a question.
All right, let's go here from CNBC.
It says, the tens of millions of Americans saddled with student loans may finally hear soon what the Biden administration has decided to do, if anything, on debt forgiveness.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said at Monday's press briefing, not a single person in this country has paid a dime on federal student loans since the president took office.
She went on to say that President Joe Biden would make a decision about any cancellation of student debt before the conclusion of that pause on student loans.
Let's see.
Although Biden has expressed skepticism about sweeping student loan forgiveness in the past, another development this week suggests he may be warming up to the idea.
When the topic came up Monday with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the president indicated he was currently looking to provide some form of student debt cancellation, according to multiple reports.
Democrats and advocates have put intense pressure on the president to act ahead of midterms, pointing out that student debt cancellation is a campaign promise he can deliver on without Congress, while much of his agenda has been stymied in the House and Senate.
So he's spoken out in the past and been against the idea of student debt forgiveness, quote-unquote, cancellation.
And both of these terms are euphemisms.
Neither of them actually reflect the reality of what this would be.
It's not just forgiveness.
The government can't... What does that even mean for the government to forgive the loan?
It's not going to cancel it.
This is transferring the debt somewhere else.
And there's only one other place it can go.
And that is to the taxpayers.
The government can't pay off the debt because the government Only has the money that it takes from us.
So, that's what we're talking about.
It's taking the debt.
It's not cancelling it.
Not at all.
If it were possible, as I've said before, if there were a magic wand where you could just make the debt go away and that's it.
It's just gone.
There's no other consequences.
No one has to pay it.
I'm still not sure that I would support using the magic wand because this is still an agreement that people made that we're just erasing.
But at least there's a conversation we could have in that case, if the magic wand existed.
It doesn't, and so instead we're talking about taking the debt and transferring it from the person who chose to take on the debt and agreed to it, and bought the product, and has ostensibly benefited from the product, or at least has the potential to benefit from it, and transferring that debt to people who did not make that agreement or sign on the dotted line.
And also, very importantly here, do not have the product that was purchased.
And the product is the college degree.
The fact that so many college degrees end up being basically worthless is true, and that's a separate conversation.
And the fact that college degrees are so often worthless, that's the reason why.
That's not an argument for debt forgiveness.
That's actually an argument against debt forgiveness.
Because another problem with the quote debt forgiveness or debt transferal is that now you're just encouraging more of the bad, stupid, reckless behavior across the board that got us in this position in the first place.
When you wave your magic wand, which doesn't even really exist, all you're doing is encouraging more of it.
Validating it.
When the real solution to the college debt loan crisis, as I've said many times, is there is no good solution that's going to do anything to reverse what's already happened in the past.
But looking towards the future, the solution is to stop shuffling almost every kid into the university system, regardless of whether they're going to benefit from college education or not.
The whole practice of sending 18-year-old kids into college when they don't even know what they want to do with their lives, what they're interested in, what their passions are, what they want to study.
I mean, this is another thing we take for granted, but it's very common, of course, to have college freshmen who Have already taken out the loans, and they're in college, they've committed to this for four years, and they have no idea what they even want to major in.
They don't know what, like, they have no clue.
They don't know what they want to study, they don't know what, they certainly have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives.
And then we say, well, that's normal, that's okay.
No, it's not.
I mean, it is normal, but it shouldn't be, and it's not okay.
You've made this massive commitment, and you don't even know why you made it.
That's a huge problem.
It's like, you know, it's like if, I don't know, you're at some really bizarre flea market and you stumble across some contraption and you have no idea what this, you can tell that it might do something, it's some kind of machine, you're not sure, you have no idea what it does.
And you ask the person, well, how much for that machine?
And they say, oh, it'd be $150,000.
Who would say that it's a good idea to buy it?
You don't know what it does.
You don't know how you're going to use it.
You don't know if you can use it.
You have no idea if it'll benefit you or not.
I mean, maybe it'll change your life forever and make everything better.
Maybe not.
But you're going to spend $150,000 on it?
In no other context would we encourage that kind of decision among 18-year-old kids or among anybody.
I don't care how old you are.
This is what we do with colleges.
The solution is to stop doing that.
Until we stop doing it, this problem is not going to go away.
I can pretty much guarantee that this debt transferal, some version of it, is going to happen because, despite what Biden has said in the past, he is now, and the Democrats in general, are floundering, we're getting towards the midterms, and they need to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
And this is it.
This is one of the things, is debt forgiveness.
Although I think it's going to massively politically backfire for them.
Because debt forgiveness, quote-unquote, is, among other things, a welfare program for the upper class.
That is, by far and away, you know, the top 50, 40, 30 percent, they're going to benefit the most from college loan forgiveness, because they have most of the college loans.
This is certainly not something that's going to predominantly help poor people, lower middle class people, blue collar people, many of whom didn't go to college and have still been able to find success in life.
And now you're going to go to them and say, okay, you have to take on this debt for a product that you didn't even purchase.
You chose a different path in life.
You chose maybe to go into a trade.
And learn a skill.
And now you're working and you're applying that skill and you're providing for your family and you're helping society.
That's the decision that you made.
It was the right decision.
But now I'm going to take the burden of other people's bad decisions and put it on you.
I think that's going to be a very politically unpopular decision.
And that's all this is.
It is welfare for the upper class.
For upper class, spoiled brats who made a decision, bought a product, and now don't want to live with the consequences, and they want to shirk their responsibilities, and they want to put the burden, take their burdens, and put it on other people, put it on their neighbors.
All right.
Another thing from Biden, speaking of very politically unpopular, here's Biden yesterday addressing teachers.
And I want you to listen to what he says here.
And speaking of midterms, one thing I'll say is that I really hope that Joe Biden takes this message and the Democrats, they take this messaging and take it right into the midterms.
Please do.
I beg you.
Listen to this.
Have the best educated public in the world.
Have our students Gain confidence enough to know what they can do.
To reach in.
We have an obligation.
We have an obligation to help them teach and reach their potential.
You've heard me say it many times about our children, but it's true.
They're all our children.
And the reason you're the teachers of the year is because you recognize that.
They're not somebody else's children.
They're like yours when they're in the classroom.
You represent a profession that helps them gain the confidence, the confidence they believe they can do anything.
They're not somebody else's children.
They're yours when they're in the classroom.
Please, Joe, take that.
That's a winner.
Yeah, please take that all the way to the midterms.
They're not.
And what does he mean by somebody else's?
He means the parents.
They're not somebody else's.
The parents.
No, they're your children because they're in the classroom.
And that is, that's, this is not a gaffe.
You didn't misspeak here.
That's exactly what Democrats think.
That is precisely the leftist position, is that when the kids are in the classroom, they're in the government classrooms, government building, government school system, and that means that they belong to the government.
That is their position.
They're not usually quite that explicit about it, but they get pretty close.
And this is a moment when Joe Biden was very explicit about it.
That's how they see it.
You send your children to us, and they are ours.
And not only when they're in the classroom, by the way, but even when they leave.
They're still ours.
That's how they see it.
And it's good.
It's very good to know.
Now, they're wrong about that, of course.
You are entrusted.
If you're a teacher in a public school classroom, you know, depending on what grade level, you might have the kids entrusted to you for 45 minutes at a time.
You have a different group of kids of 45 minutes.
And they are entrusted to you for a specific purpose.
Not as an adoptive parent, not as foster care, not even as daycare.
At least that's not what schools are supposed to be, even though they're treated that way.
You are simply entrusted to impart certain information to the kids on a certain subject.
That's all you're supposed to be doing.
That's your whole job.
And not to say that it's a small or minor thing.
It's quite a noble job to do, and an important one, if you actually do the job you're supposed to do and take it seriously.
And don't try to do more than that job by taking these children under your wing and turning them into your own kind of de facto children because they're not.
But it is crucial for us to understand that this is how the government education system sees it.
And when you send your kids to the school, even though they are still your kids, you are sending them into a system that believes that they have ownership of the parental rights that actually belong to you.
Alright, speaking of which, from the Daily Wire, Rhode Island Democrats are pushing legislation that would teach children about pleasure-based sexual relations.
Pleasure-based sexual relations with the support of left-wing groups.
The legislation, Senate Bill 2285, would amend current law so that culturally appropriate courses in, quote, family life or sex education are taught to children beginning in sixth grade when students are about 11 or 12 years old.
Quote, "Teachings would recognize pleasure-based sexual relations, different sexual orientations,
and be inclusive of same-sex relationships.
The act would also provide that instruction include gender, gender expression, gender
identity, and the harm of negative gender stereotypes."
This is what they want to do in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island State Senator Tiara Mack, a Democrat representing Providence, one of the primary
sponsors of the bill, has cited her Southern abstinence-only sex education as a reason
for pushing SB 2285.
She said, there was no conversation about what it meant to be gay or what a healthy relationship looked like.
Sex education is about learning about gender and gender roles, about what it's like to grow up in a single-parent family.
It's about all the things I wish I had gotten.
It's about knowing I wasn't alone.
That's what she says, and in fact, Tiara Mack, I think we have a video of her, she's interviewing, talking a little bit about this pleasure-based sex ed, and here's what she has to say about that.
An opportunity came up to teach sex ed through a program at the university called Sexual Health Advocacy through Peer Educators to teach sex ed to local high school students, and I did that my sophomore year after Applying my freshman year and like, well, if I didn't know this, like there are people out there like me who literally have no idea how to talk about their body, how to access agency and how to actually, um, practice autonomy in whatever way they want to do it.
And for me, that was unlocking conversations about my body, my sexuality and my identity in a safe and, um, culturally sensitive and respectful environment.
And also sharing that with 15 year olds who at the time are yearning to have that conversation.
I taught sex ed all throughout the rest of my college career and then I went to go on to teach high school math and I still was teaching sex education and at the same time still working on issues surrounding reproductive health rights and access from local abortion funding work and to now being on the board of the abortion fund and being an employee of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.
It's been a core of my work Yeah, so that's what she wants.
That's what she thinks sex ed should be.
It should be about, as she said in the article, it's about knowing I'm not alone.
It's about discovering your body or whatever else she's talking about.
No, sex ed is not supposed to be any of that.
In fact, we're at a point now where you just have to get sex ed out of the schools completely, for every grade level.
You know, K through 12, no sex ed of any kind.
Get it all out.
This is not, you know, I'm not saying let's have abstinence only education instead of this, instead of the so-called comprehensive sex education.
No, I don't want that either.
I don't need, if I sent my kids to public school, which I don't, but if I did, I wouldn't need teachers talking to my kids about how to abstain from sex and the advantages of that.
That's not a conversation that I'm going to trust to strangers.
Okay?
I can have that conversation.
I don't need you to do it.
I don't trust you to do it.
But of course, we're way beyond abstinence education and they want this, which is on the other, the total other end of the spectrum.
My point is, just take the whole spectrum and throw it out.
We just cannot trust these perverts.
To have conversations with kids about sex at all.
Okay, so there should be no subject, no course called sex ed.
You want to talk about reproduction?
Talk about that in biology.
You want to talk about the anatomy?
Talk about that.
That's also a science discussion.
So you can cover those.
But anything beyond that.
Even if in theory, You know, there could be a version of a sex ed class that's appropriate, in theory, which I haven't even heard what that version would be.
Even if you could, in theory, figure out such a curriculum, you cannot trust the teachers to do it.
You just can't.
As we see here.
Because they have taken this... Keep something else in mind here.
That for them, sex, and their sex life, and their sexual orientation, and their gender identity, like, that's...
That's their whole existence.
That's everything.
That's all they care about.
So everything gets wrapped up in that.
That's also their religion.
And that's why she says, oh, sex is about knowing.
Sex ed is about knowing yourself and knowing you're not alone.
What?
What does knowing you're not alone have to do with sex ed?
What are you talking about?
Well, it's because her whole identity and life and everything is wrapped up in sex.
And that's yet another reason why you can't trust these people to talk to your kids about sex.
Speaking of her whole life being wrapped up in sex, there's another tweet from this Tiara Mack character.
If we put this up, just to give you an idea of what her priorities are.
So, this is what she tweeted a couple days ago.
She says, I'm a single queer tra- Hold on a second.
I'm a single queer train advocate.
Wait, what?
A queer train adv- So she's an advocate for queer trains?
She doesn't want those, you know, normal heteronormative trains.
She's an advocate for queer trains.
Get on the queer train, everybody.
She says, I'm a single queer train advocate who's desperate for better train service and high-speed rail options to NYC on the weekends exclusively for the queer dating scene.
Better trains now.
What in God's name?
Yet again, Exhibit A. No, it's not Exhibit A. That's, you know, that's Exhibit 5,772, or whatever, of why you can't trust these people to talk to your kids about sex.
You can't trust them at all with anything.
Just these lunatic, absolute lunatics.
This is an elected Democrat.
I guess, if I could decipher this, she's demanding her own train service to facilitate her sex life.
She's demanding an exclusive train service so that she can go to New York City and have sex with women.
That's what she's saying.
This is an elected Democrat.
My God.
And that's another one, Democrats.
Take that into the midterms too, please.
Take student loan forgiveness, they're not your kids, and queer trains.
I think that should be your platform right there.
Bring that right into midterms.
Hop on the queer train, go right into midterms with that.
Please do.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Jasmine says, Daddy Walsh is the actual troll king.
He never ceases to top his last troll.
His debut as an author and movie maker might even top raising money for AOC's grandma.
Well, like I said, we're just...
The AOC thing, it's a much smaller scale than some of the other stuff we've done.
That might always have pride of place in my own heart, just because I enjoyed that one so much and it was so much fun.
But really all this stuff, and also being another one we can add to the list now, is being a best-selling biologist.
So I'm loving that as well.
But, Jinji responds to the comment from Jasmine and says, is being the troll king something to be proud of?
Doesn't sound like something a genuine Christian would want.
Is there anything in, you know, I've read through the Gospels quite a bit and I don't remember.
Maybe it's in the Epistles.
Is there something in there about thou shalt not troll?
Is that a unchristian?
No, you know, I think what you're getting at is that, because when we talk about trolling, now, there's a version of trolling where you're just saying stuff you don't even believe because you want attention.
And there's quite a lot of that kind of trolling that goes on the internet.
That's not what I'm doing.
Okay, that's not the trolling that I engage in and also wholeheartedly support.
Because everything that I'm saying I absolutely believe.
And when you're in the troll sweet spot, okay, it's when you've really threaded the needle, is when you're joking about it, but you're also being 100% serious at the same time.
And so that's pretty much, that's basically like everything I do.
I'm joking, but I'm also not at all.
Johnny the Walrus.
It's a total joke, but also not at all.
At the same exact time, okay?
And so, if you're being genuine, And you're standing for what you believe in, then I'm not quite sure I see how that sort of, quote, trolling somehow betrays my Christian faith.
Now, it's kind of aggressive.
It could take a mocking tone at times.
It could be a little bit ruthless.
But that is what we need to do.
We talk about one of the advantages that we have, as I mentioned before, is that on the left, they're just not funny at all.
They're not having any fun.
And that's an advantage to us.
But the other advantage is that on the left, these are also, as we saw with the Amazon videos, these are very soft people, many of them quite mentally damaged.
And what that means is that if we want to win and have some real victories, there's an opportunity there.
If we're smart about it and clever and also, yeah, a little bit ruthless.
Because they're soft and they're sensitive.
So we have to be the opposite of that.
And that's what it calls for right now.
Remember, like I said, we're not living in peace times.
Let's see.
The crazy thing is that if Elon Musk was African-American and looked African-American, all the left would be celebrating him taking over Twitter.
Well, that's not necessarily true at all, in fact.
You're saying if Elon Musk was, like, actually black, then they would all be celebrating?
No.
No, they wouldn't.
Not necessarily.
It depends on his ideology.
I mean, if Elon Musk was black and had the ideology of Clarence Thomas, they would not be celebrating that in the least bit.
So that's an important point here about, you know, the kind of racial preferences that they have on the left.
And they do have them, but that is all filtered through the lens of ideology.
And so if you're on the right or perceived to be on the right or just simply not on the left, they hate you no matter what your skin color is.
And in fact, if you're not white, they'll hate you even more because on top of disagreeing with you, there's also this sense of betrayal they have because they think that they own you and that you owe yourself to them.
And so on top of everything, they also feel betrayed by you and they consider you a race traitor.
So they're actually going to hate you more.
Just talk to, you know, ask Candace Owens about it.
They're going to hate you even more because they think that you owe yourself to them.
Dirk says, "All my kids genuinely love Johnny the Walrus.
The one-year-old is especially fond of pretending to be able to read it, which I feel is thematically
appropriate."
My daughter legitimately loves the book also, my two-year-old, and she has it basically
memorized.
She actually does love the book.
She doesn't really understand.
She's a little bit biased.
She doesn't understand that I wrote it.
She doesn't quite grasp that because she's always bringing the book over to me to show me the book and show me things in the book that she thinks are great.
It's the first time I've seen it.
But she does draw the connection between the Zookeeper character and Daddy, so she sees that Daddy is in the book, and so that's one of the reasons.
But even without that, I still think it's a book that all kids can love.
Let's see.
Michael says, I love Matt's analogy of men with rough hands.
I met a girl and we went on a date and she said that I had smooth hands.
I knew that was a lie because I do construction and my hands are basically sandpaper.
I never met up with her again.
Well, that's the only way to respond to that.
I mean, that's, talk about trying to take someone's, talk about emasculating someone.
There's no better way to do that.
So I think you made the right decision, Michael.
Let's get down to our daily cancellation.
You know, if it seems like Hollywood is infested with satanists, well, that's because it is.
In fact, we can add this to the list, which is a very, very long list to beat at this point, of things that are erroneously written off as conspiracy theories, but actually are not, and have turned out to be entirely true.
Hollywood is indeed satanic.
Case in point, the actress Megan Fox.
Now granted, I call her an actress, but I couldn't tell you for sure if she Actually has starred in any films over the past 10 years.
And even back when she was starring in films, it would be a bit of a stretch to call her an actress.
But that's all academic, I suppose.
Fox was never famous for her acting talent.
She, you know, her primary skill has always been simply walking around and looking attractive.
And to her credit, she's always done a pretty good job on both counts.
These days though, she's added another credential to her resume.
She has expanded her repertoire and now she also, on top of walking around looking attractive, she also has a weird boyfriend.
And this is kind of like her main thing now.
And what seems to be getting her into the headlines is that she has a weird boyfriend.
Fox is dating somebody named Machine Gun Kelly.
Now, I couldn't begin to tell you anything about Machine Gun Kelly, nor whether Machine Gun Kelly is his Christian name, but I do know that Fox has described him as a handsome, demonic creature.
And lest you think that she meant that ironically in some way, or as a joke, here she is, in rather explicit terms, in a recent interview, talking about their vampiric sexual habits.
Listen.
Drink each other's blood might mislead people or like people are imagining us with like goblets and we're like Game of Thrones drinking each other's blood.
It's just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other's blood on occasion for ritual purposes only.
It is used for a reason and it is controlled where it's like, let's shed a few drops of blood and each drink it.
He's much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic where he's willing to just like cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, take my soul.
Let me bleed on you.
It doesn't not happen, let me tell you.
Maybe not exactly like that, but a version of that has happened many times.
Oh, for ritual purposes only.
Well, okay then.
As long as you're consuming each other's blood for ritual purposes, then it's not creepy at all.
Oh wait, no, right?
That's actually the creepiest possible explanation you could have given?
Not that there could have been a non-creepy one.
Fox admits that she participates in blood-drinking rituals with her boyfriend.
She doesn't feel embarrassed about sharing this information with the world, partly because she's not capable of shame, but also because she lives and moves in a world where that kind of thing is not considered bizarre.
In fact, this only came up because she mentioned matter-of-factly in an Instagram post a few months ago after Mr. Machine Gun proposed to her that they went home and drank each other's blood.
She just kind of like said that with no explanation, no other context given.
She simply assumed that everybody would read that and go, oh yeah, well they drank each other's blood.
As one does.
What she's describing is quite literally a satanic blood ritual.
Which should be quite evident, especially because, as she says, her boyfriend cuts his chest open with broken glass and says, take my soul.
I mean, you couldn't be more clear.
You wouldn't be more clear if you were sacrificing a goat on a satanic altar, which maybe is something they do as well, it wouldn't surprise me.
Now, speaking of Megan Fox's Satanism, there was more news in that vein yesterday, so to speak.
Fox also bragged about dressing her young son up in women's clothes.
Here's the Daily Wire.
It says, Fox said that when her nine-year-old son Noah started expressing his desire to wear dresses, she decided to educate him with literature made for and made by transgender individuals.
I do have a child that suffers, she said of her son being bullied.
I have a lot of worries about that because I just wish that humanity was not like this.
Although my kid is so brave and my child is so brave and I know that they've chosen this journey for a reason, it's just hard as a mom.
I bought a bunch of books that sort of address these things and address the full spectrum of what this is, she told the publication.
So from the time they were very young, notice how she's using they to refer to her son.
I've incorporated those things into their daily lives so that nobody feels like they are weird or strange or different.
Some of the books are written by transgender children.
Some of the books are just about how you can be a boy and wear a dress.
You can express yourself through your clothing however you want.
Now, in fact, as it turns out, Fox's son didn't just randomly decide to start wearing dresses.
She's been pushing this on him for years.
Here she is back in 2019 on The View bragging about her son's cross-dressing habit.
Listen.
He's really into fashion, and he's the one, like, sometimes he'll dress himself, and he likes to wear dresses sometimes, and I send him to a really liberal, like, hippie school, but even there, here in California, he still has little boys going, like, boys don't wear dresses, or boys don't wear pink, and so we're going through that now, where I'm trying to teach him to be confident, no matter what anyone else says.
I mean, he just, he finally, he had stopped wearing dresses for a while.
He just wore one two days ago to school and he came home and I was like, how was it?
Did any of the friends at school have anything to say?
And he was like, well, all the boys laughed when I came in, but he's like, but I don't care.
I love dresses too much.
So Megan Fox didn't want to have just a regular boring boy.
She wanted a cross-dresser that she could, you know, parade around like a fashion accessory, show off to all of her friends, talk about during interviews.
I can tell you right now that no nine-year-old boy No six-year-old boy, no boy of any age just randomly decides that he wants to wear dresses to school.
That's the product of lifelong conditioning.
In fact, in another interview, she said this.
She says, "When I became pregnant with Noah, I could feel through my mother's intuition that he was not subscribing
to gender stereotypes, so I decided to provide an environment for him early on
that would allow him to discover how he wanted to express himself."
So, through her mother's intuition in the womb, she decided that her son is non-binary,
and provided an environment from birth to facilitate that.
And what do you know?
Now her kid wears dresses.
Who could have guessed?
Now she is the bad guy in this scenario, of course.
Not the other boys at school laughing at her son.
I feel bad for her.
I feel really bad for her son on a lot of different levels.
I mean, he's got this blood-drinking freak of a mother, and I feel bad for him.
But in terms of getting laughed at at school, in fact, it is ridiculous for a boy to wear dresses.
The other boys are not wrong for finding it silly.
On the few occasions when my own children have encountered and seen this kind of thing just out in public, and they've talked to me about it, and they've said, oh, that's silly.
And I say, you're right, it is silly.
It's very silly for boys to dress like girls.
It's a very silly thing.
Because that's how I want them to understand it.
The boy supposedly bullying her son actually have his well-being more in mind than she does, even if they don't realize it.
Because they're pushing him towards normalcy and masculinity, which is good, because he's a boy and that's who he is.
And he should be encouraged to accept who he is.
She's pulling in the other direction for her own narcissistic, self-serving reasons.
That's the common theme here.
Narcissism, self-worship, even though Megan Fox literally participates in blood-drinking rituals, she still is not, I mean probably not anyway, a what we might call theological Satanist.
She probably doesn't explicitly worship the theological devil.
She might.
She probably doesn't.
The most common form of Satanism is this, especially in Hollywood, it's self-worship.
And that is Satanism in its rawest form.
It's not worshiping the devil outright, but worshiping yourself.
In that sense, modern leftism is Satanism.
It's indistinguishable from Satanism.
It puts the self at the center of everything, the center of the universe.
Everything and everyone exists to serve, to subordinate itself to the self.
And the self itself exists for itself.
It has no higher purpose beyond itself.
For Megan Fox, even her child exists as a mere prop, a thing to be used, dressed up, paraded around, and so on.
And that, certainly, first and foremost, is why she is today, finally, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey there, this is John Bickley, Daily Wire editor-in-chief and co-host of Morning Wire.
On today's episode, the great American migration, Massachusetts parents sue a school district over its gender identity policies, and what's next for Elon Musk and Twitter.
