Ep. 1018 - Leftists Dance On Queen Elizabeth's Grave
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, with the death of Queen Elizabeth, the Left has taken the opportunity to rant about the evils of “colonialism.” But there is one form of colonialism still happening in the world today and it is left wing ideological colonialism. Also, Podcast Movement finally issues an apology for calling Ben Shapiro’s physical presence “harmful.” Local politicians in DC panic as illegal immigrants are shipped to their “sanctuary city.” Morning Joe tries its hand at Biblical exegesis and it doesn’t go well. In our Daily Cancellation we’ll deal with a few recent attempts by the Left to finally answer the great question of our time. All of that and more today on flannel Friday.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at jeremysrazors.com.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Bambee puts your HR on autopilot. Schedule A FREE HR Audit at www.Bambee.com/WALSH
Protect your online privacy with ExpressVPN. Get 3 Months FREE! www.ExpressVPN.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, with the death of Queen Elizabeth, the left has taken the opportunity to rant about the evils of colonialism.
But there is one form of colonialism still happening in the world today, and it is left-wing ideological colonialism.
We'll talk about that.
Also, podcast movement finally issues an apology for calling Ben Shapiro's physical presence harmful.
Local politicians in DC panic as illegal immigrants are shipped to their alleged sanctuary city.
Morning Joe tries its hand at biblical exegesis and it doesn't go well.
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with a few recent attempts by the left
to finally answer the great question of our time.
All of that and more today on Flannel Friday.
(upbeat music)
When running a business, you'll get hit with all kinds of interesting scenarios
like what are meal and break requirements that I must provide for employees?
How do I handle an employee who doesn't show up to work?
How do I improve company culture and employee engagement?
One complaint can destroy your entire company.
The problem is, though, HR managers who are meant to navigate this stuff are expensive.
They can easily cost over $80,000 per year.
But with Bambi, you get access to your own dedicated HR manager starting at just $99 a month.
All of Bambi's HR managers are based in the United States and can support the nuances across all 50 states.
Your manager is available by phone, email, real-time chat to help you effortlessly run employee onboardings and terminations, encourage good performance, And make sure that your business stays compliant with ever-changing HR regulations.
With Bambi's HR Autopilot, you can automate the most important HR practices like setting policies, training, and feedback.
In fact, Bambi clients are four times less likely to have a complaint filed against them.
So, go to Bambi.com right now and type in Matt Walsh under Podcast.
When you sign up, it'll really help the show as well.
Spelled B-A-M-B-E-E dot com.
Bambi dot com.
Type in Matt Walsh.
Queen Elizabeth, who of course passed away yesterday at the age of 96 after reigning for 70 years, was one of the last great leaders and public figures in the world.
She possessed virtues like, you know, grace, nobility, dignity, stoicism.
These are all character traits, especially those last two.
Which have all but vanished from public life.
Instead, in their place, Western nations, in particular, find themselves led by boorish morons, self-centered ignoramuses, and petulant crybabies.
And that pretty much sums them all up.
What's more, we're a civilization which denies its history and makes war against its own traditions.
That's another reason to mourn the Queen's passing.
She was an anachronism, but I mean that in a positive way, a link to the past, a reminder of how things used to be.
But are no longer.
And it's possible to appreciate all of that, even if you, like me, don't have any particular fascination with the royal family, and even if you, like me, are actually a bit perplexed by the fascination.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about British royalty, but when it comes to Queen Elizabeth, I can appreciate these facts about her.
Of course, we live in a different world now.
It's a world where people are eager to advertise their utter lack of dignity and of grace.
It's almost a virtue to not possess those things.
And there have been many such displays in response to Queen Elizabeth's death, like that from Uju Anya, a professor of—this is what she's a professor of—blackness and multilingualism at Carnegie Mellon University.
And there, Carnegie Mellon, you can spend $60,000 a year to study utterly useless subjects while having your brain assaulted and your soul pummeled by hateful, rabid ideologues like Professor Uju, who reacted to the Queen's imminent death on Thursday, before she had died, with this tweet.
I heard the chief monarch of a thieving, raping, genocidal empire is finally dying.
May her pain be excruciating.
Now the professor issued more tweets doubling down on this sentiment.
She feels absolutely morally justified in wishing excruciating pain on a dying elderly woman.
Because that dying elderly woman has committed the crime of being powerful and also white, which is the greatest crime of all.
CBS News correspondent Wesley Lowery was not quite as aggressive, but he had similar feelings, tweeting, the death of a person seen as a near deity by the white political ruling and media class, but who was also at one point the oppressive ruler of something like 30% of the global population, is going to provide an excellent example of the subjectivity of straight news reporting.
There was much discussion about colonialism, with many echoing the thoughts of German comedian Jasmina Kunke, who wrote, Dear white Europeans, you do realize that black people won't mourn when another colonizer dies.
She's old enough.
Finally let her and the whole colonial system go in peace.
There are American media figures like Eugene Scott and Jamil Hill who agree that now is the right time to talk about the sins of colonialism.
Scott tweeted, real question for the, now is not the appropriate time to talk about the negative impact of colonialism crowd, when is the appropriate time to talk about the negative impact of colonialism?
Hill had her own answer to that question.
She said, "Journalists are tasked with putting legacies into full context,
so it's entirely appropriate to examine the Queen and her role in the devastating impact of continued colonialism."
Now, it's of course absurd to call Queen Elizabeth's impact on the world
devastating.
She has, in fact, been resisting tyranny literally since she was a teenager.
Enlisting in the military during World War II at the age of 19, the royal family chose not to flee to Canada, even as the Germans bombed London, and Elizabeth herself contributed to the war effort as soon as she was old enough to do so.
As far as colonialism goes, the sort of historical colonialism that the left laments and has used Queen Elizabeth's death as a forum to whine about was neither all good nor all bad.
I mean, you can no more condemn all colonialism than you can condemn all war.
Terrible atrocities occur in times of war, but so do acts of heroism and sacrifice.
There are wars waged for good reasons and bad reasons, and many other wars whose motivations fall somewhere in between.
In the case of colonialism, the fact remains that, from a broad historical perspective, Western civilization and its freedoms and luxuries and rights and comforts and benefits would not exist without it.
Now, the left would probably agree with that sentiment, but then they would claim that, well, that's proof that the West is inherently evil.
And yet those same people choose to live here even so, feasting on the fruits of a tree which they claim is evil at its root.
Which only goes to show that judging the impact of so-called colonialism is not nearly as simple as its critics pretend.
It has had many effects that they themselves enjoy, if not appreciate.
The discussion about colonialism also ignores the fact that there were empires all across the globe and all throughout history who practiced their own version of it.
The whole world was shaped this way, and if colonialism is an abject, straightforward evil, which I deny, and if we can inherit its guilt through our blood, you know, which I also deny, we would all share that guilt.
To the point where it makes no sense to dwell on it.
But here we are again talking about historical colonialism.
And that's the kind that no longer exists.
There is, however, another form of the practice.
The modern form.
And the irony is that the people who spend the most time screaming about the colonialist practices of 70 years ago or 300 years ago have nothing at all to say about the sort of colonialism perpetrated by Western cultures today.
In fact, if they do have anything to say about it, they will speak up in defense of it.
That's because the only sort of colonialism still carried out by Western nations in modern times is left-wing ideological colonialism.
Historical colonialism had its bad moments.
This left-wing ideological version, on the other hand, is all bad, through and through.
It is the attempt to export, by force, blackmail, bribery, political pressure, or other forms of coercion, left-wing cultural ideas and priorities to people and cultures and countries that do not want them.
It just so happens that CNN, only a few days ago, provided us with a striking example of just this sort of thing.
CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour had an interview with William Routteau, who is the president-elect of Kenya.
Now, I didn't initially see the clips of this interview online.
I only became aware of the exchange because the Sweet Baby Gang in Kenya, which is, it turns out, a sizable community, I'm pleased to discover, they watched it and they alerted me to it.
And I'm glad they did because this whole exchange, especially in light of this colonialism conversation, is quite instructive.
Watch.
I want to talk to you about a specific human rights situation in parts of Africa and including in your own country.
You yourself gained worldwide attention a few years ago when you said there was, quote, no room for homosexuality in Kenyan society.
I want to know whether you still stand by that.
We have Kenyan law.
We have Kenyan constitution.
We have our tradition.
We have our customs.
We will continue to respect other people's customs as they respect our customs and our tradition.
I am very clear that we respect everybody and what they believe in, but we also have what we believe in and we expect to be respected for what we believe in.
So before I ask you to flesh that out and what exactly does it mean, I want to play you what President Kenyatta said to me about this issue.
I will not engage in a subject that is of no, it is not of any major importance to the people and the Republic of Kenya.
This is not an issue, as you would want to put it, of human rights.
This is an issue of society, of our own base as a culture, as a people.
Regardless of which community you come from, this is not acceptable.
This is not agreeable.
Now what we've seen...
Here so far are two leading figures in Kenya trying to explain Kenyan culture to an outsider.
They're both quite patient and gracious, which doesn't surprise me at all based on my own experience in the country.
You know, I went there with my own very stupid questions, much like the stupid questions Amanpour is asking, and everyone I talked to was very kind and accommodating, in spite of how idiotic the line of questioning was.
But Amanpour continues to press the issue, so let's keep watching.
So he's basically saying homosexuality is not agreeable.
You've just said that you're kind of trying to thread the needle, that the law says one thing, but you respect everybody's rights.
Will a Ruto administration crack down, like many other leaders in Africa, on the homosexual LGBTQ community?
Or will you allow them their human rights and their civil rights?
I think on that subject, President Kenyatta was spot on.
We do not want to create a mountain out of a molehill.
This is not a big issue for the people of Kenya.
When it becomes a big issue for the people of Kenya, the people of Kenya will make a choice.
As it is now, we are grappling with five million young people who do not have jobs, Four million people who are hungry, and that is my concern.
That is the focus of the people of Kenya at the moment.
When the issue you have discussed about homosexuality and the rights of LGBT will come, the people of Kenya will make a choice, and we will respect the choice of the people of Kenya.
For now, Christiane Amanpour, let us focus on the real issues that affect our people.
As you know, Mr. President, with respect, these are real issues that affect so many people around the world.
But we will hold you to what you said and we'll come back to you if the situation requires it, which probably it will.
Well, watch out.
Kenya, Christiane Amanpour, she's going to hold you to this.
And she's going to tell you what issues matter to your country.
Now, I think Mr. Routteau was very clear in his response, leaving no room for confusion, but for the benefit of Christiane Amanpour, I will summarize.
First of all, as both Routteau and Kenyatta tried to explain, Kenyan culture doesn't recognize any sort of inherent human right to have whatever kind of sex you want to have.
Now, it may seem unthinkable to the modern Western mind That Kenyans don't believe in that kind of right, that is, the right to have sex however you want.
It may be unthinkable.
You may not be able to get your mind around it.
It may shock you and offend you.
But that's the reality.
In fact, very few cultures in the world, or in the history of the world, recognize that right, the right to sex.
is a very modern, very, very Western construct.
We just came up with it last Tuesday, basically, and the rest of the world doesn't feel any particular urgency to adopt it themselves.
They just don't.
That's it.
Second, even more to the point, the entire issue is not relevant to Kenyan society.
There are millions of people in Kenya living in abject poverty, starving to death.
People don't have enough food to eat.
Families who live in shacks made out of spare sheet metal and who, if they become ill, can only go to a hospital in a shack similar to the one they live in except with the word hospital spray-painted and graffiti on the side.
Now, not all of Kenya looks like that, but it's a reality for a large portion of the country.
So they're not worried about LGBT issues.
They're not worried about a lot of the issues that we're worried about here, because they don't have the luxury or the time to worry about it.
Now, Ruto is trying his best to communicate this.
If he were less patient, if he were more like me, he would have simply shouted, Hey, lady, our people are starving to death.
We don't have time for this.
Now piss off and leave me alone, you weirdo.
But this is how ideological colonialism works.
The leftist colonizer demands that her values must be adopted by people and cultures thousands of miles away.
She insists that societies she has no stake in and countries she has never even visited must conform themselves to her own proclivities.
She demands that people she doesn't know and has never met or even shared a continent with must adopt and live by her list of priorities.
And she does all this while also claiming, by the way, to be an advocate for democracy.
Well, you just heard the answer there.
Well, the people of Kenya will decide, and if we decide that we care about this issue, then we'll care about it, and if not, we don't.
I mean, if you believe in democracy, then that should be a good answer for you, but apparently not.
This is the official policy, not just of nosy journalists like Amanpour, but of the American government, which is why we gallivant across the globe waving the rainbow flag in everybody's face.
Meanwhile, the very people demanding ideological conformity from foreign cultures also claim to be advocates of multiculturalism.
That's all a ruse, as we have seen.
They don't want multiculturalism.
Not anywhere close to that.
They want uniculturalism.
They want one culture, one society, one set of priorities adopted by people of different races and ethnicities all across the world.
That's what they want.
Their ultimate vision of diversity and multiculturalism is a room full of people of varying skin pigmentations and ethnic backgrounds, all speaking in unison, reading off of a script written by their left-wing overlords.
That's colonialism.
That's what it looks like in the modern world.
And it is, in many ways, far worse than any form of colonialism that came before it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Big tech literally feeds on your information, like parasites.
Sure, maybe they'll release a feature now and then that does some good, but collecting and selling off your data is big tech's, that's their MO, it's in their nature.
They can't stop themselves from looking at what you do online to protect Myself, then, against big tech's prying eyes, I use ExpressVPN.
When you use ExpressVPN on your computer or phone, you're hiding your unique IP address.
Websites can't use that address to find out your real location or track what you do online.
ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes 100% of your online activities, so your internet provider, Wi-Fi administrator, and hackers can't see it at all.
And ExpressVPN is incredibly easy to use.
It takes just one click to protect all of your devices.
One ExpressVPN subscription covers up to five devices at the same time, so you can protect your entire family at the same time.
That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET, Wired, TechRadar, and countless others.
Get the VPN that I trust to protect my online privacy from big, bad tech.
Visit expressvpn.com slash walsh and you can get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com/walsh to learn more.
Well, happy Flannel Friday, everybody.
This, for now, is the compromise we have reached after weeks of intense negotiations.
The pro-flannel and anti-flannel factions on the verge of violent hostilities were able
to come to this tenuous peace agreement wherein I will wear my flannels on Friday.
But what I want you to know is that this is not just for me.
I tell you, my vision is that Flannel Friday will not be just me.
This is for the whole Sweet Baby gang.
This is for, indeed, the whole world to take part in.
I want Flannel Friday to be something that we can all Take part in it and enjoy it.
I hope that it stands as a symbol of unity and peace for the entire globe.
So we should all wear our flannels on Fridays and tell our friends and our families about it and tweet about it with hashtag Flannel Friday and shout from the rooftops and the rafters.
Because Flannel Friday is a movement, ladies and gentlemen.
What the hell am I babbling about?
That's another good question.
Here's an update on something we just talked about in the opening monologue.
There's a little bit more to this story.
From Daily Wire it says, Carnegie Mellon University condemned a professor on Thursday who called for the death of Queen Elizabeth to be excruciatingly painful, saying that the professor's tweet was offensive and objectionable.
And then so we know we read what she's what she tweeted already and the university said in a statement We do not condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social media account.
Free expression is core to the mission of higher education.
However, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster.
Now that's all nice and good and These days it's like somewhat impressive that they at least did that much because we know that usually there's no accountability whatsoever for anybody on the left.
They can say whatever they want.
So they condemned it and they condemned it and they, you know, even by name, fine.
But really what they should be doing, we should not be satisfied with this.
We should be, what we should be demanding, and I know some people are demanding and they're right to demand it, is that she be fired.
Okay, yes, it's right-wing cancel culture, sure, whatever you want to call that, sure.
Yeah, she should be canceled, absolutely.
You're a professor.
Okay, it's not like she works at Walmart or something like that.
She's a professor, which means that she's in charge of educating people, and this is the kind of thing that she's saying publicly?
It's an embarrassment to the institution that you work for.
And it would make any thinking person very hesitant to send their kids to that institution.
These are the kinds of... I'm going to spend $60,000 a year for my kids to be taught by people like this?
And by the way, I didn't even read.
I mean, I could go down.
She wasn't just that tweet.
It wasn't just that.
Like I said, she doubled down on it and she was responding to people criticizing her in very vulgar, disgusting ways that I can't even read to you.
You can go look it up if you want to.
This woman is like, she has the maturity of a 12-year-old and a moral insight much worse than that.
It would make sense for the institution to fire her.
That's what they ought to do.
People like this should lose their jobs.
And we shouldn't be hesitant or shy about calling for that, you know, lest we be accused of cancel culture or anything else.
Kind of on the same subject here.
This is on the Daily Wire.
It says, the media trade association that vilified Ben Shapiro last month for simply appearing at a recent trade show apologized on Thursday, saying its treatment of the Daily Wire star wasn't right.
Podcast movement, the industry's biggest trade group and host of annual conferences that bring together top media companies.
...said in a statement that it was wrong to claim that Shapiro's presence at its recent Dallas show caused harm.
The media culprit came after The Daily Wire and media giant Cumulus.
Both vowed to end their support for the organization.
So the statement said, as we stated, we're continuing to evaluate our priorities, policies, rather, guiding social media and events with inclusivity, diversity, and respect for all.
We have to start by sincerely apologizing to Mr. Shapiro for our reaction when he visited a booth that we sold his company.
That wasn't right.
Podcast movement began in 2014 with four podcasters who had an idea to create a vibrant community that was for podcasters by podcasters.
We're still those people with the same idea and recognize there's work to do as we grow.
Day the Wire co-founder Jeremy Boring, who at the company's recent backstage event had blasted podcast movement for unadulterated bigotry, said, Jeremy's being very gracious here.
I rarely admit when they do wrong, particularly on the left where every cultural indicator reinforces your error.
Podcast Movement did the right thing with this apology.
Co-founder Dan Franks also called me to make clear their treatment of Ben was unacceptable. Good on them.
Jeremy's being very gracious here.
I am a slightly less gracious person in general, so...
Yeah, it's an apology.
It's the right thing to do.
So, you know, kind of like Carnegie Mellon responding to their professor and the horrible thing.
She said, yeah, it's the right thing to respond to it.
But, you know, to me it's not quite enough.
And especially with podcast movement, yeah, they gave the apology.
This is like two weeks later, three weeks later, two weeks later.
And they're only doing it because they had no other choice.
I mean, they tried everything they could to avoid apologizing.
But then, once Cumulus got on board, and there were more companies, you know, having our back on this thing, as they should, they had a podcast with us, like, well, what choice do they have?
If you want to have a podcast conference, a podcast organization, and you lose Daily Wire, and you lose Cumulus, you start losing all of the biggest podcasts and companies, well, then your company is gone.
So they have no choice, and they very begrudgingly finally apologized as an act of sheer self-preservation.
Fine.
I'm glad they did.
But I am certainly not at all convinced that this was something that they did because they really feel that they were wrong and they're trying to make amends or whatever.
All right, let's go to this.
Another report from the Daily Wire says a sitting member of the Washington, D.C.
City Council blamed Texas and Arizona Thursday for an influx of immigrants stressing Washington's social services.
D.C.
Councilwoman Breanne Nadeau pointed the finger at the two border states, both run by Republican governors, claiming that they turned Washington into a border town.
God forbid.
Let's listen to some of that.
It's been said, but it's worth reiterating, that the governors of Texas and Arizona have created this crisis.
And the federal government has not stepped up to assist the District of Columbia.
So we, along with our regional partners, will do what we've always done.
We'll rise to the occasion.
We've learned from border towns like El Paso and Brownsville.
And in many ways, the governors of Texas and Arizona have turned us into a border town.
We don't know how long this will take to resolve, we don't know how long they will continue busing, and so the right thing to do here is to be prepared to ensure we can greet every bus, we can get people off on the right foot, we can get them where they want to go, and that will ultimately help them.
Oh, God forbid!
They've turned us into a border town!
We don't want to be one of those.
Now of course that's not even close to true.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you can fact check me on this.
I'm quite certain in saying that the influx of illegal immigrants to Washington, D.C.
or to any of the other cities where they're being shipped off to Chicago.
It doesn't even come close.
It's barely a fraction of what actual border towns are dealing with.
You know, like a tenth or less than that.
So, no, they haven't been turned into a border town.
If they think it's bad now...
That if they were actually turned into it, but if they had to deal with the flow of illegal immigrants anywhere near the scale that real, that actual border towns have to deal with it, then they would be, they'd be panicking much more than they are now.
But as I, as I said when a couple days ago we were listening to, I think it was the, I think in fact, yeah, it was the mayor of Chicago, Lightfoot, Complaining about Governor Abbott for sending illegal immigrants to her, even though they opened their arms and they said, we're a sanctuary city.
All that Texas and Arizona are doing is saying, well, you're a sanctuary.
So don't you want, you said you're a sanctuary.
Don't you, so we're sending people to the sanctuary that you've set up.
Oh, well, you don't actually want them though.
So you wanted, you wanted the virtue signal.
You want to be able to say that about yourself.
You want it to be able to say, we're a sanctuary city, without actually having to deal with the everyday reality and all of the challenges and problems, not to mention crime that comes with it when you have all these people being shipped to you.
Right, I get it now.
This is how the ruling regime works.
Everything about this perfectly illustrates leftist elites and how they function.
Where they want to be able to stand off at a distance, And make proclamations and suggest policies, impose policies, that are utterly disastrous, catastrophic, and cause untold human misery.
But they don't want to have to experience any of that.
So they're... This is left-wing compassion for you.
Left-wing compassion is that they support actions that cause suffering that they don't have to experience.
Their compassion is forcing you to be compassionate.
It's like coming up with things that they think a compassionate person should do and forcing you to do it because they're not going to do it.
Right?
The compassionate, the right compassionate thing is to defund the police, to get rid of law enforcement, to stop enforcing the law, to let criminals out of jail.
That's the compassionate thing.
And so they're going to do that in, especially in neighborhoods and towns where they don't live.
But they're in their gated communities and they've got armed security and all the rest of it.
That, of course, is not compassion.
I mean, true compassion... You know what compassion means?
Compassion is, if you follow the etymology of the word, the actual meaning of the word, It means, you know, co-suffering is what it means.
Compassion, co-suffering.
So, when you're compassionate, you are taking on the suffering of someone else.
You are taking part in their suffering.
You're suffering alongside them.
You're relieving their suffering and taking some of it upon yourself.
That's why, as Christians, we would say the ultimate act of compassion in human history was Jesus Christ dying on the cross, taking on the suffering of all mankind caused by our sin.
That's why we call it the passion of the Christ, right?
But that's what compassion is, and that's what we're all called to do on a much smaller scale.
But that means that you're doing it.
You yourself are taking on that suffering.
But if you're calling for a policy or for something to happen and hoping that all the suffering is felt by people who are not you, then by definition that is not compassion.
That's indifference.
Which is essentially the opposite.
Speaking of the Bible and Jesus, here's Morning Joe offering some insightful exegesis of his own.
Let's listen to that.
As a Southern Baptist, I grew up reading the Bible.
Maybe a backslidden Baptist, but I still know the Bible.
Jesus never once talked about abortion.
Never once.
And it was happening back in ancient times.
It was happening during His time.
Never once mentioned it.
And for people perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ down to one issue, it's heresy.
Go, if you don't believe me, if that makes you angry, why don't you do something you haven't done in a long time?
Open the Bible, open the New Testament, read the red letters.
You won't see it there.
And yet there are people who are using Jesus as a shield to make 10-year-old rape girls go through a living and breathing hell here on Earth.
They've also conveniently overlooked the parts ...of the New Testament, where Jesus talks about taking care of the needy, taking care of those who are helpless, who live a hopeless life.
Because they believe, these state legislators believe, that life begins at fertilization and ends at childbirth.
And, Katty, what a powerful message yesterday.
Yes, powerful, just a powerful straw man there.
Every single part of that was a straw man.
And, you know, leftists, they really think that they're onto something here.
They always think that this is some sort of gotcha.
Well, you see, Jesus doesn't mention abortion.
There you go!
A couple points about that.
First of all, abortion is the killing of innocent human life.
And the Bible does, in fact, forbid that.
Forbids that all across the Old and New Testament.
Forbids it in the Ten Commandments.
Jesus forbids it.
Okay, these things are explicitly forbidden.
Violence against the innocent, harming the innocent.
Actually, what Jesus says is that—and he specifies it for children, too.
He says that if you're going to harm a child, it would be better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and to be drowned in the sea.
That's how strong Jesus felt about it.
One of the many statements that if Jesus had never said that, or even though he had, still, today, if a Christian goes around speaking in terms as strong as that, they'll be like, well, that's un-Christ-like.
You're saying that it'd be better for someone to have a stone hung around their neck and be drowned in the sea?
That's violent and terrible and un-Christ-like.
No, it's literally Christ-like because that's literally what he said.
And it is literal.
Like, it would be better for you, if you're going to harm a child, it would actually be better for you to just drown yourself.
So, yes, both the Bible forbids abortion, broadly speaking, and so does Jesus, because harming the innocent is forbidden.
Does it specify that—is there any point where it says, hey, by the way, to all you modern readers, when we say don't kill innocent people, we include babies in that?
No, it doesn't say that.
It shouldn't need to say that.
In fact, it doesn't—when we are forbidden from murdering, it rarely specifies groups of people because we're supposed to understand that it applies to everyone.
Okay, it also doesn't say that, it says don't murder people, it never says that you can't murder a middle-aged woman, or a teenage boy, or someone who's 90 years old.
It never specifies any stage of human development, or any age group, because it applies to all of them.
And if you're not brain-dead, you should already know that.
Like, it should be—you shouldn't have to ask the question.
If somebody says to you—if God says to you, as he says to us in Scripture, don't murder people, you shouldn't need the follow-up question of, oh, sorry, Lord.
Does that include babies?
Are they—oh, we can't murder them either.
Okay, thanks.
Did you really need that specified for you?
But here's the other problem.
If you need—if you need these kinds of very specific Rules laid out for you.
Or if you think that Jesus was supposed to specifically mention every issue that we deal with today, well, that's a problem for the left, isn't it?
Because, especially if they want to bring the Bible up, I mean, once again, what have I told you before?
When the Bible is brought into a discussion about abortion especially, it is 9 times out of 10, or maybe 9.9 times out of 10, someone on the left who brings it up.
So they are the ones constantly bringing religion and the Bible and Jesus into not just the abortion conversation, but any conversation about a social issue.
They constantly bring that in, and then they accuse us of basing our entire point of view on the Bible and religion.
Well, you're only saying that because of the Bible.
You're only saying that because of religion.
So, you know, on one hand, We only are saying this because we're following the Bible, as if that would be a bad thing anyway.
But then on the other hand, the Bible doesn't say that.
It's very confused.
But the point is this.
The left tells us that trans people have always existed.
You know, transgenderism.
The fact that we're seeing this skyrocketing rise in transgender identification in modern times, that's not any social contagion.
It's not because people are being indoctrinated or groomed or anything like that, they claim.
It's because, well, this many trans people have always existed.
It's just that they were, you know, they didn't feel comfortable identifying themselves as such.
Well, it means that trans people existed in Jesus' time, and yet Jesus never says anything about trans rights.
Never says anything about it.
Actually, one of the very first things we're told in the Bible is that God created us male and female.
There's no mention of any other category.
There's no indication anywhere that a man can be a woman.
So by Joe Scarborough's logic, trans rights, out the window.
Jesus never says it.
You know what else he doesn't mention?
He doesn't mention gay rights.
Quite the opposite, actually.
And he also, Jesus also never mentions plenty of things that we should all agree are bad, like he never specifically condemns slavery as an institution.
He never specifically condemns Child pornography or rape.
Now, does that mean that we as Christians should endorse all of those things or be indifferent or not have an opinion?
Does it mean that Jesus endorsed them?
No, obviously not.
Because Jesus didn't come to earth to just provide a list of every single bad thing we shouldn't do.
But we are given commandments and principles and moral teachings.
Which we are then supposed to apply to all of these situations and all of these issues.
And if you take the moral teachings that we are given by Jesus, and you apply them to slavery, child pornography, rape, you can easily see that according to these principles, those things are horrific evils.
We also recognize it as a matter of natural law.
We inherently recognize it.
It's written on our heart.
And the same thing goes for abortion.
Alright, maybe we'll do one more thing here if I can scroll down to it.
Okay, this is important.
So, the new Pinocchio movie starring Tom Hanks comes out today, I believe, and it's actually the second Pinocchio film of the year.
For some reason they make, there's been like 46 versions of this story, but the film, this one stars Tom Hanks, produced by Disney, and it's essentially a shot-for-shot remake of the Disney cartoon version, except, um, This one is live-action.
Live-action except for Pinocchio himself, of course, who's still like a cartoon because they couldn't find a live-action talking puppet who moves on its own.
Anyway, it's getting trashed by critics.
30-some percent critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
The audience hates it, too.
The audience reviews aren't much better.
Total thrashing across the board.
We haven't yet been told that it's because of racism, but I'm waiting for that to happen.
Because I think there is.
They did add They did add a black character into the film, like a character that didn't even exist.
It wasn't just changing one of the characters to make them black, but they added a character, I think, in this version of Pinocchio, a black woman who appears and pops up throughout.
And so, maybe that will be their excuse.
Once this thing does terribly and everyone hates it, they're going to say, oh, it's only because of racism.
It's because you didn't like that character.
The review in The Telegraph gives it one star.
Reading some of it says, When Gus Van Sant directed a shot-by-shot replica of Psycho in 1998, the exercise was widely decried as a cash-in.
Perhaps if he'd waited 20 more years, he would have been hailed as a marketing genius.
Disney's latest live-action remake of a classic from the studio's Animation Vault even looks like a business calculation before you press play.
Rather than playing in theaters, it's going straight online as a free-to-view enticement to Disney Plus subscribers.
The company has been criticized for releasing films directly onto their streaming service.
The sheer hawkish expediency of it seemed to reduce the ravishingly crafted likes of Pixar's Soul and Turning Red to mere time-passing content.
But content is the only appropriate term for this garish, dead-eyed exercise which recreates the 1940 masterpiece largely scene for scene, albeit with a handful of instantly forgettable minor detours.
Pinocchio is now assisted on and off by a young female puppeteer slash ballerina, for instance, presumably to help redress the story's gender balance.
So I think that's the black character that was added in.
Which means that this review is horribly racist.
You have to like the film now.
But here's the point.
I bring this up because I really think that this is the worst thing Disney is doing right now.
And...
Maybe the best argument for ditching Disney and all of these movie studios.
Well, it's not quite as bad as the woke stuff and child grooming, but it's pretty bad.
And it's all connected anyway, because the whole point, or part of the point, of these remakes is to woke-ify the films.
They are corrections, they're correctives, taking out the quote-unquote problematic aspects of the stories and replacing it with something that is more palatable for modern people.
But even without the woke stuff, it's still just an abomination.
I mean, Disney is so bereft.
of ideas, so totally devoid of creativity, that now they're simply going through their old catalog and producing the exact same films again, except this time without the charm or originality or personality.
It's not even a remake.
When you think of a remake, you think of, well, taking a film and we're going to tell the same basic story, but it's going to be a new take on an old story.
That's what a remake is.
And in that sense, a lot of these old classic Disney films were already remakes because they were taking stories that already existed and had been told in different versions, sometimes for centuries, and they were kind of giving their spin on it.
But that's not what this is.
This is just like a total, absolute recreation of what already existed, except without any originality, no personality.
This is what happens when art is dead in a culture.
What you're left with are these lifeless, And the premise is ridiculous.
Like, oh, let's do a live-action version.
As if the lack of realism in the first version was a problem?
No, it wasn't.
I mean, it's actually absurd to do a realistic version of a movie about a puppet who comes to life, or a realistic version of a movie about a singing mermaid, or a blue genie who lives in a lamp.
Let's have that, but make it realistic this time.
Think about the Lion King remake.
Which I think the Lion King remake is maybe Hollywood's greatest abomination of all time.
You're taking this cartoon that only came out 20 years ago, 25 years ago, calling it a live-action remake, which of course it isn't, because it still is starring talking lions and there are no real ones, so it's still animation.
But we're going to take this cartoon and we're going to do it again, shot for shot, and it's still going to be a cartoon, but this time it's going to look realistic.
Except that now, now you've got realistic looking lions going around singing and talking to each other.
It just looks, what before was cute and creative and had charm and personality, now just looks weird and awkward and bizarre.
So the cartoon is part of the art.
And so what they're saying now is, let's do it again without the art.
Let's try this piece of art, but take out the art and see what happens.
What you're left with is something totally empty and lifeless.
Let's get to the comment section.
That's why the DW doesn't use YouTube or Twitter.
That's why Matt and Shapiro don't have Twitter pages.
You guys use those tools to get large and a lot of us have no other options if we want to do something similar to what DW does.
I don't use a lot of these companies that express views like this, but when you turn around and see large conservative companies using them while telling us not to, what is a woman was great.
There's nothing offensive in there except for the people you interview who are hard to stomach.
Well, I've actually never said that you shouldn't use Twitter or YouTube or Facebook or Instagram or whatever.
I have said the opposite pretty consistently.
I think that if you can use those platforms To amplify a message of truth and rationality and morality.
If you can do that, then absolutely you should.
Use the platforms to undermine the ideological agenda of the people who run them.
I think that's a good thing to do.
We should be doing that.
I am against This idea that conservatives should remove themselves from all these platforms and then go gather in these kind of conservative ghettos of these like other social media platforms that are made just for conservatives, where no one's paying attention, it's not relevant, no one cares what you say there, it's an echo chamber.
And not only is it like not nearly as fun when there's nobody to argue with, but also it's just there's no cultural purchase there, there's no relevance.
So I'm against that.
I think that it's a good idea to be on these platforms and to use that to spread a message, as long as we can.
Now, if you get to the point on a platform where you simply can't speak the truth anymore, it's not allowed, and the only way to stay there is to abandon the truth, well then we shouldn't be on the platforms anymore.
But we're not quite there yet.
I mean, for instance, I can What is a woman?
One of the reasons why What is a Woman was so successful and so many people saw it is that we were able to use these social media platforms to promote it.
Which is a good thing because then people were exposed to it or otherwise wouldn't have been.
So that's the issue.
I think when we talk about boycotts and conservatives not, you know, patronizing these woke companies, I think that in particular applies to products, services, content, whatever, where all we are is consumers.
It's not a platform that we're using to spread a message, it's just something that we're consuming, and that's it.
And especially where there are other options.
So we could become consumers of this woke company, or in fact we could go somewhere else.
There's actually another option.
It might take a little bit of time to find it, but they are there.
So that's what I'm talking about.
Now, Eventbrite, it kind of falls in between, I'll admit.
It's not just a product or something that we're consuming.
It is a platform.
It could be a useful thing for getting out a conservative message.
Except that now, apparently, you can't.
So are we going to keep using it?
That's the point.
Giga Sniper says, Matt, I took someone out on a date to watch What Is A Woman.
My date told me I should start dressing like you, and that look is extremely manly.
The flannels must return for the sake of us men.
We need a strong, manly-fit figure to lead us, not erase us.
Well, I'm here at least on Fridays.
You have that.
Until Flannel Friday becomes Flannel Thursday and Wednesday.
It could happen.
Courtney Gross says, Matt, if you want a great kids show, you need to watch Bluey.
Yes, it's on Disney, but I have not yet yet come across anything that I'm worried about regarding leftist agenda propaganda.
Its characters are cute.
I find myself cracking up at the humorous ways the parents handle their two puppies.
I love it, and I think you will too.
Yeah, I've heard of Bluey, but wasn't there a woke thing with Bluey?
I don't know this, but I seem to remember there being some Some recent story about wokeness injected into this bluey show.
I could be wrong, but it's something to look into.
Mark says, Matt, a few days ago on your show, you seemed to call into question the notion of Christian forgiveness.
I appreciate you and your show, but you do not know more than Jesus Christ.
Humble yourself, brother, and remember who's in charge.
I don't claim to know more than Jesus, but I do know what Jesus said, and I know that he calls on us to forgive those who persecute us.
Right?
You are, much like with compassion, this is you taking on the suffering of another.
If you're making someone else take on the suffering, it's not compassion.
Same thing with forgiveness.
You are called to forgive offenses committed against you.
If your brother offends you, you should forgive him seven times, seven times, seven times, and so on, right?
If he offends you, But if it isn't you that's suffering the persecution or the harm, then it's not up to you to forgive it.
And that was my point on bringing this up a few days ago, is that sometimes Christians will use forgiveness as a cover for what is really indifference or cowardice, because they don't want to get involved in a situation, so instead they say, or there's some sort of evil going on that they don't want to denounce, and so instead they say, I forgive.
I forgive the person committing this evil.
It's not up for you to forgive.
Someone else is falling victim to it.
I think a particular example where this came up was the kids who are being mutilated and butchered by the gender affirmers.
Well, it's not good enough for you to say, I forgive my enemies, I forgive them.
It's not you being mutilated and butchered, it's the kids.
So your forgiveness is worthless in that case.
What does that even mean?
It's like if someone stole your car and you were upset about it, and I came up to you and I patted you on the shoulder and I said, hey man, listen, I forgive the person who did this to you.
What?
Of course, yeah, that's easy for you to do.
This doesn't concern you.
That is, at best, a very cheap forgiveness, where you are not harmed, you are not concerned, you were not persecuted, someone else was, but you forgive them.
Now, as I said, to me, that's not forgiveness, that's indifference, and there's certainly a difference.
Well, if you thought the Walrus Gate emotional rollercoaster wasn't wild enough, I'm here to add.
To the loops and corkscrews that tug violently at the heartstrings, I've received a letter from one of the littlest members of the Sweet Baby Gang, who, as I'm sure you can imagine, is one of the millions of children traumatized by the grave hostage situation involving my giant walrus.
I'll let the child's solemn letter speak for itself, but I know that he speaks on behalf of all mankind and all walruskind.
So this is a real—it's actually a real letter, right?
It was actually sent to us?
It is real.
Dear Mr. Matt, I like your book.
I hope Mr. Ben gives you your walrus back.
From Eliana and my mom.
From the mouth of babes.
Okay, this is a child has spoken out.
Even the children are crying out.
There you have it.
How far must this go?
How long must I be tormented?
How many children must be affected?
Think of the children.
I still have not, nor may I ever, receive my walrus, but that should never stop you from getting yours anyway.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop to bring home your own Johnny the Walrus plushie, and maybe we can all make this little sweet baby and I's dream come true.
Also!
Here's The Daily Wire.
We're doing everything we can to loosen the left's grip on the 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 sued the government over unconstitutional mandates.
We're doing a lot.
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 woke razor.
to start shaving with Jeremy's razors.
Hang on.
There we go.
If you're still not shaving with a Jeremy's Razors, chances are you're funding left-wing agendas.
We're building alternatives.
We're making razors.
And the left is betting their bottom billion dollars that you won't use those alternatives.
Prove them wrong.
Go to jeremysrazors.com.
Get your Founders Series Shave Kit today.
Daily Wire Plus members get 25% off.
That's what you're getting.
Jeremy's Razors.
Shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, even as big tech continues to conspire to suppress my documentary, What Is A Woman, most recently with Eventbrite's decision to ban all screening events and watch parties from their platform, still the ideas from the film and the question, the ultimate question, are out there.
Nothing can be done now to stop that.
In fact, the left is finally beginning to realize that they must come up with some kind of answer.
They can't dodge it forever.
That's why today for our Daily Cancellation, I'm going to take a look at two of the most recent attempts to answer, and if not answer, then at least handle the great question of our time, what is a woman?
So we begin with a man named Matt Ho, who is running for Senate in North Carolina on the Green Party platform.
Matt was very proud of himself a few days ago when he tweeted this, quote, Today I got my first what is a woman question.
Before I could say anything, my campaign manager replied, F off, transphobe.
There was no reason to say anything else.
Hashtag F off transphobe.
Hashtag trans rights are human rights.
Now, as a Green Party candidate, I must admit it takes some guts to alienate 50% of your electoral base by cussing out one person.
Still, it's a rather sad thing to see a grown man proud of the fact that he had to dodge a question that my three-year-old could answer.
Perhaps next he'll brag about the time when someone asked him whether the Earth is flat or round, and he responded by bursting into tears and running out of the room.
I mean, these are moments of true courage, right?
Now, I tried to explain to Matt that F-off is not exactly a sufficient answer to the question, and to his credit, he did give another attempt to actually answer it.
Less to his credit, his second attempt is arguably even dumber than his first.
A few hours later, he tweeted this.
For all the people demanding an answer as to what is a woman, a woman is a person who identifies as an adult female.
Hashtag trans rights are human rights.
Now look, in a certain sense, this is progress.
At least he's not attempting to define the word woman by using the word woman.
And yet this definition has its own very significant problems.
Because a female person is a human being who is of the nature to bear offspring and who produces ova, which are female gametes or reproductive cells.
So if someone identifies as female, then they are identifying as a human capable of bearing offspring and producing ova.
But a male who identifies as producing ova still cannot produce ova.
He produces sperm, which are male gametes.
No matter how he feels, or what he says, or how he identifies, he will produce male reproductive cells all the same.
Therefore, identifying as female when you're male is no different in kind than identifying as seven feet tall when you're actually five and a half feet tall.
So what Matt is claiming is that there is basically no difference, definitionally, between an actual seven foot tall human being and a human being who's a foot and a half shorter, but views themselves as equal in height to the seven foot person.
But that's nonsense.
I mean, if it's true that females are females, but then males can be females too, that means that females effectively don't exist.
And if they don't exist, then it doesn't make any sense to identify as one.
You can only identify as that which can be defined.
But if it can't be defined, or rather if it can be defined, then there must be a physical reality against which your self-identification can be judged accurate or inaccurate.
So, if females exist, then males cannot be females.
And if females do not exist, then males also cannot be females.
So no matter what you do, males cannot be females.
And Matt Ho is left up a creek without a paddle.
And nobody is even sending a search party for him because nobody will know that he's missing because he's a Green Party candidate.
It's a terrible situation all around.
But if a politician on Twitter can't solve the riddle, maybe somebody on TikTok can.
There's a video going around, recently gone viral, from a user called Circus Pork Roast, who, I mean, that's her username, who believes that she has finally, once and for all, come up with the answer to the dreaded question.
Let's listen.
I keep seeing all these clips from the Matt Walsh documentary, What is a Woman?, where he asks these gender studies experts, what is a woman?
And then when they give him these long, carefully thought out answers that delve into the identity and the complexities of, you know, the label of woman.
He basically mocks them for not being able to give him, like, a short, concise, biologically truthful answer.
If you've watched any of these clips and you yourself have wondered, I don't understand why they can't just give, like, a simple answer.
Like, it's such a simple question.
I'm going to compare it to something else, and I'm going to ask you this question.
What is a mother?
Can you tell me that in one sentence?
Yes, I can.
Thank you for asking.
Mother is a term that describes a woman's relationship to her children.
There you go.
That's what it means.
Hopefully we can all move on with our lives now, but I suspect that's not the case.
And you might say, oh, well, obviously a mother is someone who has given birth and then raised children.
Um, but it's actually a lot more complicated than that, right?
Um, because yes, there are mothers who were pregnant and gave birth to children and then raised those children.
And we all agree those are mothers.
But there's also people who adopted children.
They didn't give birth, they were never pregnant, but we still consider them to be mothers because they take on the societal role of mother and they accept that as their role.
And then there's also people who gave birth and then gave those children up for adoption and wanted nothing to do with them and don't consider themselves to be mothers.
Um, are those mothers?
Do we consider those mothers as well?
And then there's also people who, uh, were pregnant but had a miscarriage.
They consider themselves to be mothers, um, but there are certain people who argue against that and say, well, no, your baby was never born and therefore you're not a mother.
And then there are people who raise their nieces and nephews or their grandchildren as their own children.
They consider themselves to be mothers, even though they are also aunts or grandmothers, therefore taking on two separate labels at once.
And both of those things are true at the same time.
And so, as you can see, a supposedly simple question that seems to be rooted in biological reality is actually much more rooted in the societal roles that people play and the labels that they accept.
Okay, let's try our best to sort through this.
is true of gender. It's partially rooted in biology, but in our modern times, it's more
so rooted in the roles we play in society and the labels we accept for ourselves.
Hmm. Okay, let's try our best to sort through this. First of all, nothing that you said
there actually makes the term mother confusing or opaque.
As I already noted, the word mother describes a woman in relation to her children.
A woman who gives birth to offspring is a mother.
A woman who conceives children who then tragically die in utero is also a mother.
A woman who adopts a child is a mother, too, because that child, once adopted, is her child.
What does it mean for him to be her child?
Well, she's taking on the role as his primary female caretaker.
She's accepting a unique legal and moral responsibility for and to the child.
She is dedicating her life to him.
She's a mother.
This is not confusing.
There is some nuance here, sure.
A child who is put up for adoption may end up with, in effect, two mothers, because the woman who gave birth to him is a mother in the biological sense, while the woman who adopts him is a mother in every other sense.
This is why we often distinguish in those situations between mother and biological mother.
Again, it's not really confusing.
You only want to make it seem confusing because you think it helps you make something else seem confusing, too.
And that brings us to the second point.
Even if I agree that the word mother is somehow vague or ambiguous, which I don't, that still wouldn't at all prove that the word woman is vague or ambiguous.
There are ideas and concepts that are difficult and hard to define.
That doesn't make all ideas and concepts difficult and hard to define.
You can't prove that one word has no objective definition simply by asserting that some other word has no objective definition.
This is what they do all the time.
Well, you asked me to define woman.
Can you identify this other word?
What does that have to do with this word we're talking about?
So, because one word can't be defined, that means no word can be defined?
It's especially absurd in this case when the other word, mother, actually does have an objective definition and everyone knows what the word means.
The reason why mother has some extra complexity is that it is a word which describes a role and a relationship.
You're right about that.
But it's a role and relationship specifically fulfilled by women.
Mother is a role that many women fill.
But being a woman itself is not a role or a relationship.
It is, by definition, a physical, biological identity.
After all, if mother is a role, and woman is a role, then who exactly is filling these roles?
We can only say anything about mothers at all if we first establish that women exist and can be defined.
There are plenty of other words that describe roles that women play or relationships they take part in.
Sister, aunt, girlfriend, waitress, actress, etc.
All of these are roles that a woman can play.
But even if on the margins there is some element of ambiguity in some of these roles, the roles can only exist, and we can only talk about them, if women exist first.
And whatever ambiguity you can find in the role does not at all even come close to creating ambiguity around the concept of womanhood itself.
But all of this could almost be put to the side.
Because here's the real question for you.
Whatever you think about mothers, whatever you think about women, I ask you this.
If a man with no children, who isn't even a caretaker of children, like he sits at home all day playing video games, he's not even around children.
If he stood up one day and declared that he's a mother, Would you accept that self-identification as valid?
Would you say, well, I guess you're a mother too?
In other words, if I agree that the word mother has some complexity and nuance to it, does that mean that just anyone can legitimately claim the title for themselves?
Does physical reality impose no requirements at all on the person who makes this claim?
It may be difficult to wrap your arms around all that the word mother describes, but does that mean that it describes nothing?
Does the word have a complex meaning or no meaning?
You're wondering whether an aunt or a grandmother who's very close to a child counts as a mother, but would you wonder whether my five-year-old son counts as a mother?
I assume you would not.
So, you may struggle with the concept around the margins, yet you know that the word means something, and it therefore excludes people, lots of people actually, regardless of what they say about themselves or what anyone else says about them.
And if you would agree that the word mother cannot be applied to just anyone, then you must agree that the word woman cannot be applied to just anyone.
There is a reality that the word describes, both in the case of women and mothers, and women who are mothers.
There's a reality that it describes.
Which means that someone can make a claim, can identify themselves, and be wrong about it, because it does not comport with the reality that the words are supposed to describe.
That's the real point that you should be thinking about.
And you'll have plenty of time to think about it, because you are, today, on this first Flannel Friday, cancelled.
