Ep. 1002 - I Am A Terrorist, According To The Left
Click here to watch the member exclusive portion of my show:: https://utm.io/ueR8I
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, according to the Left I am a literal terrorist for criticizing them, and so are you. But this is a special kind of terrorism they just made up. Also, Fauci declares himself a “symbol” of integrity and truth. More horrifying videos from Boston Children’s Hospital come to light describing the sorts of Frankenstein gender-affirmation procedures they inflict on their patients. The EU makes another pitch for eating bugs. In our daily cancellation, an author takes heat for criticizing the increasing trend towards remote work. But is there some merit to his criticisms?
We currently have multiple executive-level openings at The Daily Wire. For more details and to apply, visit https://utm.io/ueScM
—
Today’s Sponsors:
American Financing empowers families with personalized mortgage solutions. From lower rates to shorter terms, and even debt consolidation! Call American Financing for a free mortgage review at (866) 569-4711 os visit AmericanFinancing.net
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, according to the left, I am a literal terrorist for criticizing them, and so are you, actually.
But this is a special kind of terrorism that they just made up, and I'll tell you all about it.
Also, Fauci declares himself a symbol of integrity and truth.
More horrifying videos from Boston Children's Hospital come to light describing the sorts of Frankenstein gender affirmation procedures they inflict on their patients.
The EU makes another pitch for eating bugs.
In our daily cancellation, an author takes heat for criticizing the increasing trend towards remote work.
But is there some merit to his criticism?
We'll discuss all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
I want to talk to you about American finance, America's home for home loans, because I really
America's home for home loans, because I really think that you can benefit
think that you could benefit from one of their 10-minute mortgage reviews.
from one of their 10-minute mortgage reviews.
It's a free, no obligation conversation around your current loan, some of your other debt,
It's a free, no obligation conversation around your current loan, some of your other debt,
and even buying a new home as well.
and even buying a new home as well.
Whatever you want to talk about with your salary-based mortgage consultant,
Whatever you want to talk about with your salary-based mortgage consultant, you can
you can talk about it with them, because they're focused on you, not a commission.
talk about it with them, because they're focused on you, not a commission.
Let them run the numbers for you, seeing if they can save you up to $1,000 a month,
Let them run the numbers for you, seeing if they can save you up to $1,000 a month.
and if they can, they can move forward with a new custom loan and start saving you more money
And if they can, they can move forward with a new custom I want to talk to you about American financing,
immediately.
American financing is a family-owned company that is family-focused,
and they never charge any upfront or hidden fees.
It's worth the call to learn more, and especially these days when we're all looking
for ways to save money, and you can't look to the White House
to help you out with that.
You got to take charge of it yourself.
So here's what you got to do.
Call 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net/NMLS182334/NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
(upbeat music)
In a few weeks or so, the left will stumble upon a new favorite word or phrase
that they will then proceed to throw around with reckless abandon,
until in very short order, we're all sick to death of hearing a term
that nobody was saying seven minutes before.
The terms that they favor the most, and which have the greatest chance of being adopted into the leftist lexicon, is the term that accomplishes two things.
One, it has to be useful in labeling and dismissing their political opponents.
That's the most important thing.
But two, it must also, they hope anyway, make them sound smart.
And they will, of course, then use the term without explaining what it's supposed to mean, as if everybody should already know.
Never mind that they themselves didn't know what it meant until they dug the term up a moment before, or else simply invented it out of whole cloth.
But then they trot it out and use it and say, what, you don't know what this means?
It's a kind of an intellectual power play to use words that you know the people that are hearing you won't know what they mean.
They're gonna have to go look it up.
And then that makes you smarter.
And that brings us to our new term of the week.
It's very exciting.
It's one that you've never heard before in your life and would have never had any use for, even if you did hear it, but which the left has recently glommed on to.
The magic phrase is this.
Here it is.
Stochastic terrorism.
Now, I discovered the crime of stochastic terrorism just yesterday as I learned simultaneously that I am guilty of it.
There's nothing like learning about a crime when you also learn that you have done that crime.
It's a very terrible thing.
It seems that I have engaged in this form of terrorism many times in my life, but especially this week after I, along with many other people, called attention to the Boston Children's Hospital's practice of drugging, sterilizing, castrating And mutilating kids.
Now, I say that I called attention to this and that, you know, there are other conservatives calling attention to it.
And we did, but we weren't the first ones.
Actually, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston Children's Hospital, they're the ones who called attention to it at first by making videos about these procedures that they conduct and then putting those videos online.
And then what some of us did is that we took those videos and we said, hey, everybody, look at these videos.
Isn't that terrible?
Well, that, we have now learned, is a form of stochastic terrorism.
Somebody named Alejandra Caraballo, a trans activist and lawyer, took to Twitter to trot out the new favorite term and to also call for my banishment from the platform.
The tweet says, Twitter is just sitting on their asses while libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, Christopher Rufo, and Billboard Chris use this platform to drive a stochastic terrorism campaign against Boston Children's Hospital.
Is it going to take a provider getting killed for them to act?
Another verified Lib, Pete Woods, agreed, saying, At this point, Twitter absolutely knows that the account in question uses their platform to engage in stochastic terrorism.
They're simply more concerned about the backlash and the effect on their stock prices if the account is banned.
That makes them a willing participant.
That a doctor named Michael O'Brien, with pride flags and pronouns in his bio, joined in the chorus, focusing his ire on the Libs of TikTok account specifically.
He posted, Stochastic terrorism is real terrorism.
Shia Raichek has mastered this and has been wielding her wide influence against LGBTQ Americans for months.
So yes, Shia Raichek is participating in domestic terrorism.
But it's not just Boston Children's Hospital that has come under assault by this still undefined sort of terrorism.
Another trans activist, Aaron Reid, accused me yesterday of committing stochastically terroristic acts against Eli Ehrlich, the trans drug dealer who sends illegal prescription pills to minors.
Actually, the true victim of my terrorism is apparently Ehrlich School, University of California, Santa Cruz, because I've encouraged people to reach out to administrative officials there and ask them why they haven't taken any steps to investigate the drug dealing operation being run by one of their PhD candidates.
In response to that, Aaron tweeted, "Whatever you think about Eli, Matt Walsh releasing faculty info
with a video titled 'The Trans Militants Must Be Stopped' is stochastic terrorism. Violent attacks
on trans people, teachers, libraries, and LGBTQ centers are at an all-time high. He knows what
he's doing." Now, we're going to simply ignore the bit at the end about how libraries and teachers
are suffering through a historic epidemic of violent attacks.
Libraries?
Really?
There's an epidemic of violent attacks on libraries?
Now, like most everything else that trans activists say, that's just pure fiction.
I mean, they just invent things constantly because they have no interest in the truth whatsoever.
And this is yet another thing invented on the spot because it's just useful.
It would be useful to the point, if it were true, that there's an epidemic of violence against libraries and LGBTQ centers.
And so we'll just say that there is.
Invent it.
Not unlike the term stochastic terrorism itself.
Though there is some precedent for this term.
Way back on Sunday of this week, Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali was tweeting about this newly invented scourge.
He said, more media outlets and politicians need to start talking about the GOP's stochastic terrorism.
The right-wing media's deliberate fanning of conspiracy theories and demonization is radicalizing people to threaten violence against law enforcement, journalists, elected officials, etc.
Now he's concerned about violence against law enforcement.
Not only that, but he's worried about reckless rhetoric that may put law enforcement officers at risk.
I mean, never mind the fact that people like Wajahat Ali and everybody else on the left have spent years claiming that law enforcement by and large are a bunch of You know, white Klansmen, white supremacists, murderers prowling the street, hunting unarmed black men and murdering them for sport.
That's not demonization of law enforcement.
Not at all.
It's criticizing the FBI.
That's what's demonizing law enforcement.
Now a week before that, a website called Press Watch had an article promoting the term with the headline, the phrase you're looking for is stochastic terrorism.
And a week before that, the leftist rag mother Jones published an article accusing Donald Trump of the crime of stochastic terrorism.
So this is starting to pick up steam is what I'm saying.
What does it mean then?
Well, the first answer is that it doesn't really mean anything at all.
The second is that it was apparently invented by the left-wing blogosphere a few years ago.
And now, according to dictionary.com anyway, it means this.
The public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.
Ah, well, now you see why they find this concept so useful.
It's easy to find a concept useful if you made it up, which they did.
But you can see there, if you demonize someone or some group, then you're not only guilty of hate speech, which is an already ill-defined concept, but you're now a terrorist.
You're also guilty of incitement even if you're not directly or indirectly calling for any violence at all.
You don't have to call for violence or say anything about violence or anything like that to be guilty of incitement.
As long as a violent act may be considered statistically probable in response to your statement, then you're guilty.
Well, who decides the statistical probability of future acts carried out by people in response to what other people have said?
Well, the blue checkmark trans activists on Twitter.
They decide.
And the media decides.
And various other authority figures.
Now, needless to say, of course, This does not go the other way around.
I am demonized and as I mentioned yesterday defamed a thousand times a day by these very same people but they're not guilty of stochastic terrorism against me for the simple reason that they obviously didn't invent the concept in order to hold themselves accountable by it.
They invented it to silence their enemies and for no other reason and so that's what they use it for.
Now This brings us to the question, I mean, whether we call it terrorism or stochastic terrorism or any other kind of terrorism, is it actually true that we're demonizing Boston Children's Hospital?
Well, no.
I mean, it's not true that we're demonizing Boston Children's Hospital any more than we demonize the groomer teachers by calling them groomers.
Because that's terrorism too, by the way, now.
We know for a long time the left has been on this campaign of, well, you're not allowed to call anyone a groomer.
That's hate speech.
So it went from something that we said to accurately describe what people were doing, and then they turned it into hate speech, and now they're escalating and saying, you know, no, it's actually terrorism.
You are a terrorist who should be shipped down to Gitmo if you use the word groomer.
Demonize.
To actually demonize someone.
What does that mean?
The dictionary definition.
To demonize someone is to falsely portray them as wicked or evil.
That's what demonize means.
The key word there is falsely.
See, what we're doing is simply pointing to what these people are doing.
Calling attention to it.
And then criticizing it for reasons that we are eager to lay out in as much detail as anyone wants to hear.
But what we've discovered about the left, is that the things that they're doing, and the things that they support, are so, so hideously evil, that by simply pointing them out, by observing what they're doing, by pointing to it and saying, look at what these people are doing, Is an act of terrorism, on our part.
Well, here's an idea.
Here's a thought that I would give to the left.
If you can be demonized by somebody, simply by them pointing out what you're actually doing and saying, that doesn't mean that they're terrorists.
It means that, well, you're actually a demon.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
The consumer price index has reached yet another 40 year high and
the latest GDP numbers confirm that the United States is in a recession,
despite the fact that our current administration is trying to redefine
what recession means.
Now is not the time to have all your money in the stock market or tied to the U.S.
dollar, so take action to protect your savings from a highly turbulent economy now by diversifying at least some of your investment.
into gold and silver from Birchgold Group.
Text WALSH to 989898 and Birchgold will send you a free information kit on how to transition an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
Birchgold will even help you hold gold in a tax-sheltered account.
For decades, investors have relied on gold and silver as a hedge against inflation.
Now you can do the same with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers.
You can secure your future with gold from Birch Gold now.
Text Walsh to 989898 and get real help from Birch Gold today.
Again, text Walsh to 989898 to claim your free, no-obligation information kit on how to protect your hard-earned savings with gold.
All right, we, by the way, want to say thank you to Senator Marsha Blackburn, who hosted a screening of What Is A Woman last night.
Down in Franklin, Tennessee, and there was a great turnout for that.
Apparently, I was told that the screening sold out in about 40 minutes, and we packed the whole place, and it was actually the first time that I've seen What Is A Woman.
Not the first time I've seen it.
I mean, I've seen, you know, through the editing process, I've probably watched it 75 times, but it's the first time I saw it on a big screen, and it is a little bit It is a little bit disconcerting at first to watch yourself that up close and that large, but I did appreciate it.
For so many people, including many Republicans, when it comes to the issue that What Is A Woman deals with, or the film itself, they kind of just go running into the hills and they don't want to talk about it.
Marsha Blackburn hosted a screening of the film instead, so I really appreciate that.
And if you haven't seen What Is A Woman yet, you don't have to wait around for a screening.
You can just become a Daily Wire member and watch it.
Right away and watch it as many times as you want and tell all your friends about it
And I would very much urge you to do that. Maybe we'll start with this
Dr. Fauci, I just want to play this quickly because this is Fauci displaying his usual
humility watch this It's called the Fauci effect which is sort of like, you
know, yes Trust me. I'm I don't get excited about that. I
(laughing)
I mean, it's nice, but... People go to medical school now, people are interested in science, not because of me, because most people don't know me, who I am.
My friends know me, my wife knows me, but people don't know me.
It's what I symbolize.
And what I symbolize in a...
In an era of the normalization of untruths and lies, and all the things you're seeing going on in society from January 6th to everything else that goes on, people are craving for consistency, for integrity, for truth, and for people caring about people.
If he's mastered anything, it's the...
I mean, well, he's mastered two things.
He's mastered the art of getting paid for doing a horrible job and staying in the same position for decades.
Many people in DC have gotten pretty good at that, so it's nothing impressive.
He's also kind of mastered the art of the humble brag.
You know, he can say, well, I prefer if people don't say this.
Trust me, I don't get excited by this at all.
But, you know, there are people who say that I symbolize truth, justice, integrity, virtue.
There are people who say that.
I don't get excited about it.
I prefer if you didn't say it, but people are saying that about me.
This is, you laugh at first, but then you realize that You know, only a maniacally egocentric person could say anything like that.
And yet, D.C.
is full of people like this.
And most of our so-called public health authorities are just like that.
And while they take a lot of, you know, they give themselves credit for, we stand for science and we stand for truth, I symbolize it.
Imagine saying that about yourself.
Not just giving yourself credit for being honest, which of course in Fauci's case would not be true either, but to say that you are a symbol for honesty is just beyond imagination.
But they give themselves credit for that and also for courage.
When, obviously, when it comes to the so-called public health authorities, courage is the thing they lack the absolute most.
I mean, they lack honesty, they lack integrity, but most of all, they lack courage.
Because the public health crises that we need them to speak out about, the things that are actually happening in their world that they could do something about, that's where they fall silent.
For example, bringing us back to Boston Children's Hospital.
Far be it from me to continue my stochastic terrorism campaign against a children's hospital, but here's another video which, by the way, if Dr. Fauci, as a supposed public health expert, and according to him, he's the guy we all look to, he's a symbol for truth and science and integrity and courage, If in that position he were to stand up and speak out against this, against the butchering and sterilizing of children, that would actually have an enormous effect.
He's done nothing good through his entire worthless career.
And now in his late 90s, before he shuffles off this mortal coil, he could actually do something incredibly important by taking a stand against this, but he won't do it.
Because he's a gutless worm.
He's a coward.
So here's yet another video that I want to play for you because this is Boston Children's Hospital.
They've gone through and they're taking down all their videos that, again, they posted explaining the procedures that they carry out.
And here is one explaining how a phalloplasty is done.
And no matter what you hear from the so-called media fact-checkers, The fact is that these procedures are in fact carried out on minors.
And here's Boston Children's Hospital with some kind of jumpy happy music in the background explaining what the procedure is.
Go ahead.
Phalloplasty is a procedure to basically create a penis or phallus for an individual who was born biological female and who seeks transition to a male gender.
The procedure is done with plastic surgeons and urologists.
The urologists Manipulate the tissues in the surrounding area to lengthen the urethra.
A new scrotum is created and some of the anatomical parts of the female anatomy are removed.
The plastic surgeons are in charge of creating a new tissue that will ultimately meet the lengthened urethra and the additional tissue that's been moved to create the neophallus.
We typically utilize tissue from elsewhere.
For example, the forearm or the thigh is used.
The plastic surgeons are also responsible for providing sensation by doing the nerve coaptation so that the new phallus will have sensation and also responsible for reestablishing the blood supply and also to shape it in a way that appears more physiologically and anatomically like a natural one.
Now, That's what goes into the falloplast.
I mean, just to summarize, the skin is severed from the patient's arm.
Leaving them with horrific scarring, which you can see in What Is A Woman.
Scott Nugent shows what that looks like.
And even on screen, it doesn't quite, you know, it captures it a little bit, but seeing it in person is a whole different deal.
The arm is just, I mean, it looks like, it looks kind of what you would expect when you take someone's arm and you de-sleeve it, like you peel their skin down like it's a sleeve and take it off.
What do you think the arm's gonna look like after that?
That's what it looks like, and then they use that to That's what phalloplasty is.
And they can put all the happy music in the background that they want.
There's no way to dress that up, though, to make it sound like anything less than a Frankenstein horror show, which is what it is.
Now Boston Children's Hospital has, and I believe that this is a new addition to their website because now that they've gone and they started making some changes to the website and saying, oh, this and that procedure, these are only for people 18 plus.
And so now anyway, they say that that procedure that you just heard is for people 18 plus.
Does that make it better?
Does that make it okay?
Well, consider two things.
First of all, the recommended ages for all these procedures are precipitously dropping.
Okay, so here's the latest from Postmillennial.
This is a confidential document obtained by the Postmillennial from the leading transgender health association shows they plan to lower the recommended age for minors to obtain cross-sex hormones that cause permanent changes to the body and irreversible chest, genital, and face surgeries.
This health association is one that countless doctors and hospitals rely on to create their guidance for medicalized gender transition for minors and adults.
And then we go through.
How are they?
This is WPATH, of course.
What are the new ages that they're recommending?
And yeah, these are recommendations, but as soon as WPATH says it, every medical association adopts it.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, all of them, all the children's hospitals, they all just do whatever WPATH says when it comes to so-called trans health.
So, for cross-sex hormones, the recommended minimum age has been lowered to 14 from 16 in the previous guidelines.
The recommended age limit for double mastectomies of healthy breasts has been lowered to 15.
And for male minors seeking breast augmentation, 16-year-old, the age limit has been lowered to 16.
Now, try to make sense of that.
I mean, try to make sense of anything, of any of this, but try to make sense of the idea that, according to WPATH, you need to be older to get a breast augmentation than to get your breasts removed?
Now, we shouldn't be doing these procedures on minors at all.
But you would think, if anything, it would be reversed, right?
Because, at least with a breast augmentation, you can, to some extent, reverse that.
If you chop the breasts off, you cannot reverse it.
They're just gone forever.
You've removed a body part and can never get it back.
Well, again, if you're looking for common sense when going through something like this, then you're just already barking up the wrong tree.
The age for genital surgery such as hysterectomy and vaginoplasty has been lowered to 17, a year earlier than previous guidance.
But, the recommended age for, and this is, so, pretty much all the different genital surgeries, they've now lowered to 17, except for phalloplasty, which we just heard about.
For that, for now, they're saying, oh, you still need to be 18 for that.
And so, that is what the left is going to latch onto, and say, well, no, no, you have to be 18 for this.
Ignoring the fact that for pretty much every single other form of butchery, they're doing it to minors.
And also ignoring that, first of all, as I said yesterday, even if they wait to 18 to do this to a girl, they're still putting her on the path to that way before that.
They're setting the stage for it way before the age of 18.
And also, even leaving all that aside, you should not be, I don't know how many times I have to say it, you shouldn't be doing this to anyone.
The idea that someone is magically in the right frame of mind to consent to a procedure like this at 18 is absurd.
The very fact that you want this kind of procedure done shows that you're not in the right frame of mind to consent to it.
Only someone of sound mind should be a candidate for an irreversible surgery, but if you want a procedure like that, it is already evidence that you are not of a sound mind.
If you're going into the doctor and saying, peel the skin off of my arm and turn it into something that might look sort of like a penis and attach it to my, you know, to my crotch, If you're saying that to a doctor, then it's clear evidence that there's something going on inside your head, inside your mind, that needs to be treated.
It's not your body that's the problem.
Alright, so the Pennsylvania Senate race is down to John Fetterman versus Dr. Oz.
This is what the voters in Pennsylvania, this is what they've decided.
They had other options.
Other people, especially on the Republican side, and you may not have loved, particularly loved any of the options on the Republican side, but they did have other options.
And instead, they decided, you know what, we want to boil this down to John Fetterman and Dr. Oz.
Dr. Oz, who doesn't even live in the state, but he's going to be one of our options.
The other one is Fetterman.
So how's that going?
How's that race going?
Well, let's check it out.
First, we'll start with John Fetterman, who recently had a stroke, but has decided to stay in the race.
And here's how he's doing at his most recent campaign rally.
And you can count on us to eliminate the filibuster if you come out and step with us.
We will be able to stand with you in D.C.
I gave away the lieutenant governor-governor in Pennsylvania, the only lieutenant governor in the history to do that.
And let's get some stuff done for America.
Who would ever think that I would be the normal one in the race here?
Now, it's not even something you want to laugh about because he had a stroke and he's actually brain damaged.
And that's clearly coming through in his speech there.
And yet he's still in the race.
And he might actually win, because that's the Democrat there, and the person that the Republicans have decided to put up is Dr. Oz.
And here's how Dr. Oz is doing in the race.
Here's the attack ad that Oz's campaign put out against Federman.
This came out yesterday.
And I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it may just be, you tell me what you think, but it may just be the worst political attack ad of all time.
I don't know, but let's watch.
Now that John Fetterman claims to be recovering, let's pull back his hoodie and examine what's in his head.
Looks like he has some screws loose.
What's this?
Fetterman wants to release one-third of all prisoners.
That's crazy!
Spend more tax dollars, everything will cost more.
That's nuts!
Slow energy production?
Gas prices will skyrocket!
That's ridiculous.
Socialized medicine?
Where do you get these crazy ideas?
Now it makes sense.
Better close it up!
John Fetterman is crazier than you think.
Yeah, I think probably the worst campaign attack out of all time.
And when I say worst, I don't mean, you know, the most vicious or worst in that way.
No, not at all.
It's just that, that's what you're going with?
This is like an ad, this was made by, I don't know who he has working on his campaign.
It must be some sort of, it's a group of boomer Facebook wine aunts who are working on his campaign and that's what they came up with.
Not to mention he's going to be the most radical, most radical senator.
That's, no, probably not.
I mean, John Fetterman, I don't claim to know a whole lot about him, but I don't think the issue is that he's going to be the most radical person, Democrat in D.C.
Now, he does have to be a radical leftist in order to be a viable candidate.
Democrats really don't It's not possible to make it to D.C.
as a Democrat without adopting at least some of their most radical positions.
But that's not, that's not exactly the primary issue with him.
And this is, but this is what, again, this is what Republicans in Pennsylvania decided that they wanted.
This is the guy, Dr. Oz, put that, who approved that campaign, at the very least approved it.
He's the guy they're gonna put up to represent them.
Doesn't live in the state, but he's gonna represent them and their values.
This is real late-stage empire type of stuff.
When you have prominent Senate races that are boiled down to Dr. Oz, the TV doctor on one side, and the guy with literal brain damage on the other side.
And of course, Dr. Oz's terrible taste in campaign ads is the least of our problems when it comes to him.
We've cycled through all the other problems.
Talk about being a radical leftist.
Actually, Dr. Oz is by far and away more radically left than Federman is.
And I know that just based on the fact that back in 2011, Dr. Oz was promoting the idea of trans kids.
And he was out there, you know, advocating for trans and kids back in 2011.
He was doing it like five years before it was popular.
That's how ahead of the progressive curve he was.
And that on top of being an advocate for gun control and all the rest of it.
Supporter of BLM, everything.
And Republicans in the state said, yeah, he's our guy, we want him.
Well, you get what you deserve when you make those kinds of choices as a voter, I would say.
All right, this is from dnyuz.
It says, this is a story about the rise in vasectomies.
Among men now I shouldn't really have to clarify that it's vasectomy is among men because who else are gonna get them
But you know how it is these days It says in March Mike pridgin a 28 year old comedian based
in New Jersey got a vasectomy and posted the process on tik-tok His doctor off-camera could be heard saying little pinch
here and mr. Pridgin winces his eyes shut tight behind his glasses bracing for pain
vasectomy a quick outpatient Surgical procedure that cuts the tubes that carry sperm is
one of the most reliable and cost-effective forms of contraception available
with almost none of the side effects of complications of birth control methods that are geared towards women.
Yet it has remained relatively rare.
In the United States, an estimated 500,000 men get the procedure each year.
Some surveys suggest roughly 5-6% of men between 18 and 45 have gotten the procedure, as opposed to roughly 20% of women aged 15-49 who have gotten their tubes tied.
But that might be starting to change.
In interviews with the New York Times, ten urologists across the United States said they've seen a notable uptick in bookings for the procedure this summer, especially among younger, child-free men, whose resolve to not reproduce appears to have sharpened in the face of a precarious economy, worsening climate change, and a more restrictive family planning landscape.
The weekend after the Supreme Court's decision in June to overturn Roe v. Wade, Google reported that searches for a vasectomy and our vasectomy's reversible surged.
It's still unclear whether the increased interest in vasectomies is a blip or the beginning of a long-term trend that could foster greater acceptance of the procedure.
Then it goes on to give more evidence that this is indeed a longer-term trend and more and more men are deciding to neuter themselves willingly.
Now, the most concerning thing about this is the rise, especially in quote-unquote child-free men getting this procedure.
And the first thing that's concerning is just the term child-free.
Which of course, by design, makes children sound like some sort of disease.
You say child-free like you might say cancer-free.
And this is done on purpose.
Because people that are, quote, child-free, they don't like to be called childless.
Because if you say childless, it makes it sound like they're missing something.
And they don't want that.
So they'd rather, they would rather make children sound like cancer than make their own situation sound less pleasant to themselves.
And so that's why there's been this campaign among the childless to say, no, don't call us childless.
We're child-free.
We're free of it.
We're free of the burden.
But the other issue here is that you're also, for people who are choosing to sterilize themselves, essentially, before they've even had kids, You're giving up on something that you don't really understand.
And this is the paradox.
You can't really understand parenthood until you've experienced it.
And the reason for that is that it's transformational.
It's one of those... There aren't many things like this in life.
But having kids is one of them.
It's a transformational moment.
Where you actually do transform and become someone different than who you were before.
Once you become a father, then you're a father.
You're just simply a different sort of person than you were before you were a father.
That's why I like to say that in the act of conception in many ways, it's not just one life that comes into being, but it's really sort of three lives.
You have the child that That is conceived, but then you have the mother and the father who are also sort of born in this moment as well.
That's why I know, and I know this is the case for a lot of parents, when I look at my entire life before I got married and had kids, and I look at all that, and I didn't have kids until I was 25, but I look at my whole life before that as my childhood, right up until I was 25.
And hardly even my own childhood.
It feels like someone else's life entirely sometimes.
That's how foreign it is to me now.
That's how much I've changed.
That's how different my life is now.
From the transformational effect of accepting the responsibility to be a parent.
Of embracing this vocation.
So along with all the other problems with people willingly sterilizing themselves and choosing not to reproduce and essentially giving up on human civilization in the process, one of them is that you are, again, giving up on something that you don't really know what you're giving up.
You can't understand what you're missing, what you're losing.
All right, here's one other thing.
You know, they really do want you to eat bugs, and that's not just a meme.
The European Commission tweeted this, a long thread advocating that we start eating bugs more, or at all, you know, as if you were eating bugs at all in the first place.
The European Commission tweeted a couple days ago, whether a snack or a food ingredient, did you know there are currently three insects authorized in the EU novel food?
House cricket, yellow mealworm, and migratory locust are the three types of insects authorized as novel food in the EU market.
Sounds delicious.
So this is the good news.
Especially if you live in Europe, this has been... The migratory locust is now... It's authorized as a novel food item.
Chow down.
Have at it.
It says, the FAO indicates that insects are a highly nutritious and healthy food source.
Insects contain high fat, protein, vitamin, fiber, and mineral content and can facilitate the shift towards healthy and sustainable diets.
Novel food can only be authorized if it does not pose any risk to human health.
It must undergo a scientific assessment prior to authorization to ensure its safety.
The environmental benefits of rearing insects for food are founded on, one, high feed conversion efficiency of insects, less greenhouse gas emissions, less use of water and arable lands, and the use of insect-based bioconversion for reducing food waste.
But they do note in their final tweet that it's up to you to decide whether you want to eat bugs or not.
For now.
They don't add that, but that is... We can understand that's in parentheses.
For now, it's up to you whether you want to eat bugs or not.
Now I appreciate the anti-bug eating movement that's out there.
The people declaring that, you know, I will not eat the bugs, I will not live in the pod and all that.
But I actually think that the anti-bug eaters, of which I am of course one, we should explain why we don't want to eat bugs.
It seems self-evident, and in a way it is, but there are some deeper sorts of points that I think that we're making about the human condition when we say we don't want to eat bugs.
And I think those points should be explained.
Put another way, the advocates of bug eating are pushing it for a reason, and I think we should be more clear about what those reasons are.
So, I think there are a few reasons why this is being pushed by the elites.
The first, and most obvious, is that they want to dehumanize us.
Right?
They want to treat us like cattle, or worse.
This is basically a control mechanism.
To slowly but surely take away the little joys in life, the seemingly little things that you enjoy.
Take all those things away.
Slowly sort of dehumanizing you.
And reducing us all down to the lowest common denominator.
Treating us all as exactly the same.
And then so eventually they can ration out our portion of crickets or whatever for the day.
But I think maybe even at a deeper level, The second point is to spread this myth that the elites love, that everything is entirely subjective.
So, you know, they say that our taboos against bug eating are arbitrary, right?
Not based in reason.
There's no reason for it.
It's just a cultural thing.
That's all.
It's the only reason we don't eat bugs.
But that's not true.
There are reasons why humans are repulsed by eating bugs and why usually only poor and desperate people do eat bugs.
Because it is accurate to say that in some cultures eating bugs is common.
But what you'll find is that in those cultures they also don't have a lot of food options and so they resort to it because they have to.
If you have other options, the reasons that people are repulsed by bugs is, well, number one, they carry disease.
They're dirty.
They objectively taste bad.
They have little, like, limbs and wings and all kinds of physical features that makes them unappetizing.
So this is not an entirely subjective judgment.
It is true to say that eating bugs is objectively repulsive to human beings.
But if you have to, you can maybe get over that gag reflex when it comes to eating grasshoppers.
But we don't have to, and we shouldn't have to.
And the third point is, I read this in a piece somewhere that made this point, and I thought it was pretty smart, is that if you move away from meat, right?
And we just heard this in the tweet thread there, actually.
You move away from meat.
You kill farms, and farmers typically live and work and vote in red states.
They typically are more conservative.
So you kill off all the farms, get rid of all the farmers, and then you set up bug farms.
And the great thing about a bug farm is that you can set it up anywhere, and you can especially set it up in urban environments.
So, if we move to bugs being our primary source of protein, then that really means that all the farming, because now we're not farming cows and chickens and everything, we need lots of space, now we're farming crickets and locusts and ants or whatever else, and you could just do that in the middle of the city.
So now farming moves over to the blue states and the blue regions and they take over.
So, those are all the reasons why we shouldn't have to eat bugs, but again, really, it actually is pretty self-evident.
I don't think you need to explain it.
It's just gross.
Let's get now to the comment section.
Do you know that name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang Anne says, have you noticed that every one of those insane doctors speaking so calmly and cheerfully about butchering children is a woman talking in a baby voice and channeling her inner kindergarten teacher?
Whether that's by design or there's more of that personality type pushing this, it's pure evil.
Now, I certainly have noticed that, and that's something I also noticed when filming What Is A Woman, that this is certainly not all, but many of the most vocal advocates For all of this madness.
No, they're not all women.
Many of them are.
But almost all of them adopt this kind of sing-songy, baby-talking sort of voice.
Which, in the end, just makes it even creepier and more disturbing.
Claudio says, Well, your daughter, by asking that question, has proven that she is more perceptive than a great number of adults.
Because, yeah, that is a very good question.
It's a very good point.
And TQ won't say what a man or a woman is.
Well, your daughter by asking that question has proven that she is more perceptive than a great number of adults.
Because yeah, that is a very good question. It's a very good point.
What's the answer to it?
Well, the answer is that it's just, it's incoherent.
And it's just the kind of incoherence that we are supposed to not notice and we're supposed to not, certainly not talk about.
Because if you do talk about it, if you do notice it, then you are a, what is it again, scholastic terrorist?
No, not scholastic.
You're a stochastic terrorist.
I'm afraid to inform you, Claudio, that your daughter is a terrorist for asking that very question.
Carla says, Matt, thank you for providing contact information for officials at University of California at Santa Cruz.
I want you to know that I've sent an email to Chancellor Cynthia LaRive in which I asked her what she planned to do about Eli Ehrlich.
If she does not respond to me, I'll be willing to call her on the phone.
Please keep us up to date on this matter.
I will keep you up to date.
We gave out the contact information for the Chancellor of the school yesterday, as well as the Dean of Graduate Studies.
Which, again, was a terrorist act on my part.
And I was also accused of promoting harassment and all these things.
But I have to remind everyone that these are public officials at a public university.
The contact information I'm giving out is available on their website.
It's contact information that they have published.
And I am pointing to it and saying, here it is.
Now, from what I understand, the voicemail box for both the Chancellor and the Dean of Graduate Studies is now full because people have called.
And probably their email inboxes will be full soon too.
They still are trying to skate through this without saying anything.
As I said yesterday, we're not going to allow that.
So the next step is we're going to go through and we're going to find other officials at the school and we're going to start contacting them.
And then it's going to be the Board of Trustees, and then we're looking at the donors.
And the reason that we're doing this is because we need an answer from the school, and they have no right to not give us one.
What are you going to do about this problem of having someone at your school, enrolled at your school, who has organized, you know, a black market illegal prescription drug running operation targeting minors?
SweetBabyGang4Life says, I clearly remember putting on pads and a football uniform and running wind sprints and tackling and being tackled in the 90-plus degree heat at football practice when I was a teen.
That was roughly 20 years ago.
Even still, I was kind of fat for my age.
It had to be climate change.
Well, that's just your imagination.
The summer did not exist when we were kids.
Summer is a new innovation because of climate change.
Finally, Brandon says, this whole support your child idea is directly contradictory to honor thy parents.
No, I think actually the support your child idea, as it is promoted by the trans activists, it's not contradictory to honoring your parents.
It's contradictory to supporting your children.
So they're saying to support your children in a way that actually contradicts supporting your child.
Because the number one way, or at least, you know, one of the most important ways that you can support your child is to provide them with stability and security and direction.
That's what your child needs.
Stability, security, direction.
Okay?
That is what your child desperately needs.
And when you just throw your kid to the wolves, or you abandon them to their confusion, and you say, well, I don't know, you decide for yourself what you are, what your gender is, that's up to you.
You are not giving them stability, security, and direction, which is what they need.
Every day, The Daily Wire is expanding.
And now, so is our C-Suite.
Whatever that is.
Currently, we have multiple executive-level openings on the team, so if you're looking for a high-level job working with top-tier talent, keep listening.
To be the next Daily Wire Chief, Previous C-suite experience is required and a background working within a mid-sized media or subscription-based business is crucial.
Those roles are for Nashville-based positions only, so no bathrobe and slipper-wearing telecommuters are allowed here.
If this all matches your actual experience and not some make-believe lived experience, then get more details and apply today at dailywire.com slash careers.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
The author Malcolm Gladwell got himself canceled last week.
Not by me.
I was in no shape to be cancelling anyone, of course.
But instead, he was cancelled by everyone else from some remarks that he made on a podcast.
Now, during the interview on this podcast, the conversation turned to the dramatic rise in remote work.
Obviously, when the world went insane and shut itself down because of COVID, there was a sudden and seismic shift away from the typical 9-to-5 office arrangement and towards remote work.
And that trend has not reversed itself.
There's no reason to think that it will reverse itself in the future.
According to estimates by people who estimate this kind of stuff, 25% of all workers in America will be working from home by the end of this year.
Then in a few more years, that number will be doubled and so on.
And then eventually everybody will be working from home.
This is very good news for sweatpants manufacturers, but it doesn't seem like good news to Malcolm Gladwell, who provoked howls of mockery, derision, and outrage by saying this.
Listen.
As we face the battle that all organizations are facing now in getting people back into the office, it's really hard to explain this core psychological truth, which is we want you to have a feeling of belonging and to feel necessary.
And we want you to join our team.
And if you're not here, It's really hard to do that.
It's not in your best interest to work at home.
I know it's a hassle to come to the office, but like, you know, if you work, if you're just sitting in your pajamas in your bedroom, is that the work life you want to live?
Right?
Don't you want to feel part of something?
I mean, I'm really getting very frustrated with the inability of people in positions of leadership to explain this effectively to their employees.
If we don't feel like we're part of something important, what's the point?
You're not just doing this to get a pay.
If it's just a paycheck, then what have you reduced your life to?
Right?
It has to be... I don't know.
This really is getting me kind of... I was in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and I was pitching some idea to a studio.
I went to two studios.
I won't name them.
Both have these beautiful, gorgeous, fancy offices of the sort you only see in LA, right?
Fantastic.
You know, sun is shining.
You go into the parking lot and there are no cars there.
And you go into these places where they normally would have 500 people and there are four.
Now they say it's because of COVID.
It's not COVID.
It's just that everyone's just decided they want to work at home.
And there it is, the shocking statement that made Malcolm Gladwell trend on social media for several days and provoked reams of think pieces all agreeing that he's an idiot, a fool, a maniac, not to mention a big fat meanie for suggesting that sitting around in your pajamas and attending Zoom meetings isn't the best path to human flourishing.
The critics say that office life, you know, the critics of Malcolm Gladwell say that, contrary to what he says, office life is oppressive and soul-destroying, and that staying at home is clearly the better alternative.
They say that it's good if people are no longer looking for meaning, or as Gladwell says, belonging in their jobs.
They accuse him of holding on to this kind of antiquated boomer mentality, which says that the primary point and purpose of life is to punch in and punch out and earn a paycheck.
They say that's no good, so we're better off now.
Some of the critics also accused Gladwell of hypocrisy, noting that the author has over the years written glowingly about how he enjoys working from coffee shops instead of sitting at a desk, and that he himself has worked from home and enjoyed it.
Now, Gladwell has since explained that he worked from home or from coffee shops as a writer, but he says that writing is a somewhat unique profession in that When it comes to actually putting the words on the page, there is very little creative collaboration involved.
It is an individual pursuit.
As an author myself, I can attest that the collaboration, if you can call it that, happens after you've already written the thing, and you hand it over to editors, and they collaborate with you by picking your work apart for months on end, word by word, as you silently pledge to yourself that you'll never make the mistake of writing another book again.
But according to Gladwell, most jobs don't work quite that way, and so most workers would benefit from being in an office environment, even if he, as an author, did not.
Which seems like a reasonable distinction to me, but what do I know?
So who's cancelled here?
Well, it's not Malcolm Gladwell.
His day may come to be cancelled, but it's not this day.
Instead, it's his attempted cancellers who are cancelled, for two reasons principally.
First, it's this.
Whether Gladwell is right or wrong, the point he's trying to make here isn't unreasonable.
He's making a perfectly salient observation and raising justifiable concerns.
Even if he's missing the target by an inch or two in one direction or the other, there's no reason why anything you heard in that clip should elicit anything close to the sort of reaction it received.
Moreover, whether good or bad or some combination, the shift away from in-person collaborative work and towards remote work, facilitated by video conferences, is a dramatic and consequential change.
It's a change that significantly impacts the way people actually live their lives on a day-to-day basis.
What this means is that, at a minimum, if we're a rational and intelligent people, we would realize that this is a change worth talking about, and we would be eager to consider the pitfalls and listen to what the critics have to say about it.
But we're neither rational nor intelligent, which means that any opinion slightly outside of the mainstream is automatically treated as not only wrong, but totally insane and not worthy of consideration.
We have, as a culture, almost no ability anymore to wrestle with ideas.
Instead, we have one idea on a particular subject, and we will not engage any ideas that challenge the one idea.
We will instead scream at the challenging idea, and spit at it, and spit at it, and throw things at it, and stomp our feet until the idea goes away.
And because we have the memories and attention spans of fruit flies, we're able to apply this strategy to even the most seismic cultural and societal shifts.
Because once this shift takes place, we immediately take for granted that this change has happened, and we decide that we couldn't possibly do things differently from how we just started doing them five seconds ago.
A person who advocates for a return to the way we did things five seconds ago is treated then like some sort of freak from outer space, or like a time traveler from the ancient past.
By defending the merits of working collaboratively in one physical space with other people, Gladwell is simply articulating what has seemed obvious to most everyone in the modern industrial age.
Even if he's wrong, there's nothing radical or irrational about that.
Trying to create a society where people stay on isolated islands Never coming into physical contact with the people they're ostensibly working with, that's what's radical.
It's a massive social experiment, and there's no way to know if it will actually work out for the best, because human society has never tried anything quite like this.
And that brings us to the second point.
And this is the thing that most people, as usual, seem to be overlooking.
Is it good for companies, for employers, to have their employees scattered to the wind, connected only by email and Zoom calls?
Well, it seems pretty clear that the answer is no.
It's not good for employers.
But Gladwell wasn't just talking about what's good for companies.
He says it's not good for the individual.
It won't make you a happier or more fulfilled person to forsake the office in favor of your couch and your laptop.
He says that remote work is bad for you as a person because it deprives you of the opportunity to feel like you're part of something.
It takes meaning and purpose out of your life, he says.
Now here, Gladwell's critics are seemingly on a stronger footing as they can rightly observe that you shouldn't be depending on your 9 to 5 for meaning and purpose.
There are other better places to find your sense of belonging in the world.
If you work from home, they say, you can invest more of yourself into your family, into your community.
You can develop other hobbies.
You can develop other passions.
You can, you know, grow and become a more well-rounded person.
You can start doing other things.
You can read more books.
You can maybe start a vegetable garden or something.
You can exercise more.
You can put your job in its rightful place as a source of income, but not look to it for anything more than that.
For meaning and purpose and belonging, you can reach to deeper sources.
And that's all true.
That can be a benefit of working from home.
I worked from home for years, okay?
So I know something about that.
But here's the important question.
Is that what most people are actually doing?
So as we splinter off and isolate and live these increasingly remote and fractured yet technologically dependent lives, working from home, ordering meals on Uber Eats, having our groceries delivered, having everything else delivered, interacting with the world and other people through screens primarily, etc.
As we do this, Are we, in general, using all of the extra time that these conveniences afford us to connect more deeply with our families and to develop different skills and passions and to pursue knowledge for its own sake?
The answer for most people is no, not even close.
Most people just spend the extra time staring at screens.
The screens have enabled them to give more of their lives to screens.
Working from home saves them from wasting time on commutes and pointless office gossip, but all of the extra time they're given is returned right back to the same piece of technology that gave it to them.
Indeed, all the evidence available to us tells us that, for the most part, though we have a lot more time to connect with our families and share meals and read interesting books and do interesting things, we are not actually doing any of those things more.
In fact, we're doing all of them far less than we ever have.
The more free time we have, the less we accomplish with it.
That's the general societal trend here.
In theory, the shift towards working from home could be an enormous boost for human flourishing, allowing us all to re-center on what really matters in life.
But in practice, it's been mostly a boost to the streaming services and social media platforms that have been the primary beneficiaries of all this surplus free time.
So, in theory, Working from home could be in many ways a superior arrangement, but in practice, most of those people really would be better off in the office.
And that was a very long and winding road just to finally say that Malcolm Gladwell is only half right.
Which means that his critics are also half right.
But they're more annoying about it, and so today, they are the ones who are finally cancelled.
