Ep. 1024 - Public School Defends Male Teacher's Right To Wear Giant Fake Breasts
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a school teacher sexually harasses his students by wearing massive prosthetic breasts to class. But the school says that his gender expression is protected and only bigots would criticize him for it. Also, Joe Biden is asked whether he's running for re-election and he doesn't exactly say yes. Plus, Bill Maher is accused of defending slavery. In our Daily Cancellation, math teachers try to explain why basic arithmetic is racist.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the brand new DailyWire+ show CANDACE OWENS on DailyWire+, or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Bank On Yourself is a proven alternative to conventional retirement accounts that gives you guaranteed, predictable growth, unrestricted access to your money, plus tax-free retirement income. Get a FREE Report at BankOnYourself.com/WALSH
Frontpage Magazine has spent over two decades combating the radical Left’s efforts to destroy America. Check out Frontpage Magazine at FrontpageMag.com
- - -
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, a school teacher sexually harasses his students by wearing massive prosthetic breasts to class, but the school says that his gender expression is protected and only bigots would criticize him for it.
Also, Joe Biden is asked whether he's running for re-election and he doesn't exactly say yes.
Plus, Bill Maher is accused of defending slavery.
In our Daily Cancellation, math teachers try to explain why basic arithmetic is racist.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
If you've got a 401k or IRA, the government controls how much money you can borrow, when you have to pay it back, all of that.
Plus, you'll owe taxes and penalties for taking money out too soon or waiting too long, even though it's your money.
There's lots of rules attached to it.
Bank on yourself though is a better way to grow and to protect your hard earned money.
This retirement plan alternative has never had a losing year
in over 160 years.
Bank on yourself offers guaranteed predictable growth of retirement income without any luck or guesswork required.
Your plan doesn't go backwards when the market tumble.
Both your principal and your growth are locked in.
The strategy lets you take a tax-free retirement income to protect you from the incoming tax tsunami.
Unlike a government-controlled 401k or IRA, you control the money in your plan, no questions asked, and without government penalties or restrictions.
Get a free report with all the details on how adding Bank on Yourself to your financial strategy adds guarantees, predictability, and control to your financial plan.
So just go to bankonyourself.com slash walsh.
Make on yourself dot com slash waltz.
This information is for educational purposes only and is not a solicitation for the purchase of any financial product.
All guarantees are based on the claims paying ability of the insurer.
A little bit of sad news to begin the week.
According to multiple media reports, a trans woman, quote unquote, has become the victim of housing-related discrimination in Texas.
As the story goes, Shayla Anderson, who's a male who identifies as a female, was targeted by a transphobic and racist property manager and then served a notice of eviction, meaning evicted all on the basis of being trans, all on the basis of sheer bigotry.
That, anyway, is the story, but as is so often the case, the story and the reality don't exactly match up.
Here's a local news report with more details.
Watch this.
Shayla Anderson's home at the Grand Fountain in Richmond used to be her sanctuary.
When I first moved here, it was wonderful.
Before the last two years?
The worst thing I ever experienced in my life.
Shayla says it started when she and her husband made a noise complaint.
She says it was never addressed by management until she went to speak to the property manager.
I went to her office.
She said, I'm not going to speak with you about this.
I'm not going to speak with you about this, sir.
Shayla is a transgender woman.
Basically, she took my womanhood and crushed it by calling me sir.
Shayla says she contacted Sunridge Management Group, the company who owns the apartment complex.
They never reached out to me.
That's when she filed this discrimination complaint with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and she says the situation got worse.
Do you live here?
This video went viral online.
She says it shows the property manager questioning her husband and son while playing basketball.
It was a group of African American men in the basketball court playing basketball.
She felt that there were residents that were not residents.
Shayla says the property asked her to take the video down and once she did, she received an eviction notice.
She says prior she hadn't received any notices or warnings and her attorneys advised her not to pay rent because of the ongoing litigation.
Well, that certainly looks like a credible person, doesn't it?
But looks can be deceiving, and sometimes also a little bit disturbing.
Although the reporter tries her best to create a narrative favorable to the trans person, the reality still peeks through here.
We find out that the eviction notice was sent after Shayla Anderson stopped paying rent.
Now, everything else in this whole saga is effectively irrelevant in light of that relevant fact.
If you don't pay rent, You get evicted.
Shayla claims that attorneys advised against paying rent because of ongoing litigation.
Now, if that's the case, then the lawyers here are about as skilled and competent as Anderson's plastic surgeon.
Because, you know, you can't sue your apartment complex and then simply stop paying your rent until the lawsuit is settled.
That's just not how it works.
But there's a statement made earlier in the report that I think stands out and is more More to the point for our purposes today.
Anderson says that when the property manager used the word, sir, she had, quote, taken my womanhood and crushed it.
This is how it works now in our culture.
It is your job to reinforce the self-perceptions and fantasies of every person that you meet.
Their validation has become somehow your responsibility.
Anderson is clinging desperately to a self-concept that is fragile and brittle and can be broken into a million pieces, crushed, as we're told, by one simple three-letter word.
Now, no authentic real woman walks around like this, ready to dissolve into a puddle if her womanhood is not affirmed.
I mean, a real woman doesn't need her womanhood affirmed.
That's because her womanhood is not an abstraction.
Okay?
It's not something that's just kind of floating around in the ether.
It is a reality.
It's vibrant and true and alive and solid.
And anyone who fails to recognize it would be embarrassing themselves, not the other way around.
But these kinds of solid realities are not what we're expected to validate.
Indeed, often, those are exactly the things that we're expected to invalidate, to deny.
Our job, so says the culture, is to affirm the fevered imaginations and egocentric delusions of particular protected classes of people.
And although this story at the apartment complex down in Texas is an instructive example of this dynamic, it still pales in comparison, I think, to this.
Going up now north to Canada, reading from the news site Redux, it says, photos and videos out of a Canadian high school are going viral as they show a male teacher wearing what appears to be a large prosthetic breast in full view of young students.
Shocking media first began to circulate on Twitter earlier this week with multiple accounts sharing a A cell phone video instills of a shop teacher demonstrating how to use a circular saw.
The teacher is seen wearing an extremely prominent prosthetic bust, one which clearly outlines the nipples through his tight shirt.
He's also donning a bright blonde wig and short shorts.
Multiple photos and videos have surfaced of the same individual instructing young students, and in all of them, he's wearing the oversized bust.
The media has been confirmed as originating from Oakville Trafalgar High School in Oakville, Ontario.
The man seen in the photos and videos is a manufacturing technology instructor who allegedly began identifying as a woman last year.
The teacher now goes by the name Kayla Lemieux.
Quote, the kids here most definitely don't think it's normal, but realistically we can't say anything, one student said on Twitter.
Last year the teacher was a man.
I don't think the school can fire him.
Now, when you hear that it's said that the fake breasts he's wearing are oversized, I think then, if we put it that way, we are engaging in severe understatement.
He is, in fact, wearing prosthetic breasts the size of, like, hot air balloons.
His inner woman is apparently nine feet tall and weighs 800 pounds by the looks of it.
In fact, his inner woman seems to be literally bursting out of his stomach, like that scene from Alien.
Now, and we can make jokes about this because it's totally absurd, but actually it's not very funny.
The kids in his class are not, as you heard from one of the kids, they're not comfortable, and how could they be?
They're the victims of sexual harassment here.
And they're not going to be getting any help from the school.
As Redux reports in a follow-up, "The Ontario High School, at the center of a controversy
for having a male teaching young students while donning a large prosthetic bust, has
issued a full defense of the teacher in newly leaked emails sent to parents."
It says, "We are aware of discussion on social media and in the media regarding Oakville
We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate to our community that we are committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, caring, inclusive, equitable, and welcoming learning and working environment for all students and staff.
The school defers to the Ontario Human Rights Code, suggesting that any concerns about Lemieux would be akin to discrimination.
Well, we strive to promote a positive learning environment in schools, consistent with the values of the HDSB, and to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students, staff, and community, regardless of race, age, ability, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, cultural observance, socioeconomic circumstances, or body type slash size.
Body type?
Size?
That's not his body type, though.
That's not any human being's body type.
This is rather his hideous, pornographic impression of a woman's body type.
It would be no different if he showed up to class in blackface.
Okay, imagine that he showed up for, maybe it's Black History Month, and he decides to wear blackface.
Only, in that case, blackface would actually be a little bit less grotesque, because at least it would not be, presumably, it wouldn't have the element of fetish attached to it.
It would be merely offensive and insulting.
It wouldn't have the fetishistic element to it.
In this case, the teacher is not only making an ugly, outrageous mockery of womanhood, but he's also acting out a sexual fetish in front of the students.
Autogynephilia is a term you should all know, because it applies to a lot of what we're seeing in the culture, although often it's mislabeled.
Autogynephilia is when a man is sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a woman.
It's not even that he actually sees himself as a woman, or thinks he is one, but that he's sexually excited by the idea of himself that way.
We can safely assume that's the case for this guy, that we have here a case of autogynephilia rather than gender dysphoria because of the massive cartoonish press.
Which, by the way, are worn with a see-through, skin-tight shirt.
This is fetishism, not dysphoria.
What we're seeing is that no distinction is made between those two things, because to the left it doesn't matter.
There's no limit to this.
A teacher could come to school wearing a strap-on dildo in front of the students, and we'd be told that it's bigoted to object.
Once it is declared that the world's job is to validate an individual's internal feelings and perceptions, there is no rock bottom to that.
No basement.
We just descend further and further into madness.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[opening music]
Inside Every Progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
And the team at Front Page Magazine has been unmasking these totalitarians since the earliest days of the internet.
Founded by David Horowitz, a former red diaper baby and a new leftist who ultimately became an enemy of the left and a best-selling author at the same time, Front Page Magazine has spent over two decades combating the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
Their two new podcasts, The Right Take with Mark Tapson and The Jason Hill Show offer riveting interviews
and insightful coverage of politics, culture, and current events.
You don't want to miss it.
The Right Take with Mark Tapson offers fascinating, in-depth cultural commentary, as well as interviews
with well-known conservative thinkers like Heather MacDonald, Michael Walsh, and Mary Grabber.
The Jason Hill Show offers thoughtful, deep dives about the ideologies of the radical left
and interviews with renowned intellectuals like Peter Wood.
It takes a village to combat the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
That's why, as a fan of my show, you should also check out these guys over at Front Page Magazine.
You won't regret it.
And you can do that by visiting frontpagemag.com.
And while you're there, support their cause by making a tax-deductible donation.
Look, inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out, and no one understands that better than the team at Front Page Magazine.
So go check out frontpagemag.com today.
So Joe Biden was interviewed by 60 Minutes, and most of the interview not very interesting or worth talking about for the most part, but there were two or three brief moments that I think are worth taking some note of.
So first, here is Biden responding to his dismal approval ratings.
He's asked, how do you explain the fact that everybody hates you?
And, of course, the correct answer is that, well, what he should say is, I'm a miserable, wretched person and a failure, and I'm doing a terrible job, and people are suffering because of it.
He could give that answer, but that's not the answer that he gives.
Let's listen to what he says.
Your approval rating in the country is well below 50%, and I wonder why you think that is.
This is a really difficult time.
We're at an inflection point in the history of this country.
We're going to make decisions and we're making decisions now that are going to determine what we're going to look like the next 10 years from now.
I think you'd agree that the impact on the psyche of the American people as a consequence of the pandemic is profound.
Think of how that has changed everything.
People's attitudes about themselves, their families, about the state of the nation, about the state of their communities.
And so there's a lot of uncertainty out there.
A great deal of uncertainty.
I love the answer because what he's saying, basically, is that the only way that his approval rating could be so low is if our entire national psyche has been profoundly changed.
That's the only way.
Like, the way we see our communities, the way we see even our families and ourselves, all of that is warped and has been shifted and everything.
And that's why his approval ratings are so low.
I mean, if you don't approve of the job that he's doing, then it must be because your entire perception of reality has been somehow damaged.
But here's the part that I think a lot of people are making a big deal about when he's asked if he will run for re-election.
And he doesn't exactly say yes.
Let's listen.
Sir, are you committed to running again, or are there certain conditions that have to be right?
Look, if I were to say to you, I'm running again, all of a sudden a whole range of things come into play that I have requirements I have to change and move and do.
In terms of election laws?
In terms of election laws.
And it's much too early to make that kind of decision.
I'm a great respecter of fate.
And so what I'm doing is I'm doing my job, I'm going to do that job, and within the time frame that makes sense, after this next election cycle here, going into next year, make a judgment of what to do.
You say that it's much too early to make that decision.
I take it the decision has not been made in your own head.
Look, my intentions I said they began with.
Like I said, a lot's being made of this, especially in conservative media, that this is, well, he didn't say it was going to run again.
I don't see it as anything significant.
He is going to run again, okay?
I don't mean to spoiler alert here or ruin any of the suspense that you might be experiencing, but there's no suspense.
He's going to run again.
The only thing that would stop him, I mean, literally the only thing is if he dies before 2024, which he's an elderly man, so who knows?
We're getting up to the point when you get beyond the average life expectancy for For a man in this country.
But aside from that, or some kind of truly debilitating health crisis, and I say truly debilitating, it had to be physically debilitating.
Because we know he's already mentally debilitated, that hasn't stopped him.
So if he's confined to a wheelchair or something, then maybe I could see that he would feel he has no choice but to not run again.
Aside from that, he's gonna run.
And how do I know that?
I mean, is it because the polls are in his favor?
Is it because there's a good chance he's going to win?
Well, no, obviously not.
It's just that these people, they don't give up power willingly.
They're not going to quit of their own volition.
Think about Joe Biden.
He's pursued this power his entire life.
His whole life has been in pursuit of this.
It's the only thing he's cared about.
He's been in politics his whole life, trying to climb up the ladder, desperately crawling and kicking and scratching and everything to get there, and then he gets there, and yeah, he's half C now by the time he gets there.
You think he's gonna give it up?
No, you gotta pry it out of his hands.
That's the only way he gives it up, and it's the same for all these people.
They don't spend their whole lives pursuing this just to stop.
So no, he will absolutely run again.
Guaranteed.
Finally, here's Biden on the pandemic.
I mean, we haven't heard much about it recently, so what's happening with that?
Let's find out.
Mr. President, first Detroit auto show in three years.
Yeah.
Is the pandemic over?
The pandemic is over.
We still have a problem with COVID.
We're still doing a lot of work on it.
But the pandemic is over.
If you notice, no one's wearing masks.
Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape.
And so I think it's changing, and I think this is a perfect example of it.
By the way, no follow-up there, in case you're wondering.
There's no follow-up.
He says, the pandemic's over.
We still have a problem with COVID, but the pandemic is over.
No follow-up like, well, how do you distinguish between we have a problem with COVID but the pandemic is over?
How do you delineate between those two things?
Of course, I agree with him that there is no pandemic, but then a lot of us have been saying that for a long time.
That's kind of the distinction that many of us have been drawing for a while now.
That, yeah, COVID exists.
It's a problem in the sense that it exists.
It's out there.
People get sick.
There are lots of diseases that are like that.
That are endemic.
They're a problem because people get them and they get sick.
But is it a pandemic?
Is it something we have to live every day worrying about?
We have to structure our life around it?
No.
But up until right now, the message from the Biden administration has been, no, COVID, we're still in a pandemic.
I mean, they've said exactly those words.
We're still in a pandemic.
We've heard that time and time again.
And now, all of a sudden, in a 60 Minutes interview, he says, oh, it's over, actually.
And what we hear from the noted journalist there is no follow-up.
Just, oh, OK, well, it's over then.
So it's over now.
When did it end?
That's a question.
That question is not asked.
Oh, it's over?
Well, when did it end and how do we know that it ended?
And why did it end then and not before?
For all the time that you spend saying we're still in a pandemic, like, what changed between then and now?
It doesn't ask the question because we know the answer, of course.
It's, you know, not just a fortunate coincidence that the pandemic ends, quote-unquote, right before the midterms.
What do you know?
Just, we're, you know, A few weeks out from the midterms, and that's when the pandemic finally ends.
How fortunate for the Democrats.
This is from Daily Wire.
It says, Martha's Vineyard residents congratulated themselves on their behavior after the arrival of 50 illegal immigrants sent by Governor Ron DeSantis.
The immigrants arrived on September 14th.
By September 16th, they had already been bused to Joint Base Cape Cod.
Rachel Self, an immigration attorney who insisted that the immigrants had been kidnapped, Declared, we've got their backs and they're not alone.
A local volunteer said of the community, the year-round community is very strong because you're kind of isolated here.
Whether it's the ferry or the bad weather, you're stuck here.
They said, quote, we're used to helping each other.
We're used to dealing with people in need and we're super happy.
Like they enriched us.
We're happy to help them on their journey.
The Martha's Vineyard residents, by the way, got the memo because when the illegals first arrived, they were not happy and they were complaining about it in front of cameras.
And then they saw the reaction on social media and they realized, okay, we got to put on a happy face here and pretend that we're happy about this.
Oh, we're very happy to help them on their journey.
Their journey, by the way, is to be deported to a military base.
It's to enlist the military to get these people the hell out of here.
Oh, come on, everybody.
We're going to help you.
All my Latinx brothers and sisters, come here.
We're going to help you on your journey.
Let us guide you by the hand all the way.
Yep, over here, over here.
Right, okay, off the island completely.
Just shove them off.
That's what Martha's Vineyard did.
They had 50 illegals show up, and within 48 hours, they had them on a bus, they had the military there, and they had them on a bus to a military base.
And now they're congratulating themselves.
We helped them on their journey.
I mean, that's, you know, if that's all it takes.
Like, if we can start deporting, if we can enlist the military, number one, to help us with the illegal immigration problem, and just start busing these people out of here.
If we're able to do that, as long as we call it helping them on their journey, I'm fine with that.
Maybe that's the compromise.
We'll stop calling it deportation, and we'll say it's Journey Assistance.
I don't know, we'll think of a better title.
A local church, a member of a local church, echoed this sentiment, saying, actually, people here really give a damn.
They really care.
You know what?
This is why the political message, I think, was very successful.
I mean, yeah, after they've gotten rid of the illegals and sent them to a military base, now the residents of Martha's Vineyard are trying to pretend that they were not distressed at all by their presence.
And they can do that all they want.
I don't think anyone really falls for it.
But I think if you actually want to send the message home, if you want to make it very clear, then keep sending them.
I mean, we just heard from Martha's Vineyard residents that they're more than happy to help.
They're happy to help on the journey.
It's a different culture up there with all the rich people on their island.
They're isolated.
They're different from everybody else.
They're better.
Well, okay, well then send them more.
Keep sending them.
Send a hundred next time.
And the next day, send another hundred.
Whatever the population is on Martha's Vineyard, match that in illegal immigrants.
And then we'll see.
We'll see how long this happy face can maintain.
Because that's really the point here.
If you're... For states down in the South, and for border towns, it's not like they get 50 illegals, and then that's it for the year.
No, it is a constant, never-ending stream of thousands and thousands and thousands of these people, and that's when it becomes an overwhelming problem.
So I think these Republican governors that are shipping the illegals to Martha's Vineyard or Chicago or DC, they're getting the point across.
But if you want to really get it across, you can't stop.
You got to keep doing it.
And I think the residents of Martha's Vineyard, again, they've given you the excuse.
They have said that they welcome it.
So they have no right to complain now.
Now they have officially invited more.
All right.
Bill Maher has gotten himself in trouble with the left yet again for a monologue he delivered on his show on Sunday.
And he's being accused because of this, what you're about to hear, because of these remarks, he's being accused of white supremacy and actually justifying slavery.
But let's listen and find out if that is a fair characterization.
Did Columbus commit atrocities?
Of course.
But people back then were generally atrocious.
Everybody who could afford one had a slave, including people of color.
The way people talk about slavery these days, you'd think it was a uniquely American thing that we invented in 1619.
But slavery throughout history has been the rule, not the exception.
the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans, the Arabs, British, the early Americans, all the way up through R.
Kelly.
[laughter]
[applause]
The Holy Bible is practically an owner's manual for slaveholders.
The word slave comes from Slav, because so many Slavic people were enslaved, and they're as white as the Hallmark Channel.
Who do you think gathered the slaves from the interior of Africa to sell to slave traders?
Africans, who also kept their own slaves.
And the whole monologue is quite good.
It goes on for about eight minutes.
It's worth listening to.
Putting aside the dig at the Bible there, which is silly and not true, the rest of it...
I basically agree with.
It's also not true that people back in earlier times were generally atrocious.
They weren't worse people, but they lived in a different time.
They lived in a more brutal time.
But generally speaking, the message there I agree with.
In fact, it might remind you of something.
It might remind you of a monologue that I delivered on this show.
Very recently.
You know, it's very similar.
Now, I'm not accusing Bill Maher of listening to my show.
I would never accuse anybody of that.
But we have had a similar conversation, and I'm glad that Maher's talking about it.
It's important because it helps us to actually understand historical events when we put them in context.
Right?
You can't understand anything about history until you understand the context of the people that, you know, the context that people lived in back in those days.
It's funny, in fact, that the left cares deeply about context when we're discussing, say, the brutality of modern-day criminals, non-white criminals anyway.
So if we see another one of those videos of someone who's out on bail and has a lengthy rap sheet just randomly brutalizing someone, or there was one recently of a Someone robbing a convenience store and putting the cashier on his knees and then executing him, shooting him in the back of the head.
Of course, that person, lengthy rap sheet, criminal, I think that person was out on bail, I believe.
Many videos like that.
Whenever we see these videos, what we hear from the left is that, well, we have to understand the context.
We have to understand systemic racism and all the things that they've suffered in their community.
We have to understand that.
And the context becomes an excuse that lets the criminals off the hook and back into the community to victimize even more people.
But then somehow, they're totally uninterested in analyzing the context for anyone who lived on Earth prior to the modern age.
So people that are living today, some people anyway, get the benefit of context, but nobody who lived before us gets the same grace?
They're all expected to just know better.
But with that attitude, you can never understand history, and if you refuse to understand history, then studying it is pointless and impossible.
There's another reason why this matters also.
It's that it can give us an opportunity to analyze ourselves.
Like, the fact that everyone in the world supported slavery for thousands of years, That almost no one voiced any objection to the practice in principle.
Now, there were people who objected to certain elements of the practice and objected when it was particularly brutal, but as far as someone saying slavery itself is wrong, human beings are all equal, like that sort of thing, there was almost no one making that claim for thousands of years of human history across the entire world.
And that fact ought to make us reflect on ourselves because it goes to show how powerful a dominant cultural narrative can be.
You know, it's the power of the spirit of the age.
If everyone accepts something, everyone does, and nobody questions it, then it's very difficult to view that thing in a critical light.
Because you haven't been given the framework for being critical of it.
Everything you've ever encountered, every opinion you've ever heard, everything around you serves to reinforce this cultural narrative.
And this force is so powerful that it even protected slavery from criticism for millennia.
Now, I think a lot of modern people, they tell themselves, they say to themselves, well, if I was born 500 years ago, I would have known better.
Everyone that existed in the world for thousands of years, they were all morons.
If only I was there, I would have told them.
I would have known.
But you almost certainly would not have known better because you only know now that slavery is wrong because everyone you've ever met from birth onwards believes it was wrong and told you that.
You were told from birth that it's wrong.
You don't get any credit for that revelation.
Other people had that revelation.
And it's correct.
It's a correct revelation.
And they passed it on to you.
They told you.
Everything in your life reinforces the idea that slavery is wrong.
Thankfully.
So given that you've existed in this context, it's just meaningless to declare that you would have arrived at the same conclusion had the context been exactly the opposite of what it is today.
Now the point here is not relativism.
Okay, it's not that slavery was okay back then because everyone thought it was.
If you're a relativist, then that would have to be your conclusion.
We're going to talk more about relativism in the Daily Cancellation.
But if you're actually a relativist, and if you believe we all get our own truth and there's no objective truth, then you, of all people, have no basis for condemning anyone, really, but especially people in history, and especially when it comes to something like slavery, because it was their truth that slavery was okay.
Who are you to say otherwise?
But I'm not a relativist.
I believe that there is objective truth and objective moral truth.
And it was objectively wrong even then.
But the point, again, is just to understand the power of a dominant cultural narrative.
So, here's one way to know that you would not have opposed slavery.
If you're asking yourself, would I have opposed slavery if I lived 500 years ago or 200 years ago or 1,000 years ago?
Well, here's one way to know that you would not have opposed it.
If today all of your views and beliefs and ideas and opinions line up perfectly with like Disney and Apple and Hollywood movie studios and the people who run Twitter and Facebook, okay, if everything you believe lines up perfectly with those organizations and what they profess, Then you would have supported slavery.
A thousand percent certain that you would have.
How do I know that?
Because you are the sort of person who simply accepts and adopts whatever ideas are dominant and popular and supported by the cultural institutions of the day.
It's not a coincidence.
It just happened to be that your point of view, your worldview, lines up perfectly with all of the dominant cultural institutions.
No, they told you and they are the dominant cultural institutions.
They're the most powerful institutions in the country.
They've told you what to believe and you believe it.
And if that's the case, then it only stands to reason that if you had lived in a time when all the most powerful cultural institutions said that slavery was okay, you would have believed that too.
Now the powerful cultural institutions say that women have penises, men can give birth to babies.
There are lots of people in this country who say, well, I guess that's the case then.
Twitter wouldn't lie to me about that.
All right, a couple of things I want to mention before we get to the comments section.
Scrolling up to this.
This is from Fox News.
It says not a single arrest has been made in the more than a dozen attacks on pro-life
or pro-life organizations across the country claimed by left-wing pro-abortion group Jane's
Revenge.
Jane's Revenge has claimed responsibility for at least 18 arson and vandalism attacks
on crisis pregnancy centers and other faith-based organizations throughout the US since the
May 2nd leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs.
The FBI first told Fox News Digital in June that it had launched an investigation into
of the targeted vandalism.
The FBI said in a September 7th statement that it was still investigating the, quote, series of attacks and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers and faith-based organizations.
But it made no mention of Jane's Revenge specifically.
Even though, again, Jane's Revenge has, it's, they've been very open about it.
They're claiming credit for this and they've made threats and they've carried out those threats.
So this is a group of people who have announced themselves.
They haven't told us who they are.
They haven't done all of the FBI's work for them, but they've announced themselves and they said, this is what we're doing.
We are breaking the law.
We're engaging in this terror campaign.
And here we are.
The FBI told Fox News Digital in an email, the incidents are being investigated as potential acts of domestic violent extremism and face act violations, that's the freedom of access to clinic entrances violations, or violent crime threats, depending on the facts of each case.
The FBI takes all violence and threats of violence very seriously and we're working closely with our law enforcement partners at the national, state, and local levels to investigate these incidents.
However, when you go through each of these incidents, And there are over a dozen of them, 18 in fact.
What you find is that no arrests have been made at all.
So it says the first of the attacks occurred on May 8th at Wisconsin Family Action in Madison, which was firebombed and vandalized with the threat, if abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either.
No arrests have been made in that case, which is still considered active, police told Fox News Digital.
Wisconsin Family Action President, Julaine Appling, told Fox News Digital, not only have no arrests been made, but to the best of my knowledge, no person of interest has even been apprehended or brought in for questioning.
So they haven't identified anyone remotely connected to her, they haven't questioned anybody, yet the investigation is ongoing, sure.
Appling said she hasn't heard from any federal or local authorities regarding this case since early June.
The same day of the attack in Madison, Jane's Revenge posted its first communique on the anonymous blogging host NoBlogs.org with a picture of the vandalism and demanding, quote, the disbanding of all anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next 30 days.
And they continued.
Jane's Revenge claimed it carried out the vandalism on May 14th at Alpha Pregnancy Center in Reisterstown, Maryland.
The Baltimore County Police said an arrest has not been made in reference to this case.
There was another one in St.
Michael Parish in Olympia, Washington.
Investigation is still ongoing.
No arrests have been made.
They told Fox News and then you go down the list.
So we have all of these cases of, of not just threats, not just violent threats, but actual crimes that have been carried out.
And there has been a failure on the local and federal level because it should be, uh, It should be the local police investigating this.
Because it's a crime, it's vandalism, it's arson.
But then it's also a federal crime too.
It's terrorism, it's a hate crime, and as the FBI spokesman noted, it is a violation, kind of ironically, of a federal law which was passed back in the 90s meant to protect abortion clinics.
And this is the very same law that gives this halo, this ring of protection, this force field around all abortion clinics.
Where if you want to go and pray outside of an abortion clinic, you can't get within whatever, I forget what the, you know, it's a certain amount of feet.
You're not allowed to get that close to the entrance of the abortion clinic, even if it's not their property.
So for any other institution, yeah, if they don't want you on their property, they can tell you to leave, but you can stand one inch away from their property because it's not their property.
Abortion clinics are given this Extra privilege of being able to kick people off of property that is not theirs, because it's close to their property.
And this all ties back to this federal law, this FACE Act that was passed back in the 90s.
Well, in order to make that law seem less biased, they threw in something in there that also protects pregnancy centers.
That makes it a federal crime to attack or, you know, set a pregnancy center on fire.
They didn't think they'd ever actually have to enforce it.
They just put it in there to save face, basically.
Well, now it's actually happening.
Which means that federal law enforcement and local law enforcement should be looking into this, and yet they've made no arrests at all.
I mean, who are the people doing this?
Are they ninjas?
I mean, are these criminal masterminds?
Couldn't you just start with?
I mean, there's security camera footage.
It shouldn't be that difficult to track this down.
A lot of these things are happening in cities and neighborhoods where there's security camera footage all over the place.
It shouldn't be hard to go look at security camera footage, at least see someone.
We haven't even seen any videos or photos of persons of interest.
Nothing.
And I think we all know why that's the case.
All right, let's go to something that's People on the left are saying it's worthy of mockery.
This is Utah State Senate candidate has earned the mockery and scorn of outlets like the Huffington Post.
Here's a sample headline.
Utah GOP candidate rhymes police and free speech in cringeworthy rap video.
This went viral on Twitter and people are making fun of it.
It's a Utah State Senate candidate.
Who is announcing her entrance into the race through a little rap and a little bit of a dance that she put together.
Let's watch it.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Hey, Utah District 12, listen up right here.
There's a new name on the ballot for the Senate this year.
My name is Linda Paulson, Republican and awesome.
Love God and family and the Constitution.
I tried to get another conservative to run.
Nobody could do it, so I'm getting it done.
I'm pro-religious freedom, pro-life, pro-police, the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.
I want less government.
Control and regulation want to stop and expose all political corruption.
Where's integrity?
Morality?
Accountability?
Government programs should lead to self-sufficiency and support traditional family as the fundamental unit of society.
But in schools, they're pushing for new beliefs.
And just to clarify, that's a female adult.
I know what a woman is.
There we go.
I'm going to download that on Spotify, put it on my playlist.
Look.
Is that embarrassing and cringeworthy?
Yes.
But I'm going to allow it because I think it's embarrassing in kind of an endearing way, you know, because she's a grandmother.
And so she's embarrassing It's like she's embarrassing her grandkids in the way that all grandparents are supposed to.
Now, if she's 30 years younger, it's a total disaster.
But given that she's a sweet old grandmother, it's kind of funny and wholesome.
It's wholesome.
It's embarrassing and cringy, but in a wholesome way.
So I'll allow it.
In fact, I would even say that we should... We need a lot more corny right-wing grandmas in local office.
That's exactly what we need, I would say.
So in this case, I get to make the determination here, passing down the verdict, and that is allowed.
So it has been declared.
Let's get to our comment section.
Ben Shapiro visited the studio, our studio, recently and has a special message for the Sweet Baby Gang that we can all watch now together.
No longer is anything can happen a tired cliche.
It's morphed into the log line of a horror movie titled Modern Day America.
The Daily Wire was born out of this cultural reality because, just like our listeners, we were tired of having our intelligence insulted.
We were tired of the overly simplified good guys versus bad guys paradigm that plagues politics.
That's why we strive to make the most innovative and culturally relevant content in the world.
And Matt Walsh has stepped up to that challenge in ways we couldn't have imagined.
He couldn't have imagined it either.
What started as a podcast recording in a parking lot has blossomed into millions of subscribers, a best-selling children's book, a groundbreaking documentary film, and an entire gang of sweet babies.
Matt, congratulations on all of your successes and many more to come.
Here is to another thousand episodes.
There's the walrus.
The giant stuffed walrus.
Actually, it's right there.
You can't see it on camera, but it's been in my peripheral this whole time.
A little bit distracting.
The end of the saga.
An olive branch from Ben Shapiro.
No apology.
There's no apology.
No admission of guilt.
Which is unfortunate, but I get my walrus at the end there.
And that's all that matters.
And you saw.
I mean, I told you that thing is giant.
This whole time I've been talking about it.
Now you see.
You see it for yourself.
And you know what?
My sweet babies, we fought for this.
We dedicated ourselves to this cause.
I don't want to get emotional about it, but I just wanted my giant stuffed walrus so bad, and now I have it.
And now I can bring it home.
And I can put it right in my living room.
A centerpiece.
A focal piece.
A conversation piece.
Just as my wife always wanted.
Actually, she's dreading this day.
So, I move from one battle.
The battle actually is not over at all.
I move from one battle to an entirely different one when I lug this giant, ridiculous thing home, which will happen later today.
I look forward to that.
All right, Scotch and Ribeye says, ironically, I agree that parental consent should be irrelevant regarding gender-affirming care for minors.
These insane practices should be illegal regardless of whether or not some nutcase parent consents to it being done.
Well, I obviously totally agree with you.
This is not the kind of thing that a parent can consent to on behalf of a child.
But removing parental consent makes it all the more horrific, because what that means is that if a parent does object and says, I don't want this, and I'm not going to do this to my kid, and I'm not one of these nutcase parents that's trying to indoctrinate my kid into it, quite the opposite, those parents can now be dismissed.
As we saw from the WPATH guidelines we talked about on Friday.
And according to them, their new guidelines, their advice, because they don't have quite the power to actually pass laws, but they can come up with guidelines that then the other medical institutions, organizations all adopt uncritically.
But according to them, yeah, parental consent matters.
It's important as long as the parent is saying yes and agreeing with us.
And if they're not, then it doesn't matter because that means that they're abusive.
TeeBiscuit says, personally, I've never heard of a human who referred to themselves as a sexologist and wasn't a pervy, scummy human being.
I'm sure there could be decent sexologists out there, but the name has such negative connotations for me now.
And for good reason, does it have negative connotations, but there are some exceptions.
One exception would be Deborah So, who's in our film, What is a Woman?, and she is a sexologist and a scientist, but one of the few who's willing to criticize gender ideology.
Darcy says, I laughed so hard at your son calling people humans.
Your guy's conversation shows your personality so vividly.
Your son gives reasoning just like you.
Yeah, the funniest example of this, actually, is we went to a restaurant a couple weeks ago, and it was mostly empty.
I'm walking in there, and my son goes, there's only one other human in here.
Except that there was actually like six or seven people in the restaurant.
Which made me think, okay, what are the other people if they're not humans?
So do you know something you're not telling me?
And Ippo Rose says, Matt, in The Princess Bride, the gatekeeper's name is Yellen.
And the albino, at least in the book, is his cousin.
So it's quite possible the albino's family name was actually Yellen.
Is that true?
Are you lying to me?
Is that actually true?
I gotta look that up.
I'm a big fan of Princess Bride.
I think it's one of the better, I think it's one of the best movies ever made in terms of rewatchability.
But I guess I'm not that familiar with the backstory.
So you're saying the albino who runs the torture chamber, his name might actually be Yellen.
And last week I observed, again, not as an insult whatsoever, but I observed that Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, looks a lot like the albino who runs the torture chamber in Princess Bride, and now you're telling me that they might actually share a name.
So I was really on to something.
That's incredible.
Well, though he was the perpetrator and source of excruciating pain for me personally, at long last, as we just saw, Ben Shapiro made the right decision.
He made the humane choice, albeit somewhat selfishly, to give me the Walworth bag.
I'm not going to give him a lot of credit for that, but I did get what is rightfully mine.
I'm not sure if this will make me eligible for Workers' Comp, but this has been the most torturous thank-you gift I've ever received.
To all those who have been holding out and standing in solidarity with me, it's time.
Your suffering and self-deprivation have come to an end.
You don't have to hurt anymore.
Not for me.
We can heal together.
I finally have a walrus.
My life has forever changed for the better because of it, so go get your own at dailywire.com slash shop today.
Also, here at the Daily Wire, we've been rapidly expanding our creative marketing team.
I want to call on my sweet baby gang creatives to head over to our career page and check out our open art direction, graphic design, and studio management positions.
This is a fast-paced environment, so if you thrive on that, you'll do well here.
If you're a lazy bastard, We don't want you.
I think it's time for my SBG call to take over the Daily Wire headquarters.
We're already taking over the world.
Now we've got to take over the Daily Wire next.
Just understand that as your leader, I will expect a lot from you.
Luckily, we're a meritocracy here, so to whom much is expected, much will be given.
Head over to dailywire.com slash careers to view our openings and to apply.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, if you watch my film, What Is A Woman?, then you're familiar with the lengths people will go to deny objective reality.
I asked one young woman in the film what would happen if my truth was that she no longer existed, and she immediately replied that if that's my truth, that she doesn't exist, well, then she doesn't exist.
Such was her commitment to the relativistic viewpoint, but since the two of us were standing in the same physical environment and having that conversation in the first place, Does that not indicate that there is some sort of shared reality that we both inhabit?
And since that reality has certain laws, certain mutable features, does that not again indicate that there is one truth, one reality, filled with lots of people who all harbor ideas and opinions which may or may not comport with that reality?
Isn't that what it means?
I mean, after all, no matter what your truth might be, we all still live in a world where 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Or do we?
Ontario math teacher Heather... I'm not gonna even attempt the last name.
Thijsmeier?
Thijmeier, maybe?
Well, whatever.
She says otherwise.
In a tweet reposted by Chris Ruffo, Heather, who, again, teaches math to kids, wrote, quote, There are many math education practices that we, white folk, don't see as racist or supremacist because they're so ingrained in our background and experiences, and we've been the ones to benefit from them.
She then thanks someone named Jason Tu for shining a light on these examples of mathematical racism.
She then provides a chart in the shape of a pyramid, which distinguishes between overt white supremacy in math education, and then below that she has covert white supremacy in math education.
Now, examples of overt white supremacy are things like racially segregated classrooms.
Which, by the way, is something that only the left actually supports anyway.
And also, she says the N-word.
The N-word is an example of overt white supremacy.
Which is a good tip for any math teachers out there.
Do not incorporate the N-word into your math instruction.
Just so you know, don't do that.
If you find yourself shouting the N-word while teaching long division, something has gone horribly wrong, Heather points out.
And I'm glad that she's here to clarify that point.
But then we move to the covert examples.
And there we find a bit of a mixed bag.
So she says that standardized testing is white supremacy, which is good news for me because I always did very poorly on standardized tests as a kid, which I guess means that I'm not a white supremacist.
Of course, there are many valid criticisms you could make of the standardized testing approach and especially of a system structured around standardized testing, but people like Heather make those conversations impossible by insisting on racializing everything, as always.
She also says that the phrase, um, stick to math is white supremacy.
And we could maybe spend some time reflecting on how stupid that is, but we have bigger fish to fry because she also lists 2 plus 2 equals 4 as white supremacy.
Yes, only in a white supremacist fantasy land do two things and two other things equal four things.
If it wasn't for white supremacy, two apples and two apples would make nine apples or twelve apples or three apples and orange and five coconuts.
Two and two apples would be a whole fruit salad if not for white supremacy.
Now, if this seems to make no sense at all, that's because it doesn't make any sense.
But I think, in fairness, I should let the advocates of this idea explain it for themselves.
Unfortunately, the teacher who posted this tweet locked down her account, so we don't know what else she has to say.
The guy she credits for having shed light on this, Jason, too, I went to his account to see if he's explained it.
And he, in fact, said that he's not going to explain why 2 plus 2 equals racism.
He says we should all simply accept it.
I guess because he said so.
He did, however, retweet a different math teacher by the name of Lori Rubel, who posted a thread on the subject.
And here's what she said.
What does the 2 plus 2 equals 4 talk mean?
Here we go again.
She then posts a meme and explains in the caption, Here's one way that 2 plus 2 equals 4 gets used.
A crowd of people has gathered, holding signs with various alternative equations.
The one guy, who apparently knows the truth, is being excluded slash derided and called a Nazi.
That image isn't actually about math.
It's about truth.
Who holds the truth?
Who decides what is true?
And how open are we, as a society, to multiple truths?
Does this mean that anything goes?
No, it does not.
Here's another insidious way that 2 plus 2 equals 4 gets used.
It's used as a kind of basic truth and way to ridicule many critiques of mathematics as white and western and as exclusionary.
Are those critiques suggesting, literally, that 2 plus 2 is anything other than 4?
No.
Okay, so then what does it suggest?
I mean, what the hell are these people babbling about?
Well, Laurie then links to a different thread that she wrote on the same topic about a year ago, which tells us this.
The 2 plus 2 equals 4 talk signals that there is a single truth, a single way of looking at things, a single correct way to live or be, rather than multiplicities of all of these matters.
Since math is endowed with social authority and positioned as objective and as part of a natural order, That then implies that the singular approach is also part of the natural order.
That's why people reference 2 plus 2 equals 4 in racist, anti-trans, anti-queer talk, etc.
Because in their view, opening up math and how we teach it would imply a challenge to a natural order they hold as sacred, one in which white people, and usually men, are at the helm.
Okay, so, in other words, they can't explain why 2 plus 2 equals 4 means racism because the claim is abject nonsense.
This is the way it always goes with these academics.
They make some absolutely ridiculous statement, and then either refuse to explain it, insisting that their mere assertion should be good enough for us, that we should bow before them intellectually and accept whatever tripe spews from their pompous, self-satisfied mouths, or else they pretend to explain it, but in reality they're simply just talking around the issue, going off in half a dozen different directions, and at the end of it all, we're left with an assertion, layered in a bunch of other assertions, With nothing in the way of an argument, much less a proof or evidence to be found.
Now, in this case, there are really two claims being made.
One is that there is no objective truth.
And two is that asserting an objective truth is racist.
And they don't explain either assertion.
And, of course, they don't actually believe either of them either.
Because if they did, for one thing, they couldn't possibly teach mathematics.
This is the whole point of bringing up 2 plus 2 equals 4 in order to explain that objective truth exists, because every math lesson would consist of them just sitting in front of the class and saying, whatever you think is true is true.
Y'all get A's.
Congratulations.
Now, we may be getting to the point where school will be taught that way, but we aren't quite there yet, which means that they do believe in objective truth.
If they teach math, to teach something means that you believe that there is an objective truth to be taught.
The very act of teaching means that you are affirming that there is a truth.
Because if there isn't, that means that you're just, what, trying to get the kids to accept whatever subjective point of view you have?
What's the point of that?
That seems highly egotistical.
Also, I'm willing to bet that if either of our friends, Laurie or Heather, ever encountered, say, an actual white supremacist, I mean a real one, like an actual Klansman, one of the four who exist in the country, would they not be willing to agree that the guy's worldview is true on any level?
I mean, would they affirm his worldview?
Would they give him the benefit of his own truth?
No, they wouldn't.
In fact, they would insist that he is both factually and morally wrong about everything he believes.
And they would condemn him accordingly.
The only way that you can condemn someone for their worldview or their racism or bigotry is if you are asserting some factual and moral truth that you expect them to comport to and conform themselves to.
In fact, even for people who aren't Klansmen, They'll do this.
The very statement, 2 plus 2 equals 4, is white supremacy.
That in and of itself is an assertion of truth.
Everything you heard in the explanation was an assertion of truth.
And it all rests on the belief that white supremacy, whatever it is, is bad.
Which is also an assertion of truth.
So, they do believe that there is a truth, there's an objective truth, a reality that we all inhabit.
Which has not only scientific and physical laws, but even moral laws.
It's just that they're very selective in who should be forced to abide by these laws.
So this is racial paternalism cloaked in so-called anti-racism, which is to say it's just anti-racism because that's all anti-racism ever is.
Now, briefly leaving aside the problem that these people don't actually believe anything that they're saying, and also the problem that you can't deny objective truth without asserting it at the same time, Because saying there is no objective truth is an assertion of an objective truth.
But leaving all that aside, I want to focus on one thing.
Laurie says in her explanation, Again, quoting, the 2 plus 2 equals 4 talk signals that there is a single truth, a single way of looking at things, a single correct way to live or be, rather than multiplicities of all these matters.
Well, right, this is exactly the problem.
She says that 2 plus 2 equals 4 signals that there is a single truth.
Well, yeah, it does.
I mean, that's the point.
There is one single truth.
And in that truth, which is the only truth, two things combined with two other things make four things.
But then she goes on and says that it also signals that there is one way of looking at things and one correct way to live.
But it doesn't signal that at all.
And the truth, the way we look at things and the way we live, these are three categories.
They're not all the same.
They don't belong in the same category.
The truth is just the truth.
It's the reality.
It's the state of things.
That's what the truth is.
And it persists.
It maintains, no matter what we think or how we live.
As far as what we think and how we live, we have lots of freedom in that regard.
Not complete freedom.
I can't live at the bottom of the ocean.
I can't live on the moon.
The reason I can't live that way is that physical reality, otherwise known as the truth, precludes it.
But within certain parameters, I can live basically how I want, and I can certainly think what I want.
Yet I cannot, through the power of my thought, Or the manner of my lifestyle change the fundamental facts of reality.
I can choose to acknowledge those realities or not, but the realities persist.
This is how the relativists play the game.
They conflate reality with perspective and lifestyle.
They assert that because there's a multiplicity of perspectives and lifestyles, there must also be a multiplicity of realities.
But then, of course, by trying to create more realities, they actually erase the multiplicities of perspectives.
Because what they're actually asserting is that each reality has only one perspective, and if you have another perspective, then you exist in a completely different reality.
What they're saying is that in this reality that I'm in, there's only one perspective.
Anyone has a different perspective than that.
They branch off to their own.
We live in this multiverse, and each multiverse, each little universe in the multiverse, is populated by one person.
You only get one perspective for each universe.
In summation, the relativists cannot explain their arguments, they can't defend or prove them, they don't even mean most of what they're saying, and they can't help but contradict themselves a dozen times in one sentence.
It's a mess, in other words.
And it is why they are all, today, cancelled.
And that will do it for this portion of the show as we move over to our members' block.
