Ep. 1008 - When Far Left Activists Masquerade As Pediatricians
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, you want to be able to trust your child’s pediatrician, but the fact is that the entire pediatric field has been captured by the far left. You only have to do a little bit of digging in the American Academy of Pediatrics to see how bad the corruption is. Also, Biden prepares to make inflation significantly worse with his “loan forgiveness” plan. A scientist tries to explain the concept of human biology to students at Berkeley. The Democrat senate candidate in Pennsylvania has actual brain damage and can’t even speak. States move to abolish forced prison labor, but is that a good idea? And in our Daily Cancellation, we have a story so incomprehensibly stupid that you might think I’m making it up.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at jeremysrazors.com.
—
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
Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, you want to be able to trust your child's pediatrician, but the fact is that the entire pediatric field has been captured by the far left.
You only have to do a little bit of digging into the American Academy of Pediatrics to see how bad the corruption is.
We did some of that digging, and I'll tell you what we found.
Also, Biden prepares to make inflation significantly worse with his loan forgiveness plan.
A scientist tries to explain the concept of human biology to students at Berkeley.
Not an easy thing to do.
The Democrat Senate candidate in Pennsylvania has actual brain damage and can't even speak.
States move to abolish forced prison labor, but is that a good idea?
And in our daily cancellation, we have a story so incomprehensibly stupid that you might think I'm making it up.
I promise you I am not.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Wade has been overturned and this battle is now finally leaving DC.
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, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
They have a larger presence in blue states, with California being their largest state.
Some former abortion facility directors say that these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which is detrimental to their abortion business, to say the least.
These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America.
Nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities, where abortion will remain legal, including closures in San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities.
40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.
Check out their locations, podcasts, and a free magazine at 40daysforlife.com.
And make sure you do that because the fight for life has really only just begun in so many ways.
For more information on 40 Days for Life, go again to 40daysforlife.com.
Recently, a bewildered father posted a video to TikTok describing a disturbing encounter with his three-year-old's pediatrician.
He said that when he brought his son in for a routine checkup, the doctor walked into the room and despite being able to clearly see the child's sex just by looking at him and despite having his sex listed on the chart he was holding in his hand, the doctor still asked the young boy whether he was a boy or a girl.
Listen.
So we just took my three-year-old son in the doctor for a checkup.
My three-year-old son.
Okay, there's a reason why I'm emphasizing that and you're about to know why.
So my wife and I are waiting in the room with our son and the doctor comes in and he sees my son sitting there on the table and the first question that he asks him is, are you a boy or are you a girl?
And I look at my wife like...
So luckily my son understands obvious tenets of biology at three years old and says that he's a boy, just like his chart says.
So the rest of the appointment I can't even focus because I'm wondering why in the world this guy is asking the question.
And then I remember, oh yeah, I live in California.
And call me paranoid, but this is where I think we're heading based on other things that have happened.
An Ohio couple lost custody of their teenager for refusing them hormone treatment.
And a divorced Texas couple were in a court battle over whether or not to let their seven-year-old transition from a boy to a girl.
And many are saying that the new proposed Equality Act could lead to more parents losing custody of their kids who want gender transition.
No, that's not paranoid.
That is what we call observant.
That is, in fact, exactly what the doctor is doing, and many parents have had similar experiences in recent years.
They are building a case, basically, that your child is trans.
What that father confronted, and what so many other parents have confronted, and so many other doctors' offices across the country, is the tip of an extremely large iceberg that stretches down into a very dark sea.
The rather terrifying fact is that the entire pediatric field has been captured by the far left.
Now, there is a chance that your pediatrician is safe and trustworthy.
There are plenty of good ones left individually.
But there's also a very significant chance that he's an agent of a radical and dangerous ideological agenda, and he will drag your child into it if he can.
And even if your pediatrician is a competent, honest healthcare provider who actually believes in and abides by the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, still, he's part of a system that is run by radical leftists and which views trans activism as the primary responsibility of the healthcare industry.
Even the good doctors are hostages.
And your child is the ransom.
Now last week we discussed how the American Academy of Pediatrics, the largest professional association of pediatricians with some 67,000 members, pushes medical transition onto children, doing great harm in the process, and they promote these procedures based on scant and shoddy evidence.
That's not my characterization or my words.
That's what anonymous whistleblowers within the organization have said.
The Academy, according to some of its own members, is endorsing and carrying out medical experimentation on children despite the dearth of evidence to support that approach.
But the members who've made these criticisms have been shut down and they've been silenced.
Their calls for an official review of the organization's approach to the transgender issue have been rebuffed.
All they want to do is review it.
They're saying, hey, can we go back, can we look at this and talk about it?
And the organization says, no, we're not going to talk about it.
The AAP is not interested in reviewing or rethinking anything.
It does what WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, tells it to do.
And most recently, WPATH has decided that the recommended age for giving somebody a cosmetic double mastectomy is 15.
And the best age for cross-sex hormones is 14.
So says WPATH, thus so goes the AAP.
In fact, the deeper you dig into the American Academy of Pediatrics, the more you see that this is an activist organization masquerading as the nation's preeminent authority on pediatric healthcare.
And we've done some of that digging here, and we found this.
On the AAP website, you can access their policy statement on, quote, ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents.
Now, the statement is one long gender theory manifesto littered with wild and often incoherent assertions rooted not in science but in ideology.
Worse, the statement provides a sort of glossary Where the definitions of meaningless terms like gender diverse and gender perception are provided.
And then it says this, quote, for more information, the gender book found at www.thegenderbook.com is a resource with illustrations that are used to highlight these core terms and concepts.
Okay, so the AAP has endorsed the gender book as not just any resource, but as an authority on core terms and concepts.
That's a problem because the gender book is not a medical guide, or a textbook, or a source of objective information, but it is rather an activist pamphlet.
And I know that because the authors of the book said so themselves.
Back in 2014, the androgynous authors of the book decided to punish basically their donors by singing a thank you song, and you're going to hear why that's a punishment in just a second, whether you like it or not.
In the song, they refer to the book as doing gender activism.
So I'm sorry I have to do this to you, but here is that song.
Five, six, seven, eight.
Because of you, we've secured the first round of printing of the gender book.
Because of you, we can offer nearly 600 books back to the community.
Because of you, the book will be launched in 27 countries.
We're doing gender activism in Botswana, Belgium, etc. and beyond.
We just want to say thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Oh my gosh, that was worse than I thought.
Now let's just leave aside the fact that when singing they sound like a dozen cats drowning in a river.
The greater point is that the AAP, the supposed authority on pediatric medical care, cites self-professed gender activists as authoritative resources on core terms and concepts.
But this is to be expected.
After all, the AAP published their very own gender book of sorts just a few months ago.
Back in April, the American Academy of Pediatrics released Uology, a puberty guide for everybody.
The book promotes the idea that children can be transgender, non-binary, gender diverse, and so on.
It was authored by three far-left activists who pretend to be medical professionals, one of whom, Katherine Lowe, appeared on an AAP podcast back in February to talk about the book and to also explain why a baby's gender cannot be determined in the womb.
When people are pregnant, when we're doing prenatal ultrasounds and we're saying it's a boy or it's a girl, really we are referring to that baby's genitals, right?
And what we see.
And we often call that a baby's sex assigned at birth.
And that's actually different than gender.
So we actually aren't able to know a baby's gender identity Prenatally.
We can know their genitals and we assign a sex according to those body parts, but that really isn't gender.
So someone's gender or gender identity is really an internal core sense of who they are as a person in regards to being male, female, Maybe a little of both or neither.
That is gender identity.
So it's more of an internal core sense of who you are as a person.
It is not always the same as a baby's genitals.
So this is a doctor on a podcast with other doctors, hosted by the largest pediatric association in the country, repeating the absolutely ludicrous claim that sex is not observed, but actually assigned.
And she also draws the familiar distinction between sex and gender, but then says that a person's inner experience can be male or female, or a little of both.
But male and female are sexes.
De-sexes, actually, because there's only two.
But you just said that there's a difference between sex and gender, and then you say that the sexes are genders?
This is the incoherence of gender activism, and it's also the incoherence of the medical field, as the distinction between gender activism and medicine has been, at this point, almost entirely erased.
Now, does this mean that, um, well, what does it mean?
Does it mean that you shouldn't take your child to the doctor anymore?
Well, no, you have to be able to take your child to the doctor.
That's what makes all this so sinister.
The trans activists have kidnapped the institutions that you rely on, and cannot go entirely without.
Instead, what it means is that you must exercise extraordinary caution.
We all must.
Not blindly trusting any of these people.
They do not have your child's interests at heart.
Or at least you certainly cannot assume that they do.
There are other interests at work here.
Ideological, also financial.
And those interests, as we've seen, ultimately have come to outweigh everything else, especially your child's well-being.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Cars with internal combustion engines will only be able to get license plates if they were built before the end of the 2020s, which means that people are going to keep repairing and driving their old cars for generations.
It also means that you'd better go to rockauto.com right now and order all the parts to properly maintain and repair your car, Your great-grandkids might be driving that car someday, so you gotta make sure it's in tip-top shape.
RockAuto.com has been in the auto parts business for 20 years.
Family-owned, their goal is to make auto parts available and affordable to keep you safe on the road.
RockAuto.com's online parts catalog is incredibly easy to use.
You can search all the parts available for your specific car, SUV, or truck with photo specs and installation tips as well.
Not only will they have the part you need, but they're usually going to be able to give you the trusted brands to choose from.
Rock Auto's kits are also popular because they bundle together all the parts you need for a successful repair, which means that you won't get halfway through installing a timing belt, only to discover that you need another pulley.
I can't tell you how many times that's happened to me when I'm installing timing belts.
Go to rockauto.com and get brakes, shocks, carpets, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, everything you need at rockauto.com.
And be sure to write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us, Box?
So they know that I sent you.
All right, by the way, I wanted to show you this.
You know, the hard thing about having kids is that they tend to be very honest in their assessment of you.
So, for example, my five-year-old son drew a picture of me yesterday.
I'm very proud of it.
He was proud of this picture anyway.
So here it is.
You can see it there on the screen.
Apparently, to my child, I look like a character from The Nightmare Before Christmas.
I am literally a Tim Burton cartoon to him.
Just dead, lifeless eyes.
I need a lot of dental work, according to him, and I'm also fat.
And weirdly enough, I wear a suit with cufflinks, which I don't think he's ever seen me wear, ever.
This is how he sees me.
At least I have that cute little button nose there.
Maybe I'm more like Frosty the Snowman's unemployed uncle.
Maybe that's what he was going for.
I'd rather be that, I think.
So we'll start here.
Fox News reports President Joe Biden is expected to announce a much-anticipated loan forgiveness program Wednesday.
Sources familiar with the plan told the Associated Press Americans are poised to foot a nearly $300 billion deal with President Biden's expected announcement on Wednesday to forgive Big quotes around forgive thousands in federal student loan debt and extend a repayment pause to next year.
According to the Penn Wharton budget model, a one-time maximum debt forgiveness of $10,000 for borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year will cost around $300 billion for taxpayers.
The cost increases to around $330 billion if the program is continued over the standard 10-year window, according to the figures.
The precise details of Biden's plan were being kept to an unusually small circle within the Biden administration as they prepared to announce it.
Now, this obviously is one of the most transparent vote-buying schemes we've ever seen, and to call it one of the most transparent is saying quite a lot, I know, because this is all these people ever do.
But I actually do, and I think it's important to emphasize this.
Just speaking only for myself, I really do sympathize with people who have student loans.
I sympathize with them.
In fact, I am one of them.
I don't have my own student loans because I didn't go to college, but I've been paying off my wife's student loans.
So, in effect, you know, two become one in marriage, so, you know, and I'm the income earner in the household, so I have student loans that I'm paying off, too.
I didn't even go to college.
So I really can sympathize.
I can both sympathize and empathize with people who have this.
And I agree that if you have these loans, You know, you basically got scammed, right?
A great many people, most people with student loans got scammed.
You got suckered.
You took the loans on, you didn't understand, even if it was written in the fine print, you didn't read the fine print, and if you did read the fine print, you didn't understand what you were reading, you didn't understand all the stuff about the interest rates and what that's gonna mean, and you know, it's gonna mean that you're paying back, you could pay back the loans for 15 years, and at the end of the, pay it every month, and at the end of the 15 years, you've only shaved like $5,000 or $10,000 off the loan because of the interest.
It was all there in the fine print, but you didn't understand that.
Maybe because you signed on the dotted line when you were 18 years old.
And even worse than that, you were buying something that, for so many people, is effectively worthless.
You know, you bought it on the promise that if you purchase this thing, which is a college degree, this piece of paper, you will be virtually guaranteed a successful life.
Didn't work out that way.
So you got scammed, you got suckered.
You, for so many people, bought this worthless thing for way too much money and you got nothing in return.
Except a lifetime of debt.
And so I get all that.
And of course I sympathize with people in that position.
But here's the point that I always go back to.
If you don't pay it back, somebody else will have to.
So, someone has to pay the loan.
Someone has to carry the burden.
It's a burden that should not exist, but it does.
It shouldn't exist because we should not be pushing millions of kids into this system just as a default strategy and telling them, hey, spend $100,000 on a college education and then later on figure out what to do with it.
That is madness.
That's total madness.
Shouldn't happen, but it is.
It did happen and it is happening.
And of course, most of the people talking about student loan forgiveness, they don't want to talk about how, what to do in the future.
Okay?
Because we're constantly surrounded by morons who are just looking for Band-Aid solutions.
That's all politicians ever do, is Band-Aid solutions.
And unfortunately, there are a lot of really dumb people in the public who also, that's all they care about.
They just want the Band-Aid.
Give me student loan forgiveness.
What are we doing in the future?
What are we doing about this problem?
Because just forgiving the loans, that's not going to make the underlying problem go away.
It only makes it worse.
The underlying problem is that college is ridiculously expensive and we are funneling millions of kids into this system for no good reason.
That's the underlying problem.
We're not doing anything about that.
No one's talking about what we're going to do about that.
So we're not even having that conversation, and so the problem's not going to go away.
But as it pertains to you, if you have the loans, well, they're there.
So that's when it becomes a question of who's going to pay them.
As I said, I'm already paying my wife's loans.
She's my wife.
I'm married to her.
I have an obligation to my wife.
What's hers is mine.
What's mine is hers.
I agreed to that when I got married to her.
I didn't get married to you.
Okay?
Whoever's watching this, you're not my wife.
My wife is.
So, your obligations are not mine.
My wife's obligations are mine, and vice versa.
Again, two become one in marriage.
That's not the case for you.
So, I can feel bad about the obligations that you agreed to without understanding what you were doing.
I can feel bad about it.
I do feel bad about it.
But it's not my obligation.
It is yours.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
I don't think it is difficult.
I think people understand it.
They just don't want to understand it because it's hard.
So that's what we're left with.
The loans are there.
What do we do about it?
The debt is there.
What do we do about it?
And no matter what you do, someone is going to suffer.
And the question, as always, is who should suffer?
For your bad decisions.
Who should suffer for them?
Should it be you or somebody else?
I don't know how you can argue for somebody else.
That's what that... I don't see how you can make that ethical argument.
And, you know, talking about this and what I've been told many times is that, well, a couple things I'm told.
One is that This is the federal government.
They're just, they're just forgiving it.
The federal government's gonna cover it.
It doesn't come out of anybody's pocket.
Where does the federal government's money come from?
Despite how they've positioned themselves, the federal government is not our, is not, you know, the federal government is not your daddy.
Who's got his own wallet that he can pull out and just, you know, get you out of a bad situation by pulling the money out of his wallet.
Where does the federal government's money come from?
It comes from us.
If the federal government is covering it, we're covering it.
Okay, but then the response is, well, they'll just print the money.
They'll just print it.
And, you know, just like that.
Magic.
There is, in fact, according to a lot of people, a magical money tree.
Basically, and they'll just pluck some of the dollar bills off of that, you know, few billion, few hundred billion dollar bills off of that very large magic money tree and everything is fine.
Everything is not fine because we're experiencing right now the results of that kind of strategy and the results are sky-high inflation and people suffer.
So either the money is coming directly out of our pockets Or it ends up coming indirectly out of our pockets in an even worse way, because you print the money and cause even more inflation.
One way or another, who's left holding the bag?
The taxpayers, the average working man, is made to suffer.
So no matter what, we come back to the question, the ethical quandary here.
You made a reckless decision, a bad decision.
You have excuses for having made it, because you were too young to make it.
And I agree you were too young.
You did get scammed, but you unfortunately got legally scammed.
It's legal for them to do that.
It shouldn't be, but it is.
So, that happened.
Who has to suffer for it?
You don't want to suffer for it.
But if you don't suffer, the rest of us do.
And when I say the rest of us, I mean, like, don't think about me.
Think about just average, you know, working class person at the grocery store can barely afford groceries already.
And now we're going to make inflation even worse.
Because you didn't want to suffer for your choices, you wanted someone else to.
Look, I know that this is not popular.
No politician is going to get up here and say this.
I wish that somebody would.
I wish some politician would have the guts to just go in front of the American people and say, listen, bad decision was made.
Someone's got to suffer for it.
I'm sorry.
It's got to be you.
Because I'm not going to be responsible for making someone else suffer for a choice they didn't even make.
If it's unjust that you have to pay back the loans, how much more unjust is it that someone else has to, whether directly or indirectly, pay them back?
Nobody wants to say that.
Certainly no politician in D.C.
wants to say it because they don't have the guts to say it, but it's the truth.
Here's a guy who wants to be a politician in D.C., John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, and he is just not well at all.
He simply isn't.
So he's only done a couple of public events and speeches over the last...
I'm honored to be standing in the shadow of your amazing building.
Do you think of the ten homes Dr. Oz has?
But he's having trouble getting them fired up because he can't really speak.
So listen.
I'm honored to be standing in the shadow of your amazing building.
Do you think of the 10 homes Dr. Oz have has a union hall across their home?
If you say you think the word of steel worker, what words come to your mind if you say steel
Of all the words that bring to your mind when you hear the word steelworkers, does the word crudité come to your mind?
That's not a word that's going to come to my mind.
Crudité is wrong with demanding for We got the idea there.
But he can't speak.
I mean, he has brain damage.
simple and one simple truth. If you send me to Washington DC and there's going to be choices
in front of me as the next senator and it's going to be it's going to be what? Are you
going to stand with the U.S. Senator?
We got the idea there. But he can't speak. I mean, he has brain damage. He actually does.
And that should be it.
I mean, he has brain damage.
He can't function.
He's brain damaged.
But he could still win, which shows you something about the voters in Pennsylvania, but it also shows you, which still is a reflection of the voters in Pennsylvania, the quality of the opposition.
I mean, the fact that the Republican challenger in Pennsylvania, Dr. Oz, might lose to someone who is brain damaged and can't speak I mean, I can't think of anything more humiliating for the Republican Party than that.
But this is, you're not a serious country when people like this are elected.
This, again, is like late-stage, end-of-civilization type of stuff here.
Not that John Fetterman is going to end human civilization if he becomes senator.
He's not going to do anything at all.
He's basically a vegetable.
It's just a symptom of, once again, a civilization just giving up on itself.
That it's going to say, oh yeah, he's got brain damage.
He can't speak.
He's a vegetable, but we're going to put him in there anyway.
Why not?
I mean, we already got a vegetable running the whole country.
So, what's another vegetable?
We'll build a whole produce section.
All right, this is from MSNBC.
It says, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill in Congress on Friday that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors across the country.
Gender-affirming care, also known as mutilation and sterilization of children.
It's the most sweeping and draconian piece of legislation conjured by an ever more radicalized and violent anti-trans movement.
Literally no examples of violence are provided ever.
A violent movement, but not one example of violence.
They can't provide one example of an, quote, anti-trans person acting out violently against trans people.
Not one example.
Can't do it.
Doesn't exist.
I'll tell you one thing, you can find examples in the reverse.
While the bill sports only 14 Republican co-sponsors, its passage would likely become a priority if the GOP were to retake Congress this fall.
That's another humiliating statement about the Republican Party that only has 14 co-sponsors.
I mean, the Marjorie Taylor Greene bill, and it doesn't matter how you feel about Marjorie Taylor Greene personally.
It makes no difference.
She, this bill, every single Republican in Congress should support it.
We should demand that they all support it.
The bill is very simple, and it's exactly what the federal government needs to do.
It's exactly what we need Republicans in D.C.
to be doing, or trying to do.
It would simply ban doctors from castrating or mutilating kids.
Period.
That's it.
You can't do it.
It continues, since the 2020 presidential election, reactionary forces in the U.S.
have increasingly become more focused on trans issues.
Physicians and staff members at Boston Children's Hospital were threatened last week by a far-right, gender-critical internet mob that spread lies about the facility's work with transgender adolescents.
The harassment campaign was kicked off by Shia Reichick, who runs the anti-LGBTQ social media account Libs of TikTok, along with anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ media personality Matt Walsh.
Both told the lie that the hospital was performing hysterectomies on children.
Well, that in and of itself is a lie, because that's actually not what I said.
I didn't say that the hospital's performing is definitely performing, quote unquote, gender affirming
hysterectomies on children.
There's certainly evidence that they have, reason to think that they have.
But what I actually said is, it's almost irrelevant because we know they're doing it to 18-year-olds,
which is still horrifying. And by the way, if an 18-year-old is not mentally competent
to sign on the dotted line for a college loan, and is so incompetent that we have to forgive
those loans after the fact, that merely presenting the option to an 18-year-old is a scam.
Well, if that's the case, then what?
But an 18-year-old has the mental faculties necessary to agree to get a hysterectomy for cosmetic reasons?
Well, that makes no sense.
But what I actually said is that that's what I said.
Even if it's at 18, it's still horrifying.
And besides, whether or not they're doing this particular mutilation procedure on kids, whether or not they're doing that, we know that they're performing cosmetic double mastectomies on kids.
We know that they are chemically castrating kids.
We know that.
So that's what I said.
So in accusing me of lying, of course, MSNBC is lying.
Not that they care there are any standards here at all.
We did send them something, you know, saying they need to retract this, but there's just... Already for the media, we know that there's very little accountability.
And when it comes to anything in the trans world, as we've seen, they just... They have full license to just say anything they want to say.
It doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter how far-fetched it is.
Makes no difference.
Meanwhile, there was a debate at UC Berkeley about transgenderism, and I want you to listen to what this molecular geneticist has to say.
Now, you may not think, you may think a debate at UC Berkeley about transgenderism, you might think that the topic of the debate, given that it's at Berkeley, the topic would be like, Are transgender people oppressed or really oppressed?
We'll debate and find out.
But no, in this case, they actually have someone up there who disagrees with the whole concept of transgenderism based on her scientific background.
Let's listen to a little bit of what she has to say.
Trans women should be legally treated as women.
Tell me why you're strongly disagreeing.
Because I'm a molecular geneticist.
Being male or being female is a developmental process.
You can't go backwards.
So you can't change your sex.
Like, you cannot do that.
And the truth is that currently in California prisons and prisons in other parts of the country, women are getting impregnated by other women.
And there's just no way.
I mean, this is against the UN.
When, after World War II, there was like a, I don't remember what body came up with this statue, but it was against, I believe it was the, hey, you cannot house female prisoners with male prisoners because they get raped.
And that's happening today.
You know, I go to the women's... I go to the women's changing room at my gym, and there's a dude in there, he's putting on makeup and hoop earrings.
And this is not something a woman does when she goes to work out.
Nor do women beat each other to death.
But men do.
You know, and it's just, it's so sad that... Pause it there for a second.
Of course, everything that she's saying here is 100% correct, and it's a very sad thing that we need to bring a molecular geneticist in to explain that men are men and women are women.
Housing women with men in prison is one of the most grotesque human rights violations imaginable.
Almost as grotesque, but not as grotesque as chemically castrating kids.
But the point that she makes there, because there are a lot of, like, slightly more subtle things, and so what she says there about, like, the fact that these, you go, so, and she's in California, so she probably encounters this a lot at the gym with the guys going into the women's changing room, and they're putting on big earrings and makeup and stuff before they work out, and she says, well, that's, women don't do that.
And so, you know, this is something that all women, women are already tend to be sort of more naturally intuitive than men, picking up on subtle things.
And this is not, you know, having a guy in the women's restroom or locker room putting on the clown makeup is not very subtle.
But I guess the point is that all women, they see the performance.
Of womanhood that's carried on by these men, and every woman, even the ones farthest to the left, they see it and they all know.
That is not what women do.
This isn't even a convincing performance.
So I think every woman recognizes that.
But they don't feel like they're allowed to say it.
And even this woman, you can tell that she's emotional and she's also very nervous saying all of these really true and basic things.
Let's listen to the rest of this.
It's sad that women have internalized misogyny to the point where the man's comfort takes precedence over the woman's safety.
There's a reason why they don't want to be in men's prisons.
Because men beat each other to death.
Women don't do that.
Audrey, what, if anything, would cause you to move to the disagreeing?
Is there anything you heard here tonight that would convince you to move one line over?
It's okay to say no?
I'm just trying to figure this out.
No, I have figured it out.
And you're confident?
I am as confident as I am that this is my hand in front of my face instead of yours.
There is absolutely... This is the most insane thing that has ever happened to me in my life.
That women are a feeling now.
Almost every single person that listens to that knows that it's true.
And that includes almost all the people who would say otherwise.
And that is the fundamental and very deep frustration that everyone feels on this issue, that I feel all the time.
Is that you're arguing for something and you're arguing against people who know that you're right.
Everyone knows that we're right.
You know, you're sitting in front of a brick wall, standing next to someone, saying that brick wall exists, and they're looking right at it and saying, well, no, it doesn't.
But it does, and you know that it does.
That's why you're not actually trying to walk through it.
That's why you're not bashing your head against it.
You know it's there.
Now, what she says about internalized misogyny, that's, you know, the kind of left-wing feminist framing of this, and Whatever.
I mean, they can kind of frame it however they want to frame it, as long as they're opposing this madness.
That's how I feel about it.
But I will say that it's not actually internalized misogyny.
It's fear, right?
It's mainly just fear of the consequences of speaking out against this.
And then it's kind of an internalized self-loathing, I think, also.
Which the left, you know, propagates.
Wants people to hate themselves.
Because women that speak out, women and men, we are screamed at and hectored constantly and we're told that you're a bigot and you're all transphobe and you're all these things and for me, given that I'm a far-right, stochastic terrorist extremist, Those labels mean nothing to me.
I laugh at them, okay?
I've never felt... It's hard for me to even relate to the people who care about being labeled that way.
I've never cared at all.
It's not gonna hurt my feelings in the slightest.
But for a lot of people, women especially, that are more moderate and then closer on the left, being called those words, like having those labels applied to them, really hurts.
Because they've been conditioned that way.
And so, that's what it is.
All right, let's see, we have time to mention.
Okay, this is from Pew.
It says, more than 150 years after it was officially outlawed in the United States, slavery will be on the ballot in five states in November as a new abolitionist movement seeks to reshape prison labor.
Voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont will decide on state constitutional amendments prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, in some cases except for work, So this is what they're calling the new anti-slavery abolitionist movement is to get rid of involuntary prison work because that's slavery.
And to potentially transform the criminal justice system by making all work in prisons voluntary.
So this is what they're calling the new anti-slavery abolitionist movement is to get rid of involuntary
prison work because that's slavery.
And I found this interesting because just recently we were talking about slavery on
the show and what is slavery and how you define it.
I think the only definition of slavery that makes sense is slavery is the ownership of
people as property.
That's what slavery is.
Which would mean that if you own somebody as property and never made them work, they are still a slave.
Like, no matter what they're doing, it's still slavery because you are owning them, buying and selling them as property.
That's how I would define slavery.
Which means that forced prison labor is not slavery.
Okay, prisoners are not bought and sold.
Maybe in a sense within the prison environment amongst themselves, there's some amount of that, but that's not what prison is.
It's punishment.
It's punitive.
It also just makes sense, I think, that you have all these people who cannot be trusted in society, and so they need to be segregated.
But then society says, no, you still need to contribute.
Like, you don't get out of this.
You still have to do something.
You went to prison because you're a murderer, scumbag, whatever.
That doesn't magically get you out of the responsibility to contribute in some way to society.
So now we're going to force you to.
And we're going to force you to largely as a punitive measure.
Work can be, you know, you want to talk about rehabilitation.
Well, you can't have rehabilitation without work.
Work can be rehabilitative.
Suffering is rehabilitative.
If you force people to work and they find some amount of suffering out of that, that's good.
You cannot have rehabilitation without suffering.
That is one of the core things that people get wrong when we talk about rehabilitating prisoners.
Rehabilitation should not be the primary point of prison.
The primary point is punitive.
The second point is segregation, you know, safety.
It's basically a self-defense mechanism, society's self-defense mechanism.
But if you're going to be, depending on the sentence, if you're letting some of these people back out, then yeah, you want to work towards some kind of rehabilitation, but you cannot do that without work and suffering.
You have to make people suffer, confront, and suffer for their crimes, or there's not going to be rehabilitation.
Not only do I think that there should be prison labor, there should be a lot more of it.
I mean, we need to bring back chain gangs.
We need to bring all that back.
Prisoners should be doing a lot more labor.
Hard labor.
Long, hard, painful labor is what prisoners should be doing.
You know, just ask yourself, we got rid of all that, just like we got rid of public executions, we got rid of all these things saying that they're draconian and we're uncomfortable with them and they're icky and I don't like them.
Has the problem of crime gotten better or worse in the meantime?
Just something to think about.
Let's get to the comment section.
Wolfie says, "Matt, what time do you have to wake up to be able to shoot these amazing
videos and have the editing team do their work?"
I wake up at 5 a.m.
most mornings.
I wake up absurdly early.
Hours and hours before we actually film.
And when I say I wake up at 5 a.m., I should amend that and say, if my wife is here, she'd be quick to point out that actually what I do is I set My alarm for 5 a.m., and then 5.05 a.m., and 5.15, 5.20, 5.25, 5.30, 5.35, 5.40, 5.45, and then I wake up at 5.45, while the alarm goes off repeatedly in the interim.
And my wife lays there cursing my name.
That's my strategy.
But it's my process in the morning.
It's all part of the process.
Kathleen says, I was just thinking this morning how weird internet fame is.
A guy once came to play kid songs through our library, who sat at a table to sign his autograph afterwards, and no one took him up on that.
It was very obvious no one knew who in the world he was, but he had a YouTube channel and thought he was pretty big stuff.
Oh, that's... Oh man, that's the stuff of nightmares.
Sit there at the autograph table and no one comes up.
Who was this YouTuber?
Can you just tell us who?
Now I need to know who it was.
It is amazing, and I think the fact that we talked about it yesterday, it's kind of, fame is very cheap now, and easily obtained.
And so that makes this problem worse, where, you know, the smallest audience and the smallest platform can go to people's heads.
I've seen it happen so many times in this business.
Somebody shows up, they're not here that long, and they have a little bit of success, not even that much, like the smallest amount of success, and then next thing you know their ego is bigger than, they can't even fit in the door, their ego is bigger than the building.
It can go, it can basically, in the business it can go one of two ways, it usually goes that way.
You know, being in front of the camera just has that effect on people, where they, now they just feel, it drives them insane.
And now they walk around like they're, you know, world-famous.
They walk around like they're Brad Pitt, right?
And that's how plugged in I am to pop culture, that that was the celebrity reference I went with.
But then it can also go the other way, where the camera becomes more of a challenge where you have to kind of like justify yourself all the time.
The bigger the platform, then sort of the more you feel you need to work to justify the fact that you even have this platform.
I think that's a better way of approaching it.
Let's see.
There's one I wanted to get to.
Okay.
Dodo says, hmm.
On this occasion, I do disagree with Matt on this one.
There are some pretty significant voices who are children who hung out with Michael Jackson, who said he never did anything inappropriate.
I don't think he was ever found guilty of anything.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the only case against him was a lawsuit, and it seemed more likely that the family was doing it for money, not because he actually did anything.
I'm open to being corrected if I'm wrong.
Well, I'm glad you're open to being corrected, because I'm going to correct you.
First of all, The defense of, well, a few of the kids he hung out with said he didn't rape them is really the worst defense imaginable.
But this is what the Michael Jackson defenders do.
They start listing the kids he didn't rape.
I mean, think about what you're doing.
So your defense is that he didn't rape every kid he came across?
And second fact, that he was actually accused multiple times.
And yes, accusations are not in and of themselves 100% confirmation that something actually happened.
But, okay, almost all of us can go our entire lives without being accused of raping any children.
If you have this happening a lot, it's not just once, but this is constantly happening to you, then something is wrong here probably.
It could just be a conspiracy among the nation's children to paint you as a child rapist, but probably not.
Especially when you consider that Michael Jackson, and this to me is decisive, Michael Jackson admitted to inviting young boys to his house and having sleepovers with them Sleeping in the same room and sometimes often in the same bed.
Now, I want to play this interview.
There's a clip of this interview.
This was back, you know, this interview came out like 20 years ago and it was a big sensation at the time.
Maybe it's already been forgotten.
The video quality is a little bit weird here from YouTube, but all that matters is the audio.
Just, okay, you listen to this and you tell me if it's like outlandish to think that this guy might be a pedophile.
Go ahead.
And so it was that we came back to our meeting at Neverland with 12-year-old Gavin.
I'd found this easily the most disturbing moment of the past eight months.
When you're talking about children, we met Gavin.
And it was a great privilege to meet Gavin, because he's had a lot of suffering in his life.
When Gavin was there, he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom.
Can you understand why people would worry about that?
Because they're ignorant.
But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child who is not related to him at all?
That's a beautiful thing.
That's not a worrying thing?
Why should it be worrying?
Who's the criminal?
Who's Jack the Ripper in the room?
This is a guy trying to help heal a child.
I'm sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor.
I gave him the bed, because he has a brother named Star.
So him and Star took the bed, and I'm on the floor in the sleeping bag.
Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?
No.
But I have slept in the bed with many children.
I sleep in the bed with all of them.
When Macaulay Culkin was little, Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay Culkin's on this side, his sister's in there.
We're all just jamming the bed.
Okay.
I mean, why do people embarrass themselves?
You listen to that and you say, oh, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
You wouldn't be saying that if he wasn't a good dancer.
If he didn't like his dancing and the way that he sings, you would not be saying that.
You would not give that kind of leeway to any other human being on Earth.
If your neighbor across the street was a 44-year-old man inviting little boys over for sleepover parties, what would you think?
Would you let your son go over?
Would you let your son... Is there any world, ever, in which you would allow your 10-year-old son to go sleep in bed with a neighbor across the street?
Of course not!
Nobody ever would.
Why?
Why?
Because you know that the chances that something horrible is happening are astronomically high.
And so you know that for every human on Earth, but you say, no, Michael Jackson was different.
Why is he?
It's even more certain in his case that he was doing something.
How could you look at Michael Jackson and say, well, no, he's the only one who would never do that.
He's the only one who would never?
How is that your judgment and not, he's like the most likely one out of all of the creepy men who sleep with kids in their bed?
It drives me crazy.
Just stop.
He's sleeping with little kids in his bed because he wants to heal them, and you buy that?
I'm not just—by the way, I'm not just yelling at the guy who left the comment.
I mean, I am yelling at you, but I'm—just everybody.
Snap out of it.
I mean, the guy's been dead now for over a decade.
Can you, like—has the spell worn off yet?
I mean, how did it not wear off the minute he started looking like You know, like some kind of undead goblin walking around.
But it didn't.
Okay, but now he really is dead.
So, you're still under this spell of there might be an appropriate reason why a man would invite boys over.
He's holding hands with a young boy there.
My God.
Come on.
Just stop.
And then, he's sharing his bed with little boys.
And then some of them come out and say, he molested me, and you still won't believe it?
Do you actually, what do you need?
Do you need to have walked into the room and witnessed it yourself?
Maybe then you would even make, still make excuses.
It just, it's mind boggling.
Here at The Daily Wire, we're doing everything we can to loosen the left's grip on culture.
We're making movies that challenge woke Hollywood narratives.
Documentaries like What Is A Woman that expose radical gender ideology.
We're creating kids' content that parents can trust.
We even sue the government over unconstitutional mandates.
It's a lot of work, and there's still a long way to go, but you can help in just two simple steps.
One, stop shaving with your razor.
Two, start shaving with Jeremy's razor.
Oh, we're doing this again.
Like, yet again... Here, we'll go through the whole process together.
They want me to hold up the razor, and yet again, it's not, the razor is not out.
So, this is actually, this is the whole kit you got.
This is the kit that I got from Jeremy's Razors.
We're gonna make this a 45 minute promo.
There's a lot of great stuff.
Is this what I'm supposed to be doing, actually?
Is going through the whole kit?
Or is it just the razor?
Oh, go through the little kit, okay.
So you get the shaving cream, which I hear shaving cream is great to use.
I wouldn't know, but you get the post-shave balm, which, hey, even if you don't shave, you can still use the post-shave balm.
That's what I always say.
And then, but the star of the show is the actual razor.
How does that work?
Oh, you have to put the razor on the end of it.
I'm learning razors along with all of you.
We're all learning this together.
And there it is.
That is Jeremy's Razors.
It is, for people who shave, the best razor you could possibly ever use.
If you're still not shaving with the Jeremy's Razors, chances are you're funding leftist ideologies.
We're building alternatives, and the left is betting their bottom billion dollars that you won't use them.
Prove them wrong.
Go to jeremysrazors.com, get your Founders Series Shave Kit today.
Daily Wire Plus members get 25% off Jeremy's Razors.
Shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, our daily cancellation today is like a Russian nesting doll of dumbness.
You start with something dumb only to find that there's something dumber inside it, and then something even dumber inside the dumber thing, and so on forever and ever into the abyss.
On final analysis, when surveying the whole web of idiocy in its entirety, you're left with something so inconceivably ridiculous that it would be too outlandish even as a Babylon B headline.
Okay?
That's how I'm setting this up, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.
We begin here as we start to peel back the layers on this onion of idiocy.
There was a group of computer programmers.
Who invented the world's first AI rapper.
Okay, so imagine Siri or Alexa if they were drug dealers and you basically get the idea here.
The robot rapper is named FN Mika and he has, over the past year or so, apparently released a number of songs despite not actually existing in physical form.
That is a handicap which has not prevented him from creating masterpieces like this one.
[MUSIC]
Okay, who knew that the singularity would be so obnoxious?
And yet, it must be admitted that FN Mika also sounds indistinguishable from most
This AI-generated song is lifeless and empty and depressing and terrible, and for that reason it's totally at home amid today's landscape of rap and pop music.
It's not that artificial intelligence has become so sophisticated, it's rather that popular music has become so atrocious.
This is the great twist ending to the story of humanity.
It's the thing that no sci-fi writer saw coming.
They all thought that computers would gain souls and become like humans, but instead humans lost their souls and became like computers.
And because most popular music is soulless and hollow, it can be supplanted by, you know, Siri's ex-con boyfriend.
Even the pop songs ostensibly created by human beings are still, for all intents and purposes, artificially generated.
The average Beyonce song has like 25 writers, and yet the lyrics sound like something Dr. Seuss might have written if he was brain damaged and addicted to crack cocaine.
There's no truth or beauty or soul in any of it, and so nothing is lost by replacing modern pop stars with actual robots.
Capitol Records certainly felt that way, which is why they signed FNMICA last week.
Gave him a record deal, making him the first non-existent person to ever obtain a record deal.
As the website Hot New Hip Hop noted at the time, the rapper is the creation of Brandon Lee
and Anthony Martini of Factory News, which is a virtual record label
that was the first to sign the robot.
Martini claims that the rapper's voice is that of a real human, but everything else about him,
from his lyrics to the chords and tempo underpinning his music, is based on AI.
FNMICA is a big sign for Capitol Records, as the virtual being has over 10 million followers
and a billion views on TikTok.
Ryan Rudin of Capitol Records describes MICA as this way, "It meets at the intersection
"of music, technology, and gaming culture.
"It's just a preview of what's to come."
Yes, a preview of what's to come.
Or so he thought.
A few days after Capitol Records had triumphantly announced its partnership with a semi-literate chatbot, the partnership had, tragically, come to an end.
FNMICA, despite not actually existing, was cancelled.
Because he used the n-word.
That's correct.
A non-existent artificial robot rapper was fired because he used a racial slur that a million actual human rappers have used a million times a day.
Stereogum reports, quote, Capital Records has severed ties with the recently signed AI rapper FN Mika, who came under intense scrutiny after clips of the project using the N-word went viral.
Social media users also surfaced an old image from Mika's Instagram showing that the rapper in a scene of police brutality.
Capital Records sent a statement, "CMG has severed ties with FM Mika, effective immediately.
We offer our deepest apologies to the black community for our insensitivity in signing this project without asking
enough questions about equity and the creative process behind it.
We thank those who have reached out to us with constructive feedback in the past couple of days.
Your input was invaluable as we came to the decision to end our association with the project."
Well, it's a good thing that they apologized to the black community.
This will come as a relief to all of the ordinary black people who were feeling deeply traumatized and emotionally burdened by the inappropriate language used by a rapping computer program.
Except, of course, that no ordinary black people were traumatized by this or even aware of it.
This was the work of brain-dead activists who complained that FNMICA was a caricature and stereotype of black culture.
And they're correct, of course.
I mean, it's exactly what it was.
Except that Most human rappers are also caricatures of black culture.
They are more cartoonish and insulting.
In their case, you would think the caricature is even more degrading because there's a human being behind it.
And if the n-word is objectionable, which it is, you would think that the offense would be all the greater when an actual flesh-and-blood human rapper utters it.
But that's not the rule as outlined in the Book of Wokeness.
According to those scriptures, the rules are pretty clear.
The N-word is a magical incantation which is empowering and positive when uttered by black people, but horrifying and dangerous when it passes through the lips of someone with a lighter skin tone.
It is a combination of syllables whose offensiveness is determined by skin pigmentation.
And if you have no skin pigmentation at all, because you have no skin because you don't exist, then you're not entitled to say the word.
And that's all there is to it.
There's no logic to this rule, there's no sense, there's no moral coherence, but there is consistency at least.
Never mind the fact that the programmers used the voice of an actual human, who happens to be black, to generate FN Mika's voice.
In fact, it's not clear to me that FN Mika actually is an AI at all.
It seems that he's essentially a computer-animated avatar voiced by an actual person.
I mean, he's not a robot any more than Buzz Lightyear or Shrek are robots.
But, I don't know, forget about all that.
Nothing needs to make sense in the world of the woke skulls.
All they know is that they are outraged.
The reasons don't matter.
And today they are outraged by a computer-animated avatar.
And that is why they, along with that avatar, are cancelled.
And that'll leave it.
And that will not end it for us.
I'll get used to this eventually.
We're going to move into our members block of the show.
And if you are not a member yet, please become one so you can join us for that segment.
