Ep. 998 - 'Gender Identity' Is Narcissism By Another Name
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a “gender specialist” is caught on tape admitting that girls as young as 12 are having their breasts chopped off. One seemingly absurd and unimportant headline in the news today only further reveals the brutality and insanity of this practice. Also, voters in Kansas vote to protect the so-called constitutional right to abortion. How could this have happened in Kansas of all places? We’ll discuss. And Whoopi Goldberg laments that college graduates are starving to death because of their student loans. If that’s true, doesn’t it only further prove that college is a terrible investment? Plus, the LA Times promotes “death with dignity,” also known as suicide. The latest superhero film is so bad that the studio refuses to even release it. And in our Daily Cancellation, I respond to continued attacks from a conservative gun rights activist who claims that I’m hurting the conservative movement more than helping.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access movies, shows, Jordan Peterson’s content archive, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
—
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. “What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion” Available on Amazon OR at 40DaysforLife.com
ZipRecruiter makes hiring so much easier because they do the work for you. Sign up for FREE! www.ZipRecruiter.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a gender specialist is caught on tape admitting that girls as young as 12 are having their breasts chopped off, and one seemingly absurd and unimportant headline in the news today only further reveals the brutality and insanity of this practice.
I'll explain.
Also, voters in Kansas vote to protect the so-called constitutional right to abortion.
How could this have happened in Kansas of all places?
We'll discuss.
Whoopi Goldberg laments that college graduates are starving to death because of their student loans.
If that's true, doesn't it only further prove that college is a terrible investment?
Plus, the LA Times promotes Death with Dignity, also known as suicide.
The latest superhero film is so bad that the studio refuses to even release it.
And in our daily cancellation, I respond to continued attacks from a conservative gun rights activist who claims that I'm hurting the conservative movement more than helping.
Is he right?
We'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
and going to the grassroots.
No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life to fight this battle.
With about 1 million volunteers in 1,000 cities, they hold peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities, and they have a larger presence in blue states, where they're most needed, California being their largest state of all.
Some former abortion facility directors say that these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which of course is detrimental to their abortion business.
These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America, and nearly
half of them were in liberal cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle, which are
hardly pro-life areas.
40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.
You can check out their locations, podcasts, and free magazine at 40daysforlife.com.
We have to always keep in mind is that the fight for life is not over.
It continues, and in fact, in many ways, it certainly enters a new phase now after Roe,
and in many ways, an even more important phase as we have this ability to so directly impact
the laws governing abortion and to save lives in the process.
So for more information on 40 Days for Life, go to 40daysforlife.com.
The news hit like an avalanche yesterday.
Explosive, shocking, the most significant event of the year, of the decade, of the century.
The headlines were published on CNN, NBC News, ABC News, Fox, all over the media.
It was trending on every social media platform.
People all across this land were shouting about it from the rooftops.
Town criers were announcing it in village squares.
The earth-shattering news reverberated Around the country and down through history and across space and time, Demi Lovato is changing her pronouns.
Again.
As People Magazine reports, Demi Lovato was opening up about her recent pronoun change about two months after updating her pronouns on Instagram, adding she, her alongside the pronouns she'd been using since last year, which are they, them.
Lovato recently spoke to host Tamara Dia on the Spout podcast about what led to the decision.
In response to Dia asking Lovato to explain the concept of chosen pronouns like they, them, the 29-year-old singer-songwriter said, They, them is, I've actually adopted the pronouns of she, her again.
Now, if that sentence seemed to not make any sense, get ready for a bunch more sentences that also make no sense.
Here is Lovato explaining her decision in more detail.
She, of course, updates her pronouns like Apple updates the iPhone.
And I mean both in terms of the frequency of the updates and the meaninglessness and redundancy of the updates.
But here she explains why, I think.
I've actually adopted the pronouns of she her again.
So for me, I'm such a fluid person that I don't really, I don't find that I am I felt like, especially last year, my energy was balanced and my masculine and feminine energy.
So that when I was faced with the choice of walking into a bathroom and it said women and men, I didn't feel like there was a bathroom for me.
Because I didn't feel necessarily like a woman.
I didn't feel like a man.
I just felt like a human.
And that's what They Them is about for me.
It's just about feeling human at your core.
Recently, I've been feeling more feminine.
Well, there you have it.
Yesterday you would have been banned on every social media platform for calling Demi she, and now you'll be banned if you don't.
That's how this works.
And she's simply getting in touch with her energy.
Sometimes her energy is balanced.
Sometimes her energy tips towards the feminine.
Sometimes it's masculine.
Sometimes her energy is low and she needs to plug into an outlet in the garage for a while.
Now, obviously, none of this makes any sense at all.
This is about as credible as the four humors theory of medicine, popular back in, like, the Middle Ages.
And back then, they believed that a person's physical health, their mental well-being, their personality were all determined by the balance of blood, bile, melancholy, and phlegm.
And those are the four humors.
And that theory fell out of favor once the human body and the brain were better understood and the existence of germs, you know, was discovered.
Though they may have actually been on to something on second thought as there are lots of people in our society today who seem to be predominantly composed of bile and phlegm.
And yet humorism was far more defensible and credible at the time Because it was the best available theory to explain these aspects of the human person based on the information they had at the time.
This gender identity nonsense, by contrast, is a superstition invented and propagated contrary to all of the ample amounts of evidence that we have on hand.
We know that it's nonsense, and yet it has taken over our culture all the same.
Now, I call it nonsense, and it is, but that doesn't mean that I can't make sense of it.
I do, in fact, understand what Demi's trying to say.
I think I understand what she's trying to say better than she does.
Because this is all simply narcissism.
Lovato has a cornucopia of mental illnesses and various addictions, and that certainly plays a role, but mostly This is the end result of spending nearly every waking moment of your life thinking about yourself, obsessing over yourself, analyzing yourself, and then analyzing your analysis of yourself.
A person who adopts this, I guess, lifestyle choice of narcissism will quickly conclude that Though she can't make up her mind about anything, and though she, by her own admission, doesn't understand herself in the slightest, she is certainly, she knows, more interesting, more nuanced, more complex, more richly and beautifully sketched than most other people in the world.
This is the fundamental narcissistic assumption that serves as the basis for everything else when it comes to gender identity.
The narcissist feels, you know, feels a certain way, right, as we all feel different ways, but they can't actually know whether other people who share the same sex, feel the same way, whether this is just how
people feel, but she assumes that they don't feel as she does because
she is her.
You know, she's not like anyone else.
Her feelings are different and meaningful and profound in ways that nobody else's are.
And so she can't make do with these sex categories that have proved sufficient for billions of humans before her.
She needs a whole new category.
Because she is that transcendent, she tells herself, in her deluded, ego-crazed mind.
And this would all perhaps be something about which we could simply shake our heads and laugh and then move on, if it was a madness consigned to drug-addled Hollywood weirdos.
But it's not.
Worst of all, of course, children are being recruited into sharing in the same confusion and self-obsessed misery as Demi Lovato.
And here is where the Lovato story does, in fact, have some resonance and relevance.
This is why it's actually not something that we can simply dismiss.
There's something important that can be learned from it, and that important thing is this.
Demi Lovato is a grown woman, technically.
She is an adult, at least in the chronological sense of the term.
And yet, she changes her gender identity, quote-unquote, every 45 seconds.
She can't make up her mind.
What she said yesterday may not have any bearing on today.
One minute, her deepest truth is that she's a non-binary pansexual shapeshifter, and the next minute, her truth is something else entirely.
Now consider That kids are being drugged and mutilated, their bodies permanently altered based on their own gender identity declarations, which are somehow even more fickle and transmutable and fundamentally meaningless.
Everything is fluid.
Everything can be changed.
Except the bodies that are butchered and poisoned based on whatever form of identity or expression a child has assumed at that moment.
There was a video recently that went viral which shows someone named Kellen Lackard, a so-called gender specialist, whatever that is, at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, admitting that in that program, Kaiser Permanente, children as young as 12 years old I think folks have kind of covered the blockers and hormones, but I'll talk about surgical care a little bit.
In terms of masculinizing top surgery, I think 12 is the youngest who's had surgery through our program.
In terms of general reconstructive surgeries, we haven't had anyone under the age of 18
have phalloplasty or jointed plasty, but we have had a few patients starting 15, I don't
think surgery actually happened, until 16 that have had vaginal plasty.
Again, girls at the age of 12, not even in high school yet, and they're having body parts
removed.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
We also hear that boys as young as 16, at an age when boys in particular are renowned for being impetuous and impulsive and unintentionally self-destructive, and yet at age 16 they're being castrated.
Demi Lovato is almost 30 years old, and she can't decide what her gender energy is telling her at any given moment.
How in God's name can we take an adolescent still over a decade away from their brain being fully formed, how can we take them seriously when they make their own declarations?
A few days ago, the radical LGBT group Stonewall tweeted that according to quote-unquote research, and they never do specify what the research is, of course, but just research, research shows, they say, that children as young as two can recognize their trans identity.
Two.
Adults in their 20s and 30s struggle to understand their identities, apparently.
But actual babies, still in diapers, sleeping in cribs, can come to realizations that escape those approaching middle age or older.
That's the point we should take away here.
And it's why we actually shouldn't simply ignore the adult celebrities and other adults who parade around, you know, with their different identity every other month.
Far from ignoring it, we should be pointing to them.
We should be putting them up on banners, saying, here, look at this, with the message, leave our kids out of this.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
There are so many more things to do during the summer and you want to free up as much time as possible to enjoy them.
So if you're a business owner, the last thing you want to do is sort through tons of unqualified candidates' resumes when you could be spending time with family or doing something to better yourself and your community, which is how I spend my free time, by bettering my community, community service.
It's my greatest passion.
So, that's why.
If you're like me, you need ZipRecruiter to find great candidates.
They do the work for you, and it really is as simple as that.
And now you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter uses its powerful technology to find and match the right candidate with your job.
You can easily review the recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply.
It is a proactive step.
Additionally, ZipRecruiter has a complete suite of tools that make it easier To filter and review and rate your candidates as well.
This is why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Not to mention, ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site.
So soak up all the summer has to offer and let ZipRecruiter do the work for you.
Ready for the URL?
Here it is.
It's ZipRecruiter.com.
That's where you could try it for free.
Again, it's ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
All right, lots of conversations now with another set of twins on the way, as we announced yesterday.
One of the big ones is transportation.
And I mentioned that it was like a day before, a couple days before we found out about the pregnancy, we had just bought a new family vehicle that fits exactly six people.
And now we're expanding to a family of eight.
My wife has been, she's one of these people, and honestly I don't understand it, but she's not alone in this.
She's just been dead set on not getting a minivan.
And she still maintains, we talked about it again last night, she still maintains the delusion that we can avoid getting any kind of van.
Look, I've never bought into the anti-van propaganda.
I don't understand it.
They're incredibly convenient.
They may not be, you know, as stylish, but they are practical, and I think that they're quite handsome in their own way.
My wife is so desperate that she's wondering, she's actually suggested this, can we go to, like, a chauffeur service and see if we can buy one of their old limousines?
Maybe we can convert an airport shuttle or something.
Anything but an actual, you know, passenger van or minivan.
It's absurd.
Look, the time has come, and that's another thing that you learn, and it's a big part of parenting, too, is acceptance, you know, and being realistic.
And the time has come for the minivan.
Be still.
Be not afraid.
We are destined for the minivan.
Now the forces of nature have spoken, and it will be fine.
It will be okay.
I believe that.
This is not so okay, though.
NBC News is reporting this.
Well, actually, this is being reported all across the media because they're very excited about it.
Primary elections in several states last night.
And also some ballot initiatives, and one in particular is getting a lot of attention.
Attention is probably understating it.
The Huffington Post had, you know, if you went to their website last night, in huge block letters across the front page it said, Earthquake!
Deep Red Kansas Protects Abortion.
It's an earthquake.
And then they tell us in the article, "Kansans decided to keep abortion protections
in their state constitution after a Tuesday vote, a huge win for pro-choice advocates
that will likely set the tone for what's to come on abortion rights nationally.
Voters in the Midwest state voted against the Value Them Both Amendment,
which was created by anti-abortion Christian groups to strip protections for abortion care
from the state's constitution."
The vote, which was held during a primary election, had a historic turnout, as high as the 2008 presidential election.
The amendment was created in response to a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court decision that ruled the state's constitution fundamentally protects abortion rights.
If the value then both amendments had passed, it would have opened the door for anti-abortion rights lawmakers to pursue a total abortion ban.
Obviously, I'm reading for Huffington Post, and so they're phrasing, framing this a certain way.
Of course, it's anti-abortion rights on one hand, and then pro-choice on the other.
We can't be pro-lifers.
It's not pro-life and pro-choice.
We're anti-abortion rights, so-called.
Now, I think the final vote was something like, it was like a 60-40 split or something.
Might have even been, I'm not even sure if the pro-life vote got up to 40%.
I think it was in the 30s.
Now, there's no doubt In Kansas, choosing not to, I mean, choosing to, as the headline says, protect the so-called right to abortion in Kansas, it's a surprise.
It's also a disappointment, and it's pretty depressing.
There's no way around that.
But it's not that surprising when you think about it.
And you remember that the Democrats, first of all, have certain built-in advantages, no matter how red the state is.
This isn't a rationalization.
This isn't a cope.
It's just true.
Okay, the Democrats, first of all, have the entire media on their side, sometimes with the exception of Fox News and sometimes not.
So there's the relentless media propagandizing that's been going on, and has always gone on, on every issue, especially abortion, and in particularly, you know, since the decision from the Supreme Court.
Abortion is also a billion-dollar, a multi-billion-dollar industry.
And so there's a lot more money there when it comes to an effort like this.
And then, they also have The advantage, really, of being on the side where they're exploiting fear, right?
So you've got the pro-abortion side, and when it comes to this fight in Kansas and also nationwide, the pro-abortion side, they are, of course, lying constantly.
Everything they say is a lie.
But they also, what they're doing fundamentally is exploiting people's fears.
They're saying that we're going to end up in a handmaid's tale, that women are going to be enslaved and subjugated.
And somehow, because of the Supreme Court decision, next thing you know, interracial marriage is going to be illegal.
I mean, all kinds of fears.
And it doesn't make any sense.
They're just throwing everything they can against the wall to see what sticks.
And then, especially on an individual level, if a woman is pregnant, then all they have for the woman is fear, fear, fear.
Here's all the horrible things that will happen.
You have no choice.
You have to go get an abortion.
Your life will be over if you don't.
That's what the pro-abortion side is doing.
Exploiting fear.
On the pro-life side, on the other hand, We're calling people to something greater, right?
Calling them to respect the dignity of human life.
Calling people to virtue, to moral rightness.
That's what we have.
And just, it's a reality of human nature that exploiting fear is a lot easier to do, and it can often be much more potent, and it can often be much more effective.
It's one of the sad realities of human nature.
We have goodness on our side.
We have the light of truth on our side.
We have love and dignity and joy.
We have all of that on the pro-life side.
And that is all, of course, better than what they have on the pro-abortion side.
But when it comes to motivating people, especially en masse, Exploiting fear can be a lot more powerful, and so that's what the left has found.
And then there's also this, too.
Keep in mind.
The wording of this initiative is pretty confusing.
I mean, they really couldn't have worded it any worse, truly.
So here's what the ballot said.
So when the people in Kansas went to vote, here's what the ballot said.
Okay.
Because Kansans value both women and children, the Constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.
To the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.
Okay, so that was the initiative that the Kansans were faced with yesterday.
A yes vote is the pro-life vote on that.
So a yes vote would say that there is no constitutionally protected right to abortion.
So in a way, a yes is a no.
You're saying, yes, there is no constitutional right to abortion.
And then if you vote no, there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion.
Now, it's not too difficult to figure out how to interpret this, but it's still too difficult for a ballot initiative.
Especially when you consider that, on the left, this is, whether we're talking about abortion or any other issue, along with exploiting fear, they also exploit confusion.
And fear and confusion are very much related.
They are, you know, two sides of the same coin.
They're cousins, at least.
First cousins.
People fear what they're confused about, what they don't understand.
And this is what the left always does.
They obfuscate, they confuse.
They want you kind of lost in the hazy mist where you don't know exactly which way is up and what's going on.
So having a ballot initiative that's confusingly worded is always going to help the left more than it's going to help the right.
All those things together is how you end up with what happened in Kansas.
Although, again, it's still a quite sad state of affairs.
All right, next we'll go to The View.
Speaking of a sad state of affairs, Whoopi Goldberg has been on a roll lately with incredibly bad takes, and here's her latest on student loan forgiveness.
If you have worked your behind off, you've tried to move yourself up the ladder.
You talk about people can't get gas, they can't buy food, they can't put their children through any kind of college.
That's because they're paying off these freaking student debts!
So, here's my point about this, because we hear this a lot.
About why we need student loan forgiveness is because you've got all these college graduates, and they've got student loan debt, and they can't afford gas, they can't afford food, they can't afford to live.
Not because of inflation.
It's got nothing to do with inflation.
Don't blame inflation.
Don't blame the Biden administration.
Nothing to do with them.
It's because of these student loan debts.
And if it wasn't for that, then they'd be able to afford all these things.
And yet, the people who make these claims That college graduates don't have, they don't have jobs good enough to afford them the basic necessities of life?
The people who make that claim will still insist that college is a necessary and worthwhile investment.
I mean, you just, if that's true, what you just said, we've got college graduates who can't even afford food.
Apparently we're not able to get a job with their degree that was good enough to ensure that they can survive.
Then wouldn't that, putting student loan, the student loan debt problem aside for a moment, doesn't that show that the college degree is a really bad investment?
If you can't even survive, you can't get a survival level job after getting the degree?
But they never take it that far.
They never connect those dots.
Everything, when we talk about student loans, everything they say about it would seem to indicate, and much of what they're saying has at least some truth to it, except that there's the disconnect.
Because what they're saying would really seem to indicate that, among other things, the college degree is oftentimes a bad investment.
And it's just not working out for many people.
They were sold a bill of goods.
They were—that's the primary reason people, they went to college in the first place, because they were told that if they go to college, they're going to get a good job afterwards.
And it hasn't played out that way.
And it hasn't been playing out that way for years, for a huge number of college graduates.
So maybe that means we should reassess our you know, habit, our strategy of funneling everybody into
college directly out of high school.
Especially that part of it, the directly after high school part.
It's crazy to me that we can't at least agree on this. I know I'm never going to be able to get
most people to agree with and understand that college in general is unnecessary for a large
number of people.
Like that's...
At least right now, I'm not going to be able to convince most people of that.
But can we not at least agree that there is no reason to go into college directly out of high school?
I've been saying this forever.
I could say it until I'm blue in the face.
It's just there's no reason to do it.
There might be a few exceptions to every rule.
The exception here might be, I don't know, if you have a full-ride athletic scholarship.
Even if you don't have a full-ride athletic scholarship, for athletics, if one of the main reasons you want to go to college is because you're an athlete and you want to play sports at the college level, then that's a pretty good reason, maybe, to go right into college out of high school.
But that's the only possible exception that I can conceive of.
For everybody else, nothing bad can happen if you leave high school and then just get a job, just live for a couple of years, do whatever, live in the world for a couple of years.
There's nothing bad that can happen.
You're not in a race.
You want to play athletics and that does put you in a little bit of a, does put you in a race, right?
But outside of that, you're not in a race.
Even if you know that you probably want to be a doctor or a lawyer or something like that, well, you're going to be in school for years anyway.
A couple of years isn't going to make or break you.
So you spend a couple of years, you leave high school, spend a couple of years in the real world, you get a job, you make some money, and worst case scenario, worst case scenario is that you're behind by a couple of years, but you have money in the bank now.
But behind who?
Who are you racing?
Now this is just life now.
You're not racing anybody.
Well, I know why the university system doesn't encourage this approach.
They don't encourage kids to take a couple of years off.
And I don't even like the way that's phrased.
Take a couple of years off.
You're not taking off.
I'm not saying that you should leave high school and then just sit at home and do absolutely nothing for two or three years.
I wouldn't encourage that.
No, you're going to do something.
You're not off at all.
In fact, you were off before.
Now you're on.
You're in.
You're on.
You're in.
You're in the real world.
And the reason the university system does not encourage this is because they realize That if these kids come out of high school and then go out into the real world for a few years, that a large portion of them are never going to go to college because they're going to discover that they don't need college to do what they want to do with their lives.
For many kids, during that time, they're going to figure out what they want to do with their lives, and most kids out of high school have no idea, and then you give them a couple years, they're going to start to figure it out, and many of them are going to discover that their career path, their vocation, doesn't require a college degree, so they're not going to go.
And the university system is going to lose out on all that money.
And that's why they want the kids, they want them in college, right away, before they know what hit them, before they have time to think about it, And they want you to realize that you don't need the degree after you've already paid for it.
Because there are no refunds.
They don't want you to realize that before you pay for it.
So, that's the university system.
I can understand from a pure profit-driven, profit-motivated perspective why they don't want you to leave high school and go out into the real world.
But everybody else, that's where I don't get it.
Especially parents who pressure their kids to go right from high school to college.
It's crazy to me.
You are actively working against your child's own best interests.
Doesn't make any sense.
All right, so this is quite a morbid and sad story about what the LA Times calls, and what all pro-euthanasia people call euphemistically, death with dignity.
And I saw this circulating yesterday online.
The headline is, One Last Trip, Gabriella Walsh's Decision to Die and Celebrate Life on Her Own Terms.
And it continues with the story, it says, Gabriella Walsh knew she wanted to die on a Saturday.
She'd settled on July 16th, dressing that morning in a flower crown and a t-shirt with a picture of a dragonfly, an image that had comforted her in recent weeks.
She took a deep inhale from a bottle of lavender oil and listened to a playlist of sea sounds.
Earlier in the morning, friends and family nuzzled up against her in bed.
Rest easy, they told her, and keep wandering.
I just feel like I'm going on a trip, she said calmly.
Within two hours, she would drink a fatal dose of medications prescribed under California's Death with Dignity Law, which allows some terminally ill patients to request drugs to end their lives.
The option had given her profound comfort in her final weeks, as had knowing that, in the end, she'd have Jack Bar-Sigyon, the registered nurse who managed her hospice care, and Jill Schock, a death doula, at either side of her bed.
A death doula.
My God.
We should be very wary about this idea that dignified death is suicide.
We should just be wary of it.
We should reject it.
We should passionately reject this idea that the most dignified way to die is through suicide.
And of course the implication here is, because this was a woman who's terminally ill with cancer, And she chose death with dignity, which was suicide.
Implication is that if she had not committed suicide and allowed the cancer to kill her, then that's an undignified death.
Yes, we should absolutely reject that.
Drinking poison given to you by a doctor is dignified?
And even if you can't grasp the moral argument against an individual committing suicide as a means of escaping suffering, if you can't grasp the moral argument, then you should at least be able to understand the other great objection to euthanasia, which is that it further subverts and perverts the medical profession.
Because doctors should not be in the position of killing people.
And I know that we kind of take it for granted these days that doctors kill and harm people, because that's what so many doctors do, and there are billion-dollar industries erected around this, with abortion, with the gender industry, killing, harming, mutilating, drugging, poisoning.
Doctors do that quite a bit these days.
But they shouldn't.
That's not what medicine is.
That's why traditionally the Hippocratic Oath is, do no harm.
I mean, the idea that poison, just the simple concept of calling poison medicine.
Well, no, medicine treats.
Medicine is supposed to treat and heal.
You have something wrong with you and you take medicine to treat it, to heal it.
So, poison.
If medicine is poison, what is the disease that it's treating?
Life?
I guess so.
Euthanasia tells us that life itself is a disease, and it can be treated with the medicine of a poison that kills somebody.
One other point about this.
Euthanasia, especially under the euphemism of death with dignity, is what you get from a death-phobic culture.
This is our fear of death, our refusal to acknowledge and grapple with the reality of death that produces this.
And I know it seems kind of paradoxical, it seems counterintuitive, because why would you advocate for death, why would you advocate for suicide if you're afraid of death?
Why would you be pro-death and yet afraid of it?
How can you be pro-death and rejecting it at the same time?
Well, because this is an attempt to hide from the reality of death.
You know, you hear even in the story there that the suicidal person is saying, oh, I'm just going on a trip.
And you have a death doula, and you're taking medicine.
This is actually, again, it's a paradox because you are directly killing yourself, but it is actually the fear of death, the rejection of death, the unwillingness to accept the reality of death and of our own mortality.
What we want, and the reason why people support euthanasia, really, is because they want to see death as something that we can contain, that we can take control over, that we can have mastery over.
You often hear of the euthanasia victim that they were dying on their own terms.
These are my terms.
I'm going to do it my way.
As if they have taken control over life and death.
Oh yeah, the Grim Reaper has no purchase here.
I'm gonna do it my way.
But that's just not how it works.
Death is not something that we can control.
It is an ever-present reality.
Something that we should accept.
A reality that we should accept.
Rather than, in effect, you know, using death as a means of escaping it.
All right, here's a story you may have heard something about this.
This is the latest from the New York Post.
It says a transgender cheerleader kicked out of a Texas college for allegedly choking a teammate, denies that there was any physical altercation, and intends to sue, actually.
Avery Chanel Medlock insisted Okay, we've got the pronoun issue here as it's written, so I'm going to try to correct it as we go along.
Avery Chanel Medlock, 25, insisted his side of the story wasn't heard before he was slapped with a $500 criminal citation and kicked off of the cheer team for allegedly assaulting another cheerleader on July 24th at Ranger College.
Medlock told the Post, there was no physical contact at all.
I was just trying to talk it out as an adult.
Medlock, whose legal name is Avery Chanel Satchel, claims that teammate Carly Jones got upset when she refused to buy her a vape.
With the way it's pronounced, or switched around, this gets even more confusing.
So, who refused to buy who a vape?
I don't even know now.
Medlock later went to Carly's room to apologize, but an argument ensued rather than an assault, as alleged.
Medlock's teammate then called her father, who called the police.
The athlete said that she was then escorted off of university grounds and booted from Ranger College cheer team.
She as in he.
The guy.
Okay.
It's just... It makes it impossible to understand anything, of course, when we're doing this pronoun thing.
Messages seeking comment from Ranger College cheerleading coach Nicholas Turner and university officials were not immediately returned.
Medlock says, if I would have assaulted her, I'd be in jail.
And yet the police say that there was an assault.
Okay, so that's the story.
That was originally the story that this cheerleader, who is a male but identifies as a female, is on the cheerleading squad, physically assaulted, in fact choked, an actual female on the team.
And the original story was that he reacted that way because the female remarked about the fact that he has a penis and therefore isn't a woman.
And he responded violently.
The father was called.
The police were called.
The police say that there was an assault that occurred.
And even though they're just slapping the assailant with a minor fine about, you know, about on par with what you get for a parking violation, but the assault did happen.
Now he's coming out and saying, oh no, it never happened at all.
Couple of points here.
First of all, I'm going to put some of the pictures up on the screen that are in the New York Post article.
And we've seen, and anytime this story comes up on social media, these are the pictures attached to it.
And you can see, this is the trans cheerleader.
And you can see, okay, there's another one there.
Just filtered and Photoshopped to death.
Look, this one right here, come on.
It looks like he peeled off somebody else's face and put it on.
When you... When you have to do that, okay, then maybe that should tell you something.
Like, the pictures that are being circulated of this guy are... These are not pictures.
These are cartoon drawings.
That's not what he looks like at all.
But also, maybe more importantly, the violence is not a surprise at all.
As the existence of men in these spaces, in women's sports, in women's bathrooms, men claiming the label of womanhood for themselves in any context at all, you know, this is a form of violence already.
I'm going to use the left's framing against it here, because they like to say that everything is violence.
Speech is violence.
Silence is violence.
Sometimes violence, though, isn't violence.
But everything else is violence.
Well, I would say that this is violence, even before you get to the physical assault.
Before the physical assault happens, it is violence.
Because when men intrude into these spaces and they appropriate female identities, it is an invasion, it's an intrusion, it is a robbery, stealing privacy, stealing a woman's identity, stealing opportunities, all of that.
And it comes with an implicit and often explicit threat.
Of social shaming, of loss of job, loss of status, you know, if a woman protests it.
So when the man shows up, whether he says it out loud or not, and oftentimes he does say it out loud, but even if he doesn't, the implied threat to all of the women Is that you better go along with this, you better let him into your spaces, you better sacrifice privacy on the altar of this man's ego, and if you don't, bad things are going to happen to you.
So that is violence in and of itself.
And then it shouldn't be a surprise when you have this sort of implied threat That always accompanies the man as he enters into these female spaces.
It shouldn't be a surprise when he actually lashes out violently.
And in particular, because of the sense of entitlement that's encouraged.
I mean, these guys have already been told by society, you can do whatever you want.
The only thing that matters is your comfort level.
The only thing that matters is how you feel.
That's all that matters.
That should be your number one, number two, one through ten list of priorities.
It's all about you.
And so you put all those things together and you have a recipe for actual physical violence against women.
So this is not a surprise at all.
One other thing to note, sad news today, I'm afraid, from the New York Post.
It says the DC Comics film Batgirl will be completely shelved by Warner Brothers, a top Hollywood source told the Post.
That means it won't hit theaters or the streaming service, HBO Max.
Fans will not see this movie at all.
The reportedly $70 million movie, which actually had a budget closer to $100 million, was doing test screenings for audiences in anticipation of a late 2022 debut, and it would rank among the most expensive cinematic casts off ever.
So this is, what's happening here is that they made this film, Batgirl, and they spent $100 million on it, and now they're just, it's so bad that they're simply not going to release it at all.
Nobody will ever see it.
That's how bad it is.
Which I find quite hilarious.
And also, of course, it's a bad movie.
It's Batgirl.
There is no version of that film that can be good.
It is guaranteed to be terrible.
No big surprise that your investment was wasted.
And like I've said before, with these female superheroes, it doesn't even begin to work when you have a female superhero if the character doesn't have actual superpowers.
It's absurd enough already.
When you give the superhero god-like powers and everything, but when it's in the Batman universe and there are no actual superpowers, and now I'm supposed to take it seriously that this girl with no superpowers is going around beating up bad guys in her leather bat outfit?
So you can't do, the only way that these superhero films can claim any kind of artistic credibility, the only way that they can be elevated, right, is if they go with the gritty, you know, we're going to go gritty, realistic, and that's what they do with the Batman films.
Well, you can't do that when you've got some 23-year-old woman, 112 pounds, going around beating up a bunch of bad guys.
It just doesn't work.
So $100 million wasted.
Pretty great stuff.
Let's get to the comment section.
Congrats on the twins, Matt, says Dizzy Unknown.
Will the DW give us a Last Man Standing-type sitcom based on your life, should you have twin girls?
Maybe get Tim Allen to play a grandpa.
It would be a hit, just saying.
You know, we really should do something with Tim Allen.
He seems to be right up our alley, and he's been cancelled, of course, and he was kicked off of the Buzz Lightyear, the WOKA Buzz Lightyear film that just came out, so maybe this is it.
I don't know.
It's not a bad idea.
Candace says, OK, Matt, from where do the stats come that you're using to assert that black people are more likely to commit violent crimes than white people?
How do crimes get counted?
By crimes committed, criminal activity reported, criminal charges filed, or convictions minus successful appeals slash overturned convictions?
Because if the stats rely on police reporting and or court convictions, and the claim is Afro-featured people are more targeted, arrested, charged, and convicted by law than folk with light skin due to aesthetic appearance and false assumptions rather than behavioral observations, well then obviously the stats will reinforce the false assumptions, right?
For me, personally, I tend to get uneasy when a strange, unkept 25-to-50-year-old white male is near me, especially if wide-eyed because, I think, mass shooter.
But I don't call him out or anything like that.
Okay, well, where do the stats come from?
Fair question.
They come from the FBI.
These are FBI crime statistics, which consistently show, year over year over year, that black offenders account for over 50% of homicides, which is a vastly disproportionate share.
Okay?
I mean, vastly disproportionate.
And that's not just, I mean, the FBI crime state, you go to the FBI website and find those crime statistics, but any crime, anywhere you go, like go anywhere else, wherever your preferred source of information is on crime statistics, they're all going to tell you that.
Now, if you're suggesting that there are hundreds of thousands of white murderers running around out there who are let off scot-free and never pursued because of their race, and if only they would be arrested too, then it would even out the statistics.
Well, if that's what you're suggesting or theorizing, I'm going to need even like one single little shred of the smallest bit of evidence to support that.
But you don't have that, do you?
Because it's absurd.
Okay?
So, we can talk about why this disparity in violent crime exists.
That's a good conversation to have, and we're going to get into the collapse of the family and many other things, but it's an interesting and worthy conversation.
But it does exist.
It just simply does.
That's a fact.
Okay?
And your fears that just some, that any random 25 to 50-year-old white male you come across as a mass shooter That actually is statistically unreasonable because the proportion of mass shooters among the white male population is so vanishingly small that you may as well walk around worried that, you know, a meteor is going to fall on your head.
And also, I should note that white males do not account for a disproportionate amount of mass shootings either.
So, look, these are all the facts, these are all the statistics, and they say what they say.
That's it.
So, that's my point.
When it comes to interpreting, when it comes to explaining, all these things, that's where we can have a more in-depth conversation and people can have different points of view and it becomes a bit more nuanced and it's a larger conversation.
But the starting point of the statistical facts, well those just simply are what they are and that's it.
G. Hibiscus says, uh, hey Matt, just heard you were having another set of twins.
Congrats on that, sweet daddy.
And this really is what y'all get for saying one kid is easy.
Fair analysis.
That is a fair point.
Scott says, Matt, what do I win if I can correctly guess the names of your new set of twins?
Well, there's nothing to guess right now because we have no idea what the names are.
You could suggest some names.
I mean, I'm open to that.
I'm open to suggestions.
We take the name question all the way down to the wire.
This is what we've done with every kid.
We'll be like five hours from birth and we're going through the alphabet.
This is what we end up doing is just going through the alphabet A, B, C and listing every name that starts with
that letter as we go down and land on something.
So, we don't know. But again, open to suggestions.
And I know I'm going to regret saying that I'm open to suggestions on that, but I just said it.
Jennifer says, "Matt, are you rooting for one gender or another?"
Well, they're looking identical.
So, either our family is going to be four boys and two girls or four girls and two boys.
So there is very high stakes here.
One team or the other is going to be vastly outnumbered here.
As for which I prefer, I'll take Whatever God blesses us with.
There's pros and cons either way.
That's the truth.
Boys are less emotional.
They're a little bit easier to understand.
They're less prone to random emotional outbursts.
They're rough and tumble.
They're a lot of fun.
You can pick them up and toss them around.
Girls though, on the other hand, are, now they are more prone to random, confusing, emotional outbursts and all those kinds of things, but they're also much, much more helpful around the house than boys are.
Boys are basically useless around the house, that's the truth.
Like my nine-year-old daughter can, she can, you know, she can, she likes to, with our two-year-old, she likes to put the two-year-old to bed.
She says, oh, can I put her to bed?
Sure, go ahead.
So girls are also less likely to break things, including their own bones and limbs and objects around the house.
So there's, you know, there are unique challenges and joys with either one.
And so it's hard to really root for one or the other.
And finally, Liam says, why do you get so mad or ban someone every time people question how the Sweet Baby Gang started?
Well, you are tempting fate by even asking that question, Liam.
And today it was the wrong gamble.
Because you're banned.
Leave and never return.
But thanks for listening.
You know, this summer we launched DailyWirePlus, which is our ever-expanding hub for all things DailyWire, including movies, shows, podcasts, PragerU kids content, which is coming soon, and last but not least, the formidable intellect of Jordan Peterson.
In addition to his archive of content, you can also find his brand new podcast and lecture series on DailyWirePlus.
We're even recontextualizing some of his works, like his Genesis lecture series.
Right, Genesis has a Worldwide phenomenon that offered a compelling perspective on the biblical stories that we thought we knew, well now available in a readable collection with brand new illustrations.
Jordan Peterson's lecture series explores the psychological significance of the biblical stories in the book of Genesis and how they affect all of us to this day.
To watch and read the series and access the entire archive of Jordan Peterson content, head to dailywireplus.com and become a member today.
That's dailywireplus.com right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation, we head back to history class, a subject that kids learn every year in public school, which means that they never really learn the subject at all, of course.
It falls then to others.
Sometimes it even falls to podcasters without a college degree to pick up the slack.
That's what I tried to do over the weekend, and then on my show on Monday, as we discussed the issue of slavery.
No need to rehash all of my points.
My primary goal was to communicate the fact that the story of slavery is much larger, much deeper, much wider-ranging than the version they tell in schools, in the media, in Hollywood.
As I observed, white people were slaves also.
Millions of them were, in fact.
The trade in white slaves, especially in North Africa, but even in North America, was big business.
It's a fact.
An important one.
But not everybody agreed.
Which isn't to say that they disagreed with the facts that I was sharing.
You can't disagree with facts.
You can either choose to acknowledge them or not.
But facts don't care about your feelings or your acknowledgement, it turns out.
No, the critics disagreed not with the indisputable facts about slavery that I discussed, But rather with the fact that I was discussing them.
They felt that it was horrible, Nazi-esque.
It was racist, white supremacist, to even hint that there might be more to the slavery issue than the white enslavement of black Africans in the West from the 17th to 19th centuries.
As mentioned on the show on Monday, the critics were mostly on the left, but not solely.
Maj Touré, who's a well-known gun rights activist, was quite vigorous and relentless in his criticism.
He said that my statements about slavery were dumb, reductive, counterproductive, horrible, retarded, his word, and many other things.
He said that I was damaging the inroads that conservatives had made with the black community.
And he continued in this vein in many tweets and videos railing against me for mentioning that white people were slaves.
So finally on Monday, he appeared on my friend Jason Whitlock's show on The Blaze to further explain his point of view.
I watched the segment, and I have to tell you that after listening to him, if anything, I understand his criticisms less than I did before.
So let's go through this together.
Listen.
First, I did like What Is A Woman.
I think Matt is usually spot on on certain things.
It's similar to a lot of conservatives.
I'm very critical.
It's almost like if we're going into the tactic room, right?
What does this actually prove?
I just did an interview and, you know, we discussed, a guy said, well, you know, what would be wrong with All Lives Matter?
And I'm like, well, there's nothing technically wrong with it.
If you thought that, you should have said it before BLM said Black Lives Matter.
It's just what it is.
And everybody knows, I don't really bang with BLM as an organization, but the phrase and the redactive, you know, reductive component.
Well, this is perhaps beside the point, but for the record, lots of us were saying all lives matter before BLM came along.
That was and still is the central motto of the pro-life movement.
We didn't steal it from them.
They stole it from us.
We didn't start saying all lives matter when BLM came along.
We kept saying it.
We were told, though, that we had to stop saying it because somehow left-wing black activists were the only ones allowed to decide and declare which lives mattered.
But even if we had started saying it only after BLM was formed, so what?
It's still true.
And besides, this is meant to be a response and corrective to BLM militants who, in fact, as is obvious, do not believe that all lives matter.
The BLM movement is a black supremacist movement, and that's why All Lives Matter was and still is a necessary rejoinder to it.
By the way, Maj is the founder of an organization called Black Guns Matter.
He sells t-shirts with the phrase on it.
So Maj, were you saying Black Guns Matter before Black Lives Matter came along?
Something tells me that you weren't.
Yet you can use the BLM slogan to sell shirts and advocate for gun rights, but we can't use it to advocate for the fundamental worth and value of human life in general?
It's reductive for us to say All Lives Matter, but not for you to say Black Guns Matter?
Interesting.
Let's continue.
And let me be clear.
If we're trying to make inroads into black communities, these types of takes that have nothing to do with anything.
I gotta stop you there, again, very briefly.
We'll back up and play the whole clip.
He says, my take had nothing to do with anything.
Well, that's not true.
I mean, it had something to do with history, with truth, with the facts of the world that shaped human civilization.
It had something to do with the racial grievance industry, which trades on the idea that slavery in America was a unique and unprecedented evil, when in fact it was not.
It was an evil, but not unique or unprecedented.
It had something to do with lots of different things.
It had something to do with a book that I'd read and I wanted to talk about.
It had something to do with what happened to be on my mind at that moment.
All of these are perfectly fine rationales for sharing my thoughts.
The criticism that Maj is offering here is by far the most useless, boring, and exhausting form of criticism, and also perhaps the most common on the internet.
That's why I find it so irritating.
This is the, you know, why are you talking about this?
Why talk about this and not something else?
I don't care about this.
Why are you discussing it?
It's that whole routine.
It's a totally worthless critique.
It really is.
Just because you don't find a subject important or relevant or worthy of consideration doesn't mean that nobody should ever talk about it.
I don't have to explain to you why I want to discuss something.
I don't have to seek your permission ahead of time.
If you don't care about the subject or find it important, then keep moving.
Keep scrolling.
No one's forcing you to participate in a conversation that you apparently find so unworthy of your attention.
I never do this to people.
I never go to someone else's page or listen to their podcast or whatever and then say, why are you talking about this?
Why this and not this other thing over here?
It's just the criticism makes no sense.
So we're not off to a good start, but let's continue.
These types of takes that have nothing to do with anything, kind of like just gives extreme leftists more of a tool to utilize against us.
And what I mean by that is, If I'm a person in the middle, let's say I'm a Democrat and I'm not the extreme lefty, I think a lot of these guys are making moves that are like reactionary to what extreme lefties do.
That doesn't advance conservative movements to people that may be in the middle in a democratic city.
So we say a thing and then an extreme leftist packages it and says, see, they're minimizing your ability or the history of the transatlantic slave trade.
Now, Matt may have not been trying to do that.
I'm talking about from a tactical and strategic standpoint.
The left dominates urban and black America because they understand PR and messaging way better than the right does.
Simple and plain.
They have to because they don't have many facts.
Sorry, they just don't.
So they have to be very good at smoking mirrors and lying in PR, because that's what a lot of public relations or perception and reality is.
This, and I think maybe Matt's following maybe took it a little too, they got a little sensitive about it, but it's always one step in the right direction with a lot of conservatives, and then we say something that makes the job of my job a lot more difficult, because it's like, damn, that sounds like you're trying to Down played a role.
And that's what every extreme leftist is going to do.
And so from a strategic and tactical standpoint, this does not spread conservative values or make the job better.
We keep going with this facts don't care about your feelings concept.
And how has that been working out for us by not expressing any type of empathy first?
Well, it's worked out pretty well, actually.
Thank you for asking.
Refusing to be emotionally blackmailed by dishonest, manipulative cry-bullies has been a tremendously successful approach.
It's one of the reasons why the guy who coined that phrase is one of the most influential thinkers in the country, and the company he co-founded is making inroads into the culture in ways that nobody else on the right ever has, certainly including our friend Maj.
But let's back it up a bit.
Maj accuses me of being reactionary, right?
Reacting to the left.
And yet, his entire critique centers around the left and how he thinks we should react to it.
Well, we can't say that.
The radical left will use it against us.
He suggests that the black community will be easily duped by the dishonest talking points of the left, and so that we should calibrate our approach accordingly.
He does allow generously that perhaps I wasn't trying to minimize the transatlantic slave trade.
Maybe I wasn't.
But he says that the left will accuse me of doing that.
So let me see if I have this right.
You're worried that the left will accuse me of something dishonestly, and so your strategy is to head them off at the pass and accuse me of it first?
Now, Maz, you're a smart guy.
I know that you're not dumb enough to believe that I was minimizing the slave trade, or indeed that any rational person would ever do that.
Suggesting that I even might have tried to minimize the slave trade by talking about other forms of slavery.
It's like suggesting that I might be minimizing kidney cancer by talking about lung cancer.
It's an incoherent, ridiculous, fundamentally dishonest accusation, and you know it.
Everybody understands that slavery in America was a terrible evil.
Nobody suggests otherwise.
Everybody agrees that it was bad, which is all the more reason why perhaps, at this point, it might be time to expand the conversation to talk about the forms of slavery that lots of people don't even know existed.
We talk about slavery all the time in America.
The American form of slavery.
Kids learn about it.
They make movies about it.
Activists scream about it.
It is a constant, ever-present historical reality.
Nobody has forgotten it.
Nobody could ever forget it.
Everyone knows that it happened, and everyone agrees that it was unspeakably evil and it should not have happened.
Everybody!
Everybody!
Okay.
Which is good, right?
It's good that everybody knows it happened and everyone thinks it's bad.
Success on that subject.
Should that be the end of the slavery conversation, or might we, at this juncture, widen the lens a little bit to try to get a look at the fuller picture?
Now, it seems that you would prefer that we keep the lens narrow.
And rather than admitting that your preference is your preference, you try to farm it off to the radical left, claiming that you're only telling me what they will say.
And sure, yeah, the left does say that any discussion of historical atrocities not centered around the plight of black Africans in America is inherently racist.
They do say that.
And they're wrong.
You're saying it, too.
And you are also wrong.
Now, you talk about tactics and strategy.
You use the word interchangeably, like they mean the same thing.
They don't.
Strategy is your overall approach to the war.
Tactics are the maneuvers, the individual steps, specific actions that you take in service to that strategy.
I'm not splitting hairs here.
I mean, the difference is actually important.
Because you say that we should avoid certain uncomfortable truths strategically and also tactically.
But which is it?
Is this our strategy?
Is our strategy to abandon the truth, cede the entire historical and racial narrative to the left in hopes of outflanking them to their left?
If so, then sure.
I mean, only talking about slavery or racial injustices in terms that the left demands is a good tactic.
But it's a tactic and a strategy that loses the war.
It is a surrender.
See, my goal, my strategy, and my tactic are actually all the same for me.
Because I'm a simple man.
So, for me, it's the truth.
I just say what is true.
If I say something and it's not true, you know, if I inadvertently say something and I'm incorrect about what I'm saying, and you have a counter-argument that proves that it's incorrect, then I will listen.
And if you can convince me that it was incorrect, then I'll change my point of view.
But if you admit that I'm saying the truth, and you still criticize me for saying it, well, I'm just not interested in that critique.
I'm really not.
If one person is saying the truth and the other person doesn't want to hear the truth, whatever their reason, the problem lies entirely 100% with the latter.
So you say, well, what about all the people who don't want to hear about this?
That's their problem.
That's not my problem.
There is something wrong with them that they don't want to hear a truth.
And in this case, they don't want to hear a truth about the way the entire world worked for thousands of years.
That's their problem, not mine.
As for me, you know, I think what our culture lacks most of all is not empathy, it's not feeling, it's not pity or patronizing pats on the head, but truth.
And anyone who stands against truth, or insists that the truth be muffled or silenced or withheld, is today, I'm afraid to say, Maj, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, our associate producer is McKenna Waters, The show is edited by Jeff Tomlin.
