Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Elon Musk gets the Me Too treatment. But any semi-intelligent person can see this smear campaign for what it is. Also, a new report says that well over 100 teachers have been arrested for sex crimes just this year alone. Are we finally going to start talking about the public school pedophilia epidemic? And a groomer tries to prompt her young son to promote cross dressing, but the conversation doesn’t go as she planned. And the New York Times introduces a new euphemism: Non-consensus realities. What does that mean? In our daily cancellation, the most prominent trans medical organization in the world is now calling for us to affirm eunuch as a valid gender identity.
Tune in for Ben’s Sunday Special with Jonathan Isaac this weekend anywhere you listen to podcasts.
NBA star Jonathan Isaac has withstood immense pressure to conform to popular social issues. He wrote a book about his experience and it is available now: https://utm.io/ud96e
Join Matt and the Daily Wire crew for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. Get their book "What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion":
https://40daysforlifegear.com/collections/books/products/what-to-say-when
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Elon Musk gets the Me Too treatment, but any semi-intelligent person can see this smear campaign for what it is.
Also, a new report says that well over 100 teachers have been arrested for sex crimes just this year alone.
Are we finally going to start talking about the public school pedophilia epidemic?
And a groomer tries to prompt her young son to promote cross-dressing on camera, but the conversation doesn't go as she planned.
And the New York Times introduces a new euphemism, non-consensus realities.
What does that mean?
And our daily cancellation of the most prominent transmedical organization in the world is now calling for us to affirm eunuch as a valid gender identity.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wells Show.
[MUSIC]
With everything going on in the news, it's basically impossible now to avoid the abortion debate.
And look, you may also think that this means that the fight's coming to an end if we're getting rid of Roe v. Wade, but abortion legislation returning to the states means the real battle is actually just beginning.
And there is no group in America better positioned than 40 Days for Life to help fight this battle.
40 Days for Life has 1 million volunteers throughout the country holding peaceful vigils outside of abortion facilities.
You may be surprised to hear that their largest presence is actually in blue states, with California being their biggest state.
So they're down there.
They're in enemy territory.
They're doing great work.
Their vigils have closed many abortion facilities in America.
Nearly half of those facilities were in liberal states where abortion will continue to remain legal.
After the fall of Roe.
From San Francisco to Chicago to Seattle.
Hardly pro-life areas, to put it mildly.
Volunteers have guided abortion workers to have a change of heart and to quit their jobs.
So, as this issue gets out of D.C.
finally, 40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in their grassroots movement and they're fighting for the pro-life movement.
So check out their locations and their podcasts and their new book, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion at 40daysforlife.com.
As we head into our opening topic today, I want to start by reminding you that my film, What Is A Woman?, will be released on June 1st.
The backlash by the left against this film has started to pick up steam, especially in the last day or two.
I expect it'll get much, much worse once the full movie is released and everybody sees, you know, what we actually have in this film.
It's impossible to predict just how far they'll go in trying to shut it down and punish everybody involved, especially me as the guy in front of the camera.
But I anticipate an intense Cancellation campaign.
Whatever happens, though, it will be worth it because this film is the most important thing I've ever done in my career, hands down, and maybe because I haven't done a lot of important things, and also perhaps maybe the most important thing that I'll ever do in my career.
Now, of course, its importance, though, and the cultural impact that it can have, that I believe it will have, All depends on, you know, you actually watching it.
People have to see it for it to have any impact at all.
Which is why, if you haven't yet, I would urge that you go to whatiswoman.com and sign up for a membership today.
If you haven't been a member, if you've been kind of considering becoming a member, but you haven't become one yet, I think now's the time to pull the trigger.
Cancel Netflix or one of those other streaming services with a bunch of lame, woke content.
We're all signed up for like 50 different streaming services.
You don't even remember all the streaming services you're signed up for.
Cancel one of them and sign up for The Daily Wire.
We've got a lot more coming down the pike, aside from this film, and you don't want to miss any of it, trust me.
Also, I've got Many more crazy ideas for projects floating around my troubled head, and it'll be a lot easier to get the green light on those other ones if this one is successful.
Just a little bit more incentive for you, so head to whatisawoman.com and get signed up today.
The Me Too movement, with its believe all women mantra, fell by the wayside in recent years thanks in part to the fact that nobody could figure out what a woman is.
It's hard to believe women if you don't know what is meant by the word.
I mean, how can I believe women if I don't know what you mean when you say women?
Also, of course, the MeToo movement chose to put itself on pause conveniently right around the time when a woman accused Joe Biden of sexual assault.
This was purely a coincidence, no doubt.
The MeToo crusaders were just, you know, exhausted.
They needed a vacation.
And they took this vacation right at the exact moment when the Democrat frontrunner for the presidency was accused of digitally raping one of his aides when he was in the Senate.
That's entirely happenstance.
Only a conspiracy theorist would draw a connection between the two.
Still, MeToo's conspicuous silence only served to further discredit a movement which never should have had any credibility to begin with, and in keeping with its habit of disappearing and then reappearing at politically convenient times, Now it's back, just in the nick of time, to take down Elon Musk.
A reported Business Insider, which was eagerly picked up and amplified by every mainstream media outlet within minutes, of course, claims that Musk sexually harassed a flight attendant a few years ago.
Reading from the report it says, "SpaceX, the aerospace firm founded by Elon Musk,
the world's wealthiest man, paid a flight attendant $250,000 to settle a sexual misconduct
claim against Musk in 2018. Insider has learned." Now we could stop right there, just for a moment.
We haven't made it past the first sentence, and already there are red flags all over the place.
The first major and ultimately disqualifying red flag is the timing of all of this, which we'll talk more about in a moment.
But the other is the amount that Musk allegedly paid to settle the claim.
So think about that.
We'll return to that point, too.
But the amount is very interesting.
For now, let's keep reading.
It says, the attendant worked as a member of the cabin crew on a contract basis for SpaceX's corporate jet fleet.
She accused Musk of exposing his erect penis to her, rubbing her leg without consent, and offering to buy her a horse in exchange for an erotic massage, according to interviews and documents obtained by Insider.
The incident, which took place in 2016, is alleged in a declaration signed by a friend of the attendant and prepared in support of her claim.
The details in this story are drawn from the declaration as well as other documents, including email correspondence and other records shared with Insider by the friend.
Now it's explained that this flight attendant, who also had a license as a massage therapist, went back to Musk's cabin on his private jet to give him a full body massage, at which point she claims, or rather someone else claims, that she claims.
So this is a claim being made on someone else's behalf.
So it's a she-said-she-said situation, and the claim is that she was sexually propositioned by Musk, who exposed himself to her, allegedly.
She refused, left the room, and in the ensuing days and weeks, she alleges, or her friend alleges that she alleges, she saw her hours cut back at her job, and she determined that she was being pushed out in retaliation.
She was then supposedly paid $250,000 in exchange for remaining silent about the incident.
For his part, Musk says that this is all a politically motivated attack, and anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see that it is exactly that.
And we know this for a few reasons.
First, as mentioned, the amount of the alleged settlement.
Musk is worth more than $200 billion.
If you have a legitimate harassment claim against a man with pockets as deep as that, against the richest man in the history of the world, in fact, then you would not take a measly $250,000 for your silence.
For a billionaire, $250,000 is what you pay to get rid of a nuisance.
The payment, if there was a payment at all, doesn't indicate that this woman actually had career and life-destroying dirt on Musk.
It indicates rather that she was an annoyance to him and that Musk could deal with it by just sort of throwing pennies at her.
Pennies by his standards, anyway.
But the bigger red flag, of course, and the thing that just disqualifies the whole story right away, is the timing.
So let's follow the timeline here.
Musk makes an offer to buy Twitter.
The left is very upset, to put it mildly.
Then, Musk says that he's going to start voting Republican.
The very next day, the media drops the sexual harassment story.
The next day.
The timing is not quite as transparent as Christine Ford deciding that she was raped by Kavanaugh at precisely the moment when Kavanaugh was nominated to Supreme Court, but it's pretty close, timing-wise.
And this is the point.
If you have a harassment or assault claim to make against somebody, and you wait until a politically expedient time to make it, even if it's true, it's still your fault when the claim is disbelieved and dismissed.
Now, this fake incident happened four years ago.
This friend, quote-unquote, had four years to alert the world to the horrific deeds committed by Elon Musk.
Four years to do it.
Instead, she waited until right after Musk came out as a Republican.
Now, Musk himself predicted a few days ago that the political attacks against him would get worse, and he was right.
Of course he was right.
Because we know that the left will stop at nothing to punish anybody who defies it.
The more egregious your defiance, the worse the attack will be.
The more effective you are in opposing them, the worse the attack will be.
And if the attacks work, right, If they succeed in turning public opinion against someone with lies and slander, that only encourages them to do it more.
And to do it to more people.
To claim more victims.
That's why, as a matter of common sense, but also simply as a matter of self-preservation, our reflexive response to any transparent left-wing smear campaign must be to discount it, dismiss it, and assume that it's false.
We must do that even though, on occasion, some of the dirt they throw around about one of their targets may have an element of truth to it, every once in a while.
Who knows?
Like when they're trying to destroy someone and they just start throwing everything against the wall, he did this, he did that, this and that.
Some of the stuff might be true, who knows?
But we can't sift through the dirt to try to discern what's true and what isn't.
They've already won when you do that.
And you've encouraged them to continue with these tactics in the future.
If you have something to say about somebody, something to reveal, you know, a deep, dark secret you feel needs to be brought into the public, don't dump it as part of a coordinated political revenge campaign.
If you do that, you deserve to be ignored.
And as for us, again, it's a matter of self-preservation.
When the left starts doing this to people, and they're only getting more egregious, they're getting more blatant about it, look what they just did to Madison Cawthorn.
Like, if they don't like you, they're going to rip you apart.
They're going to throw everything they have.
And our only response should be simply to just dismiss it.
We're not going to pay attention to it.
Sorry.
Nice try.
Moving on.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
All right, well, speaking of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims,
here are some assault and harassment claims that we should actually be paying attention to.
And not just claims, by the way.
These are not claims, but actual arrests and convictions.
So, Fox News has a story here.
It says, At least 135 teachers and teachers' aides have been arrested so far this year on child sex-related crimes in the U.S.
ranging from child pornography to raping students.
135 this year!
Okay, so that's like, that's actually half of a school year, basically.
An analysis conducted by Fox News Digital looked at local news stories week by week featuring arrests of teachers and teachers' aides on child sex-related crimes in school districts across the country.
Arrests that weren't publicized were not counted in the analysis, meaning the true number may well be higher.
It certainly is higher.
Well, the true number is, you know, so these are the arrests that were publicized that got media attention, and that's what Fox News is compiling here.
And so they come up with 135.
Well, to get to the real number, you also have to factor in the assaults and arrests and convictions that did not get media attention.
And then also, for the true number, the truest number of all, you have to consider all of the crimes, assaults, everything else that we don't know about, that were never reported, where there was no arrest made.
And any time we know this from any other institution that's had this problem, including the Catholic Church, you know, if you've got X number of confirmed cases, well, you know, not every victim is going to have actually come out and said something.
So you can multiply that by who knows, five, ten?
When you factor in all of the victims, especially when the victims are children in a public school setting?
You're going to have a large preponderance of victims who don't say anything because they're afraid.
Or they do report it, and they're just ignored.
Continuing here, it says, the analysis found that at least 135 teachers and teacher's aides have been arrested in 41 states between January 1st and May 13th, which works out to about an arrest a day on average.
The vast majority of the arrested educators were men.
And then they got a graph here, 105 were men, 30 were women.
Which is still, certainly many more men arrested for this, but 30 women is still in half a year?
Even that is a shockingly high statistic.
Shocking, at least, if you haven't been paying attention to this problem.
It says, of the arrests, at least 102 involved alleged crimes against students.
And then you had others, so there were crimes against students and then you also had crimes that they're including, you know, teachers who were convicted of child pornography or other crimes like that that did not directly involve students that they were teaching.
This is, as I've been shouting into the ether for years, this is an epidemic Okay, 100 plus teachers arrested from January to May of this school year.
Now, you multiply that out.
How many culprits do we have in a given year of the ones we know and don't know about?
That's why I go back again to the 2000, I think it was 2004, Department of Education did a report on this.
You know, every once in a while, like maybe once a century, the Department of Education will actually do something worthwhile.
And so this was their... They filled their quota for this century early on in 2004.
They did their one useful thing, and they actually did a report on this, and they looked into it, and they told us that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of victims of sexual abuse in the school system.
And that, in fact, the problem is 100 times worse, 100 times worse in the school system than it is in the Catholic Church.
This is finally after, you know, so that was almost two decades ago, the Department of Education admitted that they had this problem.
They admitted it and everyone just went, oh, okay.
Completely ignored it.
Two decades later, now we're finally getting some headlines about it.
And even these headlines are not enough.
You know, every once in a while we hear a sexual abuse epidemic cover-ups and everything in a certain institution becomes massive news, like the kind of thing everybody is talking about.
And it's treated, as it should be, as a huge problem.
We have to do something about it immediately.
This happened with the Catholic Church, it happened in Hollywood, you know.
The public school system still has not gotten that treatment.
Will this be the thing?
Is this the moment when the dam finally breaks?
And there is kind of mainstream acknowledgement of, oh dear God, we have a major problem here.
And considering we have 50 million of our kids in this system, we should probably be paying attention to it.
That's the thing that kind of blew my mind all along, is that, you know, people cared very deeply about the sexual assault epidemic in the Catholic Church, even though many of the people who cared about it, were talking about it, weren't Catholics, and they didn't even have their kids in the churches.
So, their own kids were not potential victims, and yet they cared, and they should care.
Because there are victims, and you should care about that.
People cared a lot about what was happening in Hollywood, even though almost all the people talking about it aren't in Hollywood.
Yet they cared, because there are victims, and you should care about that.
So I get all of that, of course.
But with the public school system, you should care for all the reasons you care about the church and about Hollywood.
But also, for so many people, your own kids are in this system.
So how many people, like, well, aren't Catholic, their kids don't go to a Catholic church, their kids do go to a public school, and yet they cared more about the Catholic church scandal than about the one that affects their own children.
Now that's what's hard for me to understand.
You should care about all of it, but you would think as a parent, your first priority would be the epidemic that could potentially affect your own child.
All right, certainly not unrelated to the first topic.
Let's look at this.
Here's a video that went viral this week thanks to libs of TikTok.
It's a woman grooming her son live on camera and in a department store dressing room.
No, what appears to be a department store dressing room, no less.
Let's watch some of this.
Okay, hold on.
You love it and you want it and you picked it out, but you don't want it for school.
Can you tell me why?
Because last time I wore a dress to school, everybody called me a girl.
Oh.
Well, what did we learn from My Shadow is Pink?
Even when you wear a dress, you're not a girl.
What makes a shirt for a boy or a girl?
Nothing.
So do you want this?
You picked it out.
I do want it.
You want to wear it all the time at home, but not at school, right?
Yeah.
Tell me about that.
I don't want to get made fun of, and that's what they always do when I wear pink stuff.
I'm sorry, baby.
Not when I do it only on special occasions.
What makes you like dresses so much?
I just like dresses.
Do you think bright, pretty colors and dresses and sequins and jewels and golds, all the things that you always want to wear?
Do you think that's your innermost you?
It is.
Well, how are you going to be your innermost you when we live in a place that people think
clothing belongs to a particular gender?
It's a trick, isn't it?
You know your mommy gets made fun of by people for looking like this, too.
What do you think about that?
Nope.
If not, that's just wrong.
That's just wrong.
What's the thing that always jumps out at you when you watch, when you see these kinds of videos of parents grooming their kids and filming it and then posting it proudly?
And in this case, it's just made all the more disturbing by the fact that she's in the dressing room at a department store and she's filming her own kid.
So what jumps out at you?
Well, of course, just how outrageously disgusting all of this is, right?
But also what you notice with the kid, like every time with these kinds of videos, and unfortunately there are many videos like this, it's like the kid is not engaged, okay?
He's just a kid.
I'm not sure how old this kid, looks like he's four maybe, four or five or so, you know, around there.
And like any four or five-year-old kid, He's just being a kid.
He's just kind of bouncing around and she's interrogating him, trying to get him to say the lines that she's fed him so that she can get it on camera and post it on TikTok and get, you know, and be congratulated for it.
But the kid's not even really cooperating because he's just a kid.
He doesn't care about this.
Like, he actually does not have any intense desire to wear dresses.
She's asking, well, why do you want to wear a dress?
He doesn't care.
Like, you could easily... Even if the boy did have some intense desire to wear dresses, as the parent, you still say no.
And if the desire is that intense, you know there's something psychologically going on, you get him some counseling, right?
If that's what it comes to.
But the point is, in like 99% of cases, it wouldn't even be necessary.
Yeah, the child may have, maybe, at some point in the past expressed some kind of desire to wear a dress to school or something.
I'm skeptical of that.
I mean, it seems apparent to me that she's been feeding all of this to him from the beginning.
But let's just say that at some point a year ago, you know, he said, I want to wear a dress to school.
Well, it's really obvious in that video that you could just say to the kid, uh, oh, no, no, no, boys don't wear that.
Just wear this instead.
And he'd be fine with it.
So he doesn't care that much.
Of course he doesn't.
Okay, breaking down gender barriers and, uh, destroying the binary and all that stuff.
No kid understands any of that or cares about it.
That's not their priority in life.
This kid's bouncing off the walls.
He just wants to go outside and play and be a boy.
That's all he wants.
Okay, leave the dressing room.
This is for the mom.
Leave the dressing room, put the camera down, you freak.
You child-abusing freak.
Bring your kid to a playground and let him climb on the jungle gym because that's all he wants to do.
He doesn't want to be a part of this.
But he also doesn't, because unfortunately he's stuck with you and he has no other frame of reference, he doesn't understand what's happening to him.
And he can't communicate that he just wants you to shut the hell up and let him live his life as a boy.
From every single video like this.
And this includes all the, you know, the documentaries and reality shows they've done, I Am Jazz, whatever that HBO documentary was last year.
About the quote-unquote trans kids and all of those things.
If you actually watch, and it's hard to stomach watching any of it, but it can be quite instructive to watch a little bit of it.
Because this is what you always find, is that these young kids, they don't care, they're not invested in this.
What is allegedly their innermost identity, and if they weren't allowed to express it, they would be in despair.
Then you actually see it in real time, and of course, they just don't care.
They just let them go outside and play.
That's all they want to do.
Stop, stop imposing all of your delusions and hang-ups and everything and your ideology and all this stuff and hanging it around your child's neck and forcing him to wear it around.
All right, Kamala Harris is speaking out again about the horrific implications of killing fewer babies.
Let's listen to her.
Overturning Roe opens the door to restricting those rights.
It would be a direct assault on the fundamental right to self-determination.
To live and love without interference from the government.
At its core, this is about our future as a nation.
About whether we live in a country where the government can interfere in personal decisions.
It means nothing at all.
So we don't have abortion legalized so you can live in love without interference?
What does loving have to do with it?
Yeah, this is how I love my child, by killing him.
Of course, we've heard that.
We heard it yesterday, the Daily Cancellation.
It's like explicitly what these maniacs will say.
But also, none of that.
That's nothing but meaningless cliché.
It doesn't mean anything.
People should be allowed to live without interference with the government.
You don't believe that.
Since when do you believe, Kamala Harris, that people should be able to live without interference with the government?
You know, it's nice that you're thinking of that now.
I wish you had thought of that like two years ago.
We just went through, I mean, what's the vaccine mandates, the lockdowns, everything.
There's a whole lot of interference by the government.
So, it's like, Democrats and leftists, especially, of all people, don't believe that you should actually be able to live without interference from the government because they want the government to interfere constantly, interfere constantly, all the time, and control nearly every aspect of your life.
That's what they actually want.
The only thing they don't want the government to have any control over is whether or not you kill your kid.
It's the only thing they don't want the government to have any say in, right?
But then also, actually, Nobody believes that we should be able to live and love without interference from the government.
Of course there are areas where the government has, unless you're an anarchist, okay?
Unless you are a full-on dyed-in-the-wool anarchist.
Outside of that, and there's very few of those, they do exist.
But fine, if you're, if you are an actual anarchist, then you are, I think that your worldview is incoherent, but at least, you know, you're allowed to go out and say, well, people should be able to live without interference from the government because you really mean it.
But if you're not an anarchist, you don't actually think that.
Like, we all believe that the government should be doing something.
You shouldn't be allowed to simply live your life any way you want and do whatever you want without the government having some kind of say, in certain circumstances at least.
If you believe in the concept of law at all.
What you just heard there from Kamala Harris, that is an argument against law as a concept.
But she doesn't really believe that, actually.
So none of this means anything.
Speaking of politicians making fools of themselves, if you haven't seen this clip of George W. Bush from a speech this week, you have to watch it.
I mean, this is one of those things I saw, people were sharing it online and they were quoting him and what he says here.
And I really thought, I thought it was a joke.
I thought it was some kind of, you know, meme or something, but no, this really did happen.
Watch this.
In contrast, Russian elections are rigged.
Political opponents are imprisoned or otherwise eliminated from participating in the electoral process.
The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq.
I mean of Ukraine.
Iraq too.
Anyway, uh...
75. Uh...
Oh, hilarious.
I mean, he just admitted that.
I mean, there's no other way to understand what you just saw there other than this is like classic Freudian slip, guilty conscience.
How else do you make that mistake?
You don't have to get into a lot of psychoanalysis here to understand that this is obviously, this is how he sees Iraq and he knows at some level that it was an unjustified invasion.
And then he kind of makes a joke of it.
He says, oh, and Iraq, too, and everybody laughs.
Oh, isn't that funny?
It is interesting with George W. Bush that there has been, especially over the last few years, and I think Donald Trump had a lot to do with this, is I think he was the first kind of, if you can call him, I don't know, mainstream Republican, at least, well, you know, famous, and mainstream in the sense of being famous and well-known, prominent, one of the first to come out fully against George W. Bush, you know, criticizing his whole tenure, the Iraq war and everything else.
Not the first Republican to criticize the Iraq war, but just his approach to the Bush era was different from how most Republicans approach it up to that point.
And so now, there is not bipartisan agreement on almost anything, except that it's like almost everyone agrees that the Bush era and the Bush years was a total disaster, which it was.
Being outdone now, though, by the Biden era, and we're only one year into it.
Like, I fully believe that George Bush and his administration did unfathomable damage to this country and to the world.
And we can start by, before you even get to the Iraq war, the way that he expanded government, all of the agencies, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, I mean, that was all his brainchild.
We have him to thank for that.
Department of Homeland Security, you know, now they're going after PTA moms, calling us domestic terrorists.
That all goes back to George Bush.
He might not have had that in mind, but he started that.
And now there's kind of like round bipartisan agreement about that.
Although, even keeping in mind all the damage Bush did, I think you could certainly argue that Biden in one year has done more damage than Bush was able to do in eight.
So only imagine what we have in store.
At least a year and a half, anyway.
He's done that much damage.
We'll see what the next two and a half years have in store for us.
I want to read this.
This is an article published in the New York Times this week, written by Daniel Bergner, and it promotes a new movement, as they call it, that seeks greater acceptance of psychotics who hear voices in their heads.
These people are not delusional, we're told.
It is rather that they experience, quote, non-consensus realities.
That's the phrase they're going with.
The article begins with a woman named Caroline Maisel Carlton, who's been hearing voices since she was a young child.
We're told that Caroline started taking anti-psychotic medication in middle school, but over the years she became less consistent, and sometimes she stopped taking the meds altogether.
She started doing drugs.
She was having promiscuous sex with men.
This is all, you know, the story they have in the article.
We're told, for some reason, that she had an abortion.
They mention that, too, of course.
After a while, she stopped the drugs completely.
And then this.
She began leading Hearing Voices Network support groups, reading now from the article, which are somewhat akin to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for people with auditory and visual hallucinations.
The groups, with no clinicians in the room, gathered on second-hand chairs and sofas in humble spaces rented by the Alliance.
What psychiatry terms psychosis, the hearing voices movement refers to as non-consensus realities.
And a bedrock faith of the movement is that filling a room with talk of phantasms will not infuse them with more vivid life or grant them more unshakable power.
Then things get a little more disturbing as we're told, quote, Maisel Carlton also worked as a sometime staff member at Faya House, a temporary residence run by the Alliance as an alternative to locked wards.
The people who stay at Faya are in dire need.
Many are not only in mental disarray, but also homeless.
Many are suicidal.
There are no clinicians on staff, no security personnel, only people who know such desperation firsthand.
In the living room, a homemade banner declares, quote, holding multiple truths, knowing that everyone has their own accurate view of the way things are.
The author then informs us that antipsychotic medication for several You know, that anti-psychotic medication can make things worse, he says sometimes.
And he cites approvingly a World Health Organization report, which he says is, quote, a revolutionary manifesto on the subject of severe psychiatric disorders.
It challenges biological psychiatry's authority, its expertise and insight about the psyche.
And it calls for an end to all involuntary or coercive treatment and to the dominance of the pharmaceutical approach that is foremost in mental health care.
Across conditions.
Okay, so, in the article, it's actually a lengthy article, and, you know, you start with this kind of shocking thing about, okay, we're going to be accepting of, if you're hearing voices, you should accept it, and this is a, it's not that you're hearing an unreality, it's a non-consensus reality.
That's going to be, that's the new euphemism now that we're going to use.
So you start with that shocking thing.
From there, it goes on, it's quite lengthy again.
There are some interesting points that are made.
Not everything in the article is lacking in some kind of validity.
It makes some good points about the over-reliance on prescription medicines in general, especially when it comes to the psychiatry industry.
It talks about the horrific side effects of some of these drugs.
I mean, all that stuff is valid, interesting to talk about.
And in a more normal, healthy society, this is maybe a conversation we could have.
Where you really get into the weeds and you go in depth on, like, let's take people who are clearly severely mentally disturbed, they're hearing voices, you know, and what's the best approach?
And that's potentially an interesting conversation that we could have.
But the problem is, you take a concept like non-consensual reality, and we know where that leads, and where it's already led, in fact.
And the banner that's in this house saying that, well, everybody has an accurate view of the way things are.
Well, no, not everyone does, in fact.
Lots of people do not have an accurate view.
Just because it's your view of the way things are doesn't make it accurate.
Might be your view, but that doesn't lend it accuracy just because it's yours.
But this is taking the I'm living my truth idea and taking it all the way to its logical extreme.
Which means that now we're going to affirm even people who are having hallucinations.
And then also this idea of, well, we need to, which apparently the World Health Organization has endorsed, the claim that we should end the involuntary treatment of people, we shouldn't commit people involuntarily to psychiatric institutions, we shouldn't treat them involuntarily.
And that, to me, is obviously incorrect.
And this is already a movement that's well underway.
There are still people who get involuntarily committed to mental asylums and that sort of thing, but it's not nearly as common as it used to be.
It doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to.
And where are these people now?
Is it because we have fewer crazy people?
The reason, historically, why you would commit someone, even involuntarily, to what we used to call insane asylums, is if they are a danger to the public.
If they're delusional, you know, schizophrenic, hearing voices, hallucinating, and they're a danger to people.
Or to themselves.
And that's why you would commit them, because what else are you going to do?
Well, we're seeing the consequence now of what happens when you don't commit these people.
You just look out on the streets in Los Angeles or San Francisco or New York.
That's where a lot of the people end up.
They're not being committed and so they're living out on the street and they're, you know, randomly throwing women in front of trains on the subway in New York.
That's what ends up happening when you don't, when you've ruled out the possibility of even involuntarily treating people or committing them.
So, lots of problems with this idea as it's presented in the New York Times article, and not the least of which, non-consensual reality, but that's, I'm telling you right now, you heard it here first.
Well, you didn't hear it from me first, you heard it from New York Times, but this is gonna be, that's a euphemism that I believe you're gonna hear a lot more of, applied to not just people who hear voices, but expanding far beyond that.
Let's see, what else do we got?
One other clip.
Do we have time to play?
I think we have time to play.
One other clip I wanted to play.
So Brookline Public School had a racial justice and solidarity day at school where they had some white people on stage and they were confronting their demons as white people.
And let's watch a bit of that.
I don't think there's another way I could live.
I do racial justice and liberation work because I see my white advantage everywhere I go, and I also see the way white supremacy, capitalism, Okay.
are locking me into systems that are really not working for me either as a white person.
It's jacking up my relationships, it's jacking up my kids' school system, it's jacking up
the healthcare system, it's jacking up my relationship with the environment.
And I really feel like a lot of these systems just need to be hospiced out, and we need
an entirely new way of engaging with each other that is much more radical and loving.
So for me, racism's operating all the time.
I think you guys got the definition, a system of advantage based on race.
That's David Wellman's definition.
So there's nowhere where it's not operating.
Does anyone know when was Brookline High founded? 18...
1834?
I wrote it down somewhere.
So, you know, this building was built during chattel slavery.
So there's really no part of where we are that hasn't been touched by structural racism and intersecting forms of oppression.
So I gotta do this work, y'all.
I gotta get free.
I feel like my life depends on it.
So I'll pass it like Anne Braven says.
I know it's crazy that, you know, far-right people are going after critical race theory.
I'm a critical race practitioner.
Like, that is the way school should be taught.
The only thing it's doing is asking, how is racism operating here?
It's not that complicated, right?
It's an incredible theoretical practice.
So I hope that the school considers, like, actually teaching critical race, and then go to the media and tell everybody you're doing it.
Hmm.
So critical race theory doesn't exist.
No, no, it does exist, but it exists, but it's only, it's only in, you know, higher level academics and law school and stuff.
Or no, but then we hear there that it's actually a good thing and that it should be taught in school.
So it's really, that's non-consensual reality, right?
So whatever reality they need to be, whatever reality they prefer in any given moment is what they'll go with.
And so that's what we hear there.
But also remember that, you know, replacement theory, it's a horrible racist trope.
Meanwhile, they've got white people up on stage there apologizing for their whiteness.
And talking about racism, it's one of the most brilliant and also devious things that the left has done in the last 50 years.
And it always begins, of course, with redefining words, right?
And so what they've done, the way they've redefined racism, so much of the work, like they like to talk about it, gotta do the work.
Well, so much of the work that they do on the topic of race begins with this starting point of redefining racism And taking it away from something, just like they've done with every other word, including woman, taking it away from something that was simple and straightforward.
Everybody knew what it was.
Okay, you're racist.
If you hate other races, you feel like you're superior to them, well, then you're racist.
Pretty simple, you know?
And the advantage of having a simple definition is that you can easily identify racism when you see it.
And there's not a lot of controversy about it.
Take it, no, that's not what it is.
Instead, it's about systems, and it's about advantage, and it's all these things.
They never have to... There was a point in time, a point in history, when people, and we know who these people were, came along and took the word racism and just declared that it has a new definition.
And they never have to explain that.
Or explain why we should listen to the people who redefined it.
Why do we have to go with their definition?
Never have to explain, because this is their reality, their non-consensual reality, or non-consensus reality.
Let's go now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Erica says, I always appreciate Matt's take on homeschooling.
One thing that always boggles my mind is when people talk about homeschooled kids not being social enough when the very structure of public school is designed to limit social interaction.
Any parent of young girls in public schools can tell you that teachers constantly complain that their daughters talk too much.
Just as boys learn through hands-on and active learning activities, girls learn through socially interacting with their peers.
Being social and communicating with others helps young girls to become empathetic and nurturing, but in public school, this social behavior is actively discouraged.
Of course, there is a time and place for children to learn to be quiet and respectful, but public school kids are expected to sit idly full-time from the age of five.
That's a really good point, too, and I often talk about You know, maybe because I'm drawing from my own experience in public school when I was a child, but I often talk about the way the public school doesn't work for boys because of, as you mentioned, boys are more active and they want to be up and moving around and doing things in a kind of hands-on way.
The public school environment cannot cater to that, so instead they make these kids sit down, and if they are not able to sit down and sit still, then either they become— they're now troublemakers and they end up in that system and they're getting suspended and getting detention and everything.
Or, and or, you start drugging them.
So that's the way that the public school system doesn't work for boys.
But then, as you bring up, this also applies to girls too, of course.
Now, girls thrive in the public school system more than boys do, as all the statistics show us.
But the system isn't great for any kid, and girls too.
And you bring up an interesting reason why.
Yeah, you do need to teach kids how to sit still for periods of time, how to be quiet and respectful and all that.
But it's not natural for a nine-year-old child, boy or girl, to be sitting down at a desk doing busy work for six to seven hours a day.
Let's see.
Chris says, Matt, I know how much you love righteous anger and getting back at people, but the Joe-what's-her-name bit smacks of taking the bait.
She's clearly fishing for outrage in a way that the woman testifying at the congressional hearing was not.
A notch beneath you, chum, and to make things worse, she got one over on you and any other conservative with her bigger name than she has.
I don't think it's taking the bait at all.
In fact, I totally disagree with you.
You're talking about Joe from the Daily Cancellation yesterday, who said that she would rather abort her kids, she'd rather kill her child than let her child be adopted by white parents.
And you think this is just trolling, looking for attention.
There may be an element of that, but I don't think that's the primary point here.
I think what she wants, and it's pretty clear from her reaction, what she wants and expects, Is that she can say these horrific things and most people will just applaud her for it.
Okay, there may be some people out there that are out trolling and looking for negative reactions, but especially on the left, that's not primarily what most of these people want.
They want the opposite.
They want to be applauded.
They need to be applauded and affirmed all the time.
And so she says this horrific thing, and what she wants is for anyone who disagrees to just ignore it, and then she only wants to hear from the people that affirm it, so that she can feel better and more comfortable and safer with this terrible viewpoint.
So I think by ignoring it, that is what's taking the bait, that's what's giving her what she wants, and allowing her to be affirmed.
Now, by me responding to it, it sent a flood of people in her direction who were horrified by the horrific thing that she said.
And that's the reaction that you should get in a civilized society when you say out loud that you'd rather your child be dead than adopted by a race that you don't like.
In a civilized, decent society, people should react to that in an outraged and horrified way.
Jay says, Matt, you're one of the best social commentators out there, but your insistence on intentionally mispronouncing Democratic Party names, i.e.
Karen, Jean, Pear, and others, doesn't serve you well.
Everybody deserves to have their names pronounced correctly, even incompetent, unqualified nincompoops like the above.
It's a pretty cringe-worthy cheap shot.
It's not worthy of your comedic chops, which are substantial.
Jay, I don't know what you're talking about.
I really don't.
I try my best, okay?
I try my best to pronounce people's names correctly.
This feels like, this is a little bit ableist on your end, frankly.
Maybe I suffer from some sort of mental, some sort of mental disability, in fact, probably many, and one of them makes it difficult for me to pronounce names, and I don't, I don't appreciate this from you.
In fact, you're banned from the show, actually, for that.
David says, with all due respect, pregnant men are not the only men liberals defend.
Any man competing in women's sports has the full backing and support of the Democrat Party.
You're right about that.
Except that, of course, on the left they would say that the man competing in women's sports is not a man.
So, my point is that the only time they'll actually say man in like a positive way, the only time that they will verbally defend a man, and using that word, is if it's a pregnant man.
Of course, but that's not really a man, as we know.
That is the only time you'll hear them actually say the phrase, a phrase like, well, men should be included.
Don't ostracize men.
Men should be involved too.
Well, you know, there are men also, like any phrase like that, you'll never hear that from them ever, except when it comes to pregnancy.
That's the only time.
This may come as a great shock to you, but in addition to being incredibly one-sided, mainstream media is also extremely boring.
You know exactly what everybody's going to say, but that's not the case with Sunday Special, the weekend edition of The Ben Shapiro Show.
Not boring at all.
Imagine, if you will, a show that has guests with different points of view.
If you can imagine, Ezra Klein, Zuby, Brett Easton Ellis, they've all been on the show.
That's because at The Daily Wire, we follow the truth wherever it goes.
It's certainly true with The Greatest Lie Ever Told, also our upcoming documentary with Candace Owens.
It's a hard-hitting expose about the death of George Floyd and the rise of BLM.
You don't want to miss that.
It's also true on this week's Sunday special with Ben's guest, Jonathan Isaac.
He'll be discussing Why I Stand, the new book he just released with The Daily Wire.
Isaac was the lone NBA player not to kneel for the national anthem during a league-wide demonstration in support of Black Lives Matter.
His story is courageous and inspiring.
Sunday Special will be available this Sunday morning on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Always very interesting.
We know this is going to be an extra interesting one, so make sure you tune in for that.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
It should hopefully be clear to you by now that we are not on a slippery slope per se.
There's no slippery slope anymore.
The word slope makes our current process of societal disintegration sound far too orderly and gradual.
We've long since slipped all the way down the slope, and that's why I prefer to compare our cultural situation something more along the lines of George Clooney in that space movie with Sandra Bullock.
If I remember the plot point correctly, Clooney becomes untethered from the space station somehow during a spacewalk and then hurdles out into the cold abyss.
While Sandra Bullock just waves goodbye, makes no attempt to rescue him.
And that's us.
We are tumbling untethered into the darkness.
We're not going in any particular direction, but simply out into the void, where there is neither up nor down, nor warmth nor light.
Happy Friday, by the way.
The point is, we should not be terribly surprised by the news, first reported by the website Redux, that the most prominent influential trans medical organization in the world, WPATH, has been using a castration fetish site as a reference and resource for its guidelines.
Now, you're probably confused.
But you also probably don't want to learn more.
But you will, I'm afraid.
The Daily Caller has a helpful summary of this story.
Reading from their report, they say, The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPATH, developed its latest medical guidelines using information from a site that hosts pedophilic fantasy pornography and castration fetish content.
WPATH, which sets medical standards for transgender medical procedures, according to U.S.
Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, released new draft guidelines on December 3rd, which include UNIC as a gender identity.
The organization pulled information from a website called UNIC Archive, which hosts thousands of members who discuss their castration fantasies and, according to WPATH, hosted a popular post providing instructions for self-castration.
WPATH referenced stories of self-castration shared on the site to argue that healthcare providers must castrate individuals for their own safety if they believe a person will likely chemically or surgically castrate themselves outside of the formal medical setting otherwise.
The UNIC Archives Fiction Archive, which the WPATH guidance described as filled with fantasy, Contains hundreds of erotic fantasy stories about castration, child castration, pedophilia, sexual torture, performing medical experiments on prepubescent boys, slavery fetishes, and racial abuse.
And actually, the description of this website goes on from there, and I can't even read.
Like, that's the most I can read of describing what's on this website.
I can't even read more than that to you, because I'd get bleeped out.
Now, I wanted to confirm that WPATH actually does endorse eunuch now as a valid gender identity.
So I went to the WPATH website myself, and sure enough, I found this.
This is from the WPATH website.
Among the many people who benefit from gender-affirming medical care, those who identify as eunuchs are the least visible.
The eighth version of the SOC Standards of Care includes a discussion of eunuch-identified individuals because they're indeed present and in need of gender-affirming services.
For the purposes of Standards of Care, we define eunuch as an individual assigned male at birth whose testicles have been surgically removed or rendered non-functional and who identifies as a eunuch.
The identity of eunuch is a gender identity of its own and for many it is the sole identity with no other gender or transgender affiliation.
Now it goes on for a while longer talking about eunuchs, men who wish to be castrated or who are castrated in pursuit of some perverse and inexplicable sexual satisfaction and WPATH goes to great lengths to explain that this is all valid and good and healthy.
The important thing to emphasize here is that although WPATH may not be an organization that you recognize by name, it is nonetheless hugely prominent and influential.
Government policy and medical guidelines are written based on declarations made by this institution.
As a reference to the Daily Caller article, you may remember a few weeks ago when Rachel Levine of the Health and Human Services said that there's no argument, quote-unquote, against medically transitioning children.
Fox News reached out to Levine's office for further comment and, like, an explanation about this statement, and this is what they reported.
Quote, there is no debate in the medical community about the medical or scientific validity of gender-affirming care, Levine's communication director Adam Sarvana told Fox News.
Sarvana said the standards of care from World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPATH, have been endorsed by multiple medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Now, he's right, by the way.
There is almost no debate in the medical community about so-called gender-affirming care, and it is true that all of those other medical organizations look to WPATH as an unquestioned authority on anything related to gender or gender identity, which only further demonstrates the abysmal state of the medical community.
And now this unquestioned authority says that it is valid to be a eunuch.
In fact, they recommend in their guidelines that doctors castrate self-identified eunuchs in order to help them fully live out and realize their identities.
See, this is why I say we've devolved way past the point of slippery slope.
We've now entered a vortex where all impulses, proclivities, fantasies, perversions, non-consensus realities must be affirmed.
And I do mean all.
This is what some on the right have been slow to understand about the transgenderism push.
You know, that was not one small progression.
It wasn't one slight deviation away from reality.
It's not one gradual step towards insanity.
No.
Once you've introduced the concept of pregnant men and women with penises, once you've done that, you've obliterated reality completely.
Because it's not really possible to come up with a more radical departure from reality than that.
You haven't slipped down the slope, you've gone all the way to the bottom of the slope, and it's just like you've leapfrogged over a bunch of other stuff and now we're just going to circle back and cover that stuff too.
Or, going back to the analogy, you've officially left the space station and now you're floating out there in the ether.
So, we react with justified horror at WPATH trying to normalize Unix, but in fact this isn't any more horrifying than anything else WPATH has normalized.
It's entirely consistent with their overall mission.
And it follows from their one single rule, which is the rule of all leftists, which is that everything must be affirmed, everything, as long as it's not normal, or natural, or healthy, or good.
And that is why today WPATH is cancelled.
A bit of a heavy subject to end on for a Friday, but that's just the way it is.
We'll talk again on Monday.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
but 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 everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
