Ep. 1032 - An Epidemic Of Lonely, Alienated Young Men
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a crisis in our culture of lonely, disaffected young men. But anyone who speaks up for them, like Jordan Peterson, is villainized. Why? We’ll talk about that today. Also, a House hearing on abortion descends once again into anti-science nonsense. Vice has a puff piece about sex offenders that does not go according to plan. Kamala Harris is relatable, at least to me, for the first time. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with one of the great injustices and outrages of all time. It has to do with someone named Hailey Bieber and the color of her lipstick.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch movies, shows, documentaries and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Rock Auto - Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.
- - -
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, there is a crisis in our culture of lonely, disaffected young men, but anyone who speaks up for them, like Jordan Peterson, is villainized.
Why?
We'll talk about that today.
Also, a House hearing on abortion descends once again into anti-science nonsense.
Vice has a puff piece about sex offenders that does not go according to plan, for them anyway.
Kamala Harris is relatable.
At least to me, for the first time.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with one of the great injustices and outrages of all time.
It has to do with somebody named Haley Bieber and the color of her lipstick.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
That's the best part.
RockAuto.com is a family-owned business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They've got everything you could possibly need.
Engine control modules, brake parts, tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
And the best thing again is that you get the lowest prices possible on all of that.
Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, you can get everything you need with just a few easy clicks delivered straight to your door.
You know, the rockauto.com catalog is remarkably easy to navigate.
You don't need to know a lot about cars to sort through it.
You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle, and you can choose the brands, the specifications, and the prices that you prefer.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Remember to rockauto.com and be sure to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that I sent you.
Last week, a film that had been grabbing headlines for reasons that have nothing to do with the film itself finally premiered.
Olivia Wilde's Don't Worry Darling is, from what I've read, a sort of feminist fever dream of a film, woke in the extreme and yet of such low quality that most movie critics have actually panned it, despite agreeing with and applauding its politics.
Now, fortunately for the critics, Olivia Wilde is white and, I think, straight, and so they're allowed to criticize her work.
They're actually allowed to do that, and so in this case, they have.
The movie had a relatively strong debut at the box office.
Helped by all of the news coverage it had gotten due to gossip and drama behind the scenes, the details of which are too tedious and boring to bother recapping here, but sales began tumbling a few days after the release as audiences realized that the film is garbage and word began to spread.
It's sort of unfortunate in a way, you know, Hollywood finally puts out a movie that isn't based on a comic book or some other pre-existing brand.
And it sucks.
So I have a feeling the industry will learn all of the wrong lessons from this outcome.
But months before the film came out, Wilde had explained that the villain in the movie is based on Jordan Peterson, whose excellent content, by the way, is now available on Daily Wire+.
Wilde said that Peterson himself is, quote, a hero to the incel community, Which she defined as, quote, disenfranchised, mostly white men who believe they're entitled to sex from women, and they believe that society has now robbed them, that the idea of feminism is working against nature, and that we must put back into the correct place.
She then accused Peterson of, quote, legitimizing certain aspects of their movement because he's a former professor, he's an author, he wears a suit, so they feel like this is a real philosophy that should be taken seriously.
Now, almost everything that You can hear in that quote there is false and stupid.
It's like a seven-layer cake of wrongness, just totally ridiculous on multiple levels.
But how does Jordan Peterson himself feel about it?
Well, he was asked about it by Piers Morgan last night while he was visiting Piers Morgan's show, and here's what he said.
Watch.
I want to ask you just quickly, the film director Olivia Wilde has a new movie out.
She says it's based on you, this insane man, this pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community.
Incel being these weirdo loner men who are despicable in many ways.
Is that you?
Are you the intellectual hero to these people?
Sure.
Why not?
You know, people have been after me for a long time because I've been speaking to disaffected young men.
You know, what a terrible thing to do that is.
I thought the marginalized were supposed to have a voice.
It's making you emotional.
Talk about that.
Well, God, you know.
It's very difficult to understand how demoralized people are.
And certainly, many young men are in that category.
And you get these casual insults, these incels.
What do they mean?
It's like, well, these men, they don't know how to make themselves attractive to women who are very picky.
And good for them.
Women, like, be picky.
That's your gift, man.
Demand high standards from your men.
Fair enough.
But all these men who are alienated, it's like they're lonesome and they don't know what to do.
And everyone piles abuse on them.
When she said that, Olivia Wilde, it stung you, didn't it?
Oh, by that time, you know, as far as critiques go, that was kind of low level.
I mean, once I got painted as Red Skull, you know, magical super Nazi, That was kind of the end of the insults.
Now, Peterson has been trending today because of that clip with thousands of leftists mocking him for becoming emotional and slightly teary-eyed.
Media headlines from outlets like Variety declare Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears when asked about Olivia Wilde calling him the hero to the incel community.
Now, the headlines are, of course, meant to stir up even more mockery, and they also are meant to give the false impression that Peterson was crying over the insult from Olivia Wilde.
No, that obviously is not the case.
He makes clear that he doesn't care what Olivia Wilde says, and why would he?
Does anyone?
He became emotional when speaking about disaffected, despairing young men.
Those were tears of empathy, not self-pity.
Okay, this was not a Taylor Lorenz-type crying fit.
It was in every way the opposite.
But this is an interesting thing that you might notice.
The left constantly insists that men should be less stoic, should show more emotion, and then, when a man does exactly that and shows emotion, he's ruthlessly ridiculed for it.
So, they say that men should be vulnerable, but the moment that any man actually takes them up on it, his vulnerability is wielded against him, used against him.
And if men notice that this is how it works, and thus resolve to be even more closed off and reserved, they'll be accused of toxic masculinity.
It's a game that men cannot win, because no matter what they say or do, no matter how they react to any situation, they lose.
And that is really the point, isn't it?
Jordan Peterson has noticed the ways that our culture stacks the deck against young men, isolates them, disenfranchises them, alienates them.
He speaks with empathy to and about this group of people, and that's the primary reason why he is hated so much by the left.
People like Olivia Wilde have made it clear that young men should be lectured and nagged and treated with disdain.
We should make no attempt to understand them, least of all guide them and champion them.
We can't do that.
And that's why anyone who does so, any figure who comes along and tries to give alienated young men a voice, And thus earns a large following of exactly those kinds of men is going to get kicked off social media, de-platformed, villainized, etc.
We've seen this play out countless times, not just with Jordan Peterson.
I mean, can you think of an example of a public figure who has garnered an audience, who's known to have garnered an audience largely of men, and yet has not been labeled controversial because of it?
The message is made loud and clear.
You may ignore these people, or you may demonize them, but you must not treat them with respect, or advocate for them, or try to understand them.
Because if you do that, you're a danger, you're a threat.
You're a hero to the incel community.
Of course, we have to keep in mind that whenever anyone on the left uses the term incel, they simply mean all men who are not avowed woke leftists.
That's what an incel is.
It is at this point nothing but an anti-male slur used against literally any man who is judged to be a political enemy.
You don't need to gather on 4chan, and you certainly don't need to be an involuntary celibate to earn the title.
I mean, they use that term against me, and I have a wife and six kids.
If you can be an incel while driving your family in your 12-passenger van to church, then the term obviously has a much broader meaning.
It's just another way, another label, meant to stigmatize and alienate.
And it works.
Because no matter what you think, No matter what image you have of the world, no matter what your politics or your ideology demands you believe, no matter how deeply you believe in the fiction of male privilege, the fact is that a huge number of men in our culture, especially young men, are deeply lonely, lost, frustrated, isolated.
I mean, I hear from these men every day.
Jordan Peterson hears from them at an exponentially greater volume.
That's why he gets emotional when he talks about the issue, because encountering the depths of other people's despair every day takes a toll.
I mean, it's an enormous burden, emotional burden, that sociopaths on the left can't understand.
I mean, they literally can't understand empathy.
When they see it, they just laugh at it because they don't know what else to do with it.
But it leaves us again with this stark fact, that these men exist, and denying that they exist only contributes to the problem.
But it's easy to see why the left doesn't want to acknowledge, you know, the societal crisis of marginalized, disenfranchised young men.
Because for one thing, the left has this complicated, ever-changing victim pyramid to maintain.
And a victim pyramid requires a villain.
You know, with all those victims around, we need someone to do the victimizing.
Men, especially white men, have been assigned that role, but much as comic book films don't usually spend too much time humanizing their supervillains for fear that they might, you know, become too sympathetic, and then you're not going to root for the good guys anymore, so too does the left avoid humanizing their own chosen villains, and for the same reason.
That's why they treat it like a big secret, like, no, no, no, you're not, these people aren't human beings, you can't, no, no, no, no.
We can describe these people in one sentence and you're not allowed to go beyond that sentence.
But I think there's a deeper reason also why they would prefer to ignore this group.
And that's because young men and young women in this culture are suffering from despair and hopelessness and purposelessness because this is what the sexual revolution and our culture's continued lurch leftward has brought.
You know, if you acknowledge the men, if you take their pain seriously, then you've opened a conversation that the left doesn't want to have.
Because it's a conversation about how all of their promises have been empty.
Their revolution failed.
I mean, they created despair where they promised happiness.
And emptiness where they promised fulfillment.
That's why these men must continue to be ignored.
And anyone who speaks for them silenced.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
So there was a House Oversight Committee hearing on abortion yesterday.
Yet another one.
So they have committee hearings on abortion, it seems like, three or four times a week.
And they had another one here.
A few moments worth revisiting, I think.
We'll start with Dr. Bhavik Kumar.
Kumar identifies as a trans and abortion care provider and was brought on as an expert witness.
And there are a couple of moments here.
We'll start with this where we're told that, among other things, hurricanes require abortions.
There's a connection between hurricanes and abortions.
How could that possibly be the case?
Well, let's listen to the connection as it's made here.
This nationwide abortion ban, 15-week nationwide abortion ban, Dr. Kumar, A 2021 study predicted a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths if an abortion ban were imposed, with black women facing a predicted increase of 33%.
Can you explain to us why there would be an increase in pregnancy-related deaths, as well as more black women?
A 33% increase in black women dying.
Thank you for that question.
What I would point to first is a recent CDC report that looked at maternal mortality in our country and actually found that four out of five of those deaths are preventable.
Some of the top conditions that they talked about were mental health conditions such as suicidality or depression, excessive bleeding referred to as hemorrhage, cardiac conditions, which are highest among black women, and also hypertension-related conditions.
All of these things are preventable.
When we look at today's landscape of abortion access and we talk about a 15-week ban, we can look at Florida, for example, what's happening today with the natural disaster, Hurricane Ian.
As that state has a 15-week ban and we think about what's happening to families, what's happening to their homes, folks that may be 13 weeks pregnant or even 10 weeks pregnant, as they deal with the things that they're having to deal with in their life, they're being pushed further and further into pregnancy.
When we look at the landscape around accessing abortion and the limited number of clinics that are still available in haven states, and how long people are waiting, sometimes several weeks, that's also pushing them further into pregnancy.
So these impacts are always felt disproportionately by people of color, especially low-income folks, and also black folks.
And that's what we'll continue to see, but it will only worsen from here.
My God, these people are such demonic, satanic freaks.
I mean, they really are.
The problem, so what we're worried about with the hurricane is that it's pushing people into pregnancy.
So there's a hurricane slamming Florida and destroying wide swaths of the state and cities and people are getting swept away and houses are destroyed.
But the thing that Dr. Bhavik Kumar is worried about is that it's going to push people into pregnancy.
Well, this hurricane might lead to fewer babies dying.
Just think about what a twisted, sociopathic, bloodthirsty goblin you have to be to see a hurricane.
The first thing that comes to mind is, oh my God, more babies might be born because of this.
But somehow that's not even the most, you know, the headline from the clip you just heard there.
Because right before that, we're told, and this is an important point actually, because they talk about the maternal mortality rate.
And, of course, everybody agrees that maternal mortality, people, you know, women dying in childbirth is a terrible thing.
We have to do everything we can to prevent it.
But on the left, they're very invested in making childbirth seem as dangerous as possible.
I mean, the great thing about living in the first world, you know, in Western civilization, Is that maternal mortality is, you know, it's... Childbirth is very, very safe.
So it's a rare exception when somebody dies from childbirth in this country in modern times.
It wasn't always that way.
It isn't that way necessarily in other parts of the world, in third world countries, where they don't have access to the same medical care.
But in this country, it is.
I mean, it does happen, but it's rare.
Thank God.
Right?
But on the left, they're very invested in making child...
You know, childbirth seem even more dangerous.
They want it to be dangerous.
Because then they can use it as a rationale for having more abortions.
But there are a couple of problems here.
First of all, you heard him say that when it comes to maternal mortality, you know, the number one cause is suicidality and depression.
And so they're counting suicide as a death caused by childbirth.
They're including that in maternal mortality, in the maternal mortality rate, according to what we just heard there.
Suicide.
Now, of course, if they don't specify that, and you hear about maternal mortality, nobody thinks suicide.
You don't think of that as a directly caused by childbirth.
I mean, you're thinking of someone, of a woman tragically bleeding out during childbirth, or something like that.
That's what they want you to think about.
But as we just heard, they're sort of padding the stats by adding suicide to it.
It's true that, you know, postpartum depression is a real problem.
And, tragically, there are women who commit suicide, suffering from postpartum depression.
The question, though, is can you solve that problem through abortion?
So, you kill the baby?
Does that solve the depression problem?
Let me ask you something.
How... So, we know about suicide, which they link to postpartum depression.
What about suicide linked to post-abortion depression?
Do we have any stats on that?
Well, no, there are basically no stats on it.
It's because it never happens!
It never happens!
Because women never regret their abortions.
That's total nonsense, we know, but there's no one who feels, you know, the people who are in charge of tabulating these things, there's no real incentive for them to keep track of that.
But of course, we know the reality is that while postpartum depression is a very real problem, it is, thank God, most of the time, temporary.
Women get through it.
The guilt and regret and despair that comes from abortion, on the other hand, can be lifelong.
Never goes away.
But if a woman Five months after an abortion, or 15 years after an abortion, commit suicide because she can't deal with the guilt anymore.
We're never going to be told about that.
They just won't tell us.
That link will never be made in any official sort of context.
Then the conversation moved on and got more bizarre as we get to this exchange between the doctor and a Republican lawmaker on the issue of whether men can get pregnant.
And you feel like you kind of know what the answer is going to be, but there's one part of this answer that's pretty interesting, so I want you to listen to this.
Dr. Kumar, can biological men become pregnant and give birth?
So, men can have pregnancies, especially trans men?
So, can biological men become pregnant and give birth?
So, are you saying that a biological female who identifies as a man and therefore becomes pregnant is, quote, a man?
Is that what you're saying?
These questions about who can become pregnant are really missing the point.
I'm here to talk about what's happening in Texas.
This is me asking a question, and you answering.
I'm asking the question, sir, not you.
Right, and I'm answering the question.
Somebody with a uterus may have the capability of becoming pregnant, whether they're a woman or a man.
That doesn't make a difference.
Okay, we're done.
This isn't complicated.
Let me tell you, if a person has a uterus and is born female, they are a woman.
That is not a man, and the vast majority of the world considers that to be a woman, because there are biological differences between men and women.
I mean, clearly, any high school biology class teaches that men and women have different chromosomes.
Females are XX chromosome and male are XY chromosome.
Can't believe it's necessary to say this, but men cannot get pregnant and cannot give birth, regardless of how they identify themselves.
So, we see these exchanges now every time, pretty much any time there's any hearing in the House.
We get this question from a Republican lawmaker, can men give birth?
What is a woman?
And I think it's great.
I mean, it's fantastic.
This is exactly what you should be doing.
And especially if they're there to talk about anything related to pregnancy, if they're there to talk about anything science related, then yes, you should get them on the record Endorsing the idea that men can give birth.
So this is progress for the Republican Party.
I'm glad they're doing it.
But you notice the response there.
The response was...
Yes, men can get pregnant, especially trans men.
Especially.
Not only, but especially.
Now, a trans man, quote-unquote, is a woman who identifies as a man, and yes, we all know that those individuals, I mean, if they haven't mutilated their body or sterilized themselves yet, they can get pregnant.
So we know that.
Yes, a woman who calls herself something else or mentally identifies another way can still get pregnant.
She still has all the functions of a woman.
That's our point.
That's what we're saying.
That actually helps us.
That yes, no matter how you identify, unless you go to a surgeon and tell them to start removing parts of your body, Doesn't matter, no matter how you identify your biological essence, the biological reality remains.
But what about, but especially?
So especially means that, well, in particular, women who identify as men could get pregnant.
But since you're using the word especially, that would seem to indicate That even non-trans men can get pregnant.
So the claim that we just heard from that doctor is that not only women who identify as men can get pregnant, but actual biological men can get pregnant.
This is what we hear from doctors now.
Something that we unfortunately, again, always have to keep in mind when you're going to the doctor or you're consulting any healthcare professional.
I'm not saying that you never should, I'm not saying that you should You know, swear off modern medicine entirely, that wouldn't be a good idea for your own health and safety, but you do have to keep in mind that much of the medical profession is totally compromised and has been claimed by this absolute abject insanity and has lost its grip on physical reality.
So you got to remember that and just be cautious and look out for that.
A little bit later on, AOC chimed in and had a rebuke for the transphobia that we just heard there, but something also to say before that.
Let's listen.
Briefly, I'd like to address some of the prior claims that, and several prior immediate claims.
One being that abortion is not an economic issue and that we should be focused on economic issues.
And I also, you know, I think it's important to state that abortion is an economic issue.
Forcing poor and working class people to give birth against their will, against their consent,
against their ability to provide for themselves or a child is a profound economic issue.
And it's certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers
and to employers to work more against their will, to take second and third jobs against their desire
and their own autonomy.
And so the idea that abortion and access to abortion is somehow not a profound and central economic It belies that perspective, and it's disappointing to see.
goal is certainly something that I think a person who's never had to contend with the
ability to carry a child, you know, it belies that perspective. And it's disappointing to
see. But secondly, I think another thing that I'd like to address is that the same folks
who tell us and told us that COVID is just a flu, that climate change isn't real, that
January 6th was nothing but a tourist visit, are the same, are now trying to tell us that
transgender people are not real.
And I would say that their claim is probably just as legitimate as all their others, which is to say, not very much at all.
She is so stupid all the time.
And it's not a put-on.
It's not an act.
I mean, some of these people on the left, there are people on the left who are quite intelligent.
And they're the ones you have to watch out for the most.
They're very smart and scheming and devious.
And they say things that they know aren't true.
But I don't think that's true for AOC.
I think she actually is Enormously dumb.
That's what I think the issue is for her.
So when she says, trans people exist, you're denying the existence of trans people, I'm willing to believe that she actually believes that that's the issue here.
And of course, it isn't.
No one is denying that, quote, trans people... Obviously, we know that.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
How can you claim, in one breath, that we're transphobic, and in the other breath, we're denying the existence of trans people?
If they don't exist, then there's no... So, are we afraid of them, or do we deny they exist?
Because if we're denying that they exist, then there'd be nothing to be afraid of.
You gotta choose one or the other.
Now, both are not correct, but at least choose one falsehood or the other, not two falsehoods that contradict each other.
People who identify as trans exist.
People who make the claim that they are a sex other than what they were born at birth exist.
Those people exist.
However, the claims they are making about reality are false.
That's what we're saying.
We're denying their claims.
Not their physical existence, you moron!
What she says before that is even worse, though, because she's exactly wrong.
She's chosen a position that is the diametric.
She's like on the South Pole, and the truth is the North Pole.
She couldn't get farther away from the truth.
Because she says, That it's kind of a conspiracy among corporations and the wealthy to push abortion bans, you know, because it helps their own bottom line.
What?
What major corporations are supporting abortion bans?
Almost every single one of them have come out and denounced abortion bans.
And not only that, but a lot of these corporations are paying to send their employees to other states to get abortions.
That's what the corporations are doing, you ignoramus.
That's what almost all of them are doing.
And why would they do that?
Because it's better for the corporation, it's better for your employer if you kill your child because then you have more time to spend at work.
It doesn't help.
How does it help your job if you have a baby?
Especially as a woman, it means that you have the baby, you take maternity leave.
And now you have something else in your life that is claiming your time and attention.
You have something that is pulling you away from the job, especially as a woman.
Well, the employers, they don't want that.
The corporations, they don't want that.
So they're going to ship you off and they'll say, sure, we'll pay for your abortion.
Yeah, go ahead.
We'll do that.
It means you have more time for us.
It means that we, as the corporation, we remain the focus of your life.
We don't want the baby to be the focus of your life.
We don't want your family to be the focus of your life.
We want us.
We want what happens here in this building, in your dumb little cubicle, we want that to be the thing that's most important to you.
And that's why they pay for the abortions.
So she literally could not be more wrong about that.
Alright.
Let's move on before I get heated.
Too late, probably.
So this shouldn't be funny, but it is, and you've probably seen this clip already, but I have to play it anyway.
Vice put together a puff piece about how society is too mean to sex offenders, and we need to treat sex offenders better.
We have to reintegrate them into society, poor victims and all that, and the report ended this way.
I'm definitely hopeful.
I like the position I'm in.
I ain't finna let stuff stop me.
Not even this, or DNA, or a person's opinion.
We all out here in this world, and we all gotta make it happen, and ain't nothing stopping me.
So I'm very hopeful and confident.
After this interview, Ashif sent a picture of his penis to our producer.
He later said through his lawyer that he sent it by mistake.
A mistake.
Very plausible excuse.
It's a shame, too, that it turns out he's still a sexual deviant because I thought his insights were quite profound.
You know, he said he's not going to let anything— any stuff stop him.
You know, we all got to make it happen in life.
That's real insight.
That's Kamala Harris-level insight.
You know.
So, turns out, you know, he's one of the people being profiled.
Let's reintegrate him into society.
And he sexually harasses one of the producers on the story that is meant to paint him in a positive light.
There was a follow-up interview with a producer of this segment.
Asking, you know, what happened behind the scenes, why did this happen, and why did you decide to include it in the report?
And let's listen.
I wanted to ask you about what it was like, what it was like to find out that Ashif had sent that picture to one of your producers.
I mean, I was shocked.
I was angry.
If this was something that happened from a stranger, you would just block the person and never talk to them again.
But we're journalists, and we were working with the chief on this, so we reached out to him.
We got comment.
You know, we reached out to his lawyers.
He says he sent it by mistake, which I think is up for the viewers to decide whether they believe that or not.
Was it hard to decide whether to use that information or not in the piece?
Yeah, we went back and forth a lot about it.
Because on the one hand, you could argue that it's not relevant to the story of the injustice that Ashif faced at the hands of the state all of the years of dead time that he served.
You know, that's really what our story was about.
And his lawyers would argue that, you know, the fact of the dick pic isn't relevant.
But we wanted to basically give the full story to our viewers in a piece that's also about what it means to reintegrate successfully and unsuccessfully as someone who's on the sex events registry.
This seemed like, you know, an important fact to note about Ashif, who is a complex person, and this is part of his complexity.
It's part of his complexity as he sends pictures of his penis.
That's... Okay, I guess you've just given that rationale to any...
To any future scumbag men and... Why didn't you give that to any of the men during Me Too?
Maybe Harvey Weinstein could have said that.
You know, this is all part of my complexity.
When he sent a picture of his penis, he was actually showing his complexity.
There's a euphemism for you.
Now, she says that, well, it's not really relevant.
It's not relevant to how the state treated poor Ashif.
Which just shows that these people, they cannot learn.
They just can't learn.
You're doing a puff piece on sex offenders, claiming they should be reintegrated into society, you get sexually harassed by one of them, and it still isn't enough for you to... That's not a wake-up call.
So she says it's not relevant to how the state treated them.
Of course it is!
It's very relevant.
Because the whole point...
Is that he's clearly still a danger to society.
He's out there, that's sexual harassment.
So he's out there sexually harassing women.
And just think about this for a minute.
If he's willing to do that, okay, if he's gonna do that to the producer of a, you know, of a segment in which he is painted as a protagonist, and he would do that in that context, then what else is he doing?
We can't know.
This is one of the problems.
One of the problems, one of the many problems of releasing sex offenders back into society is that much of what they do, you know, we aren't ever going to know.
The vast majority of sex offenses go unreported.
And even if they're reported, many of them are almost impossible to prove unless you're stupid enough to do it You know, with your phone, through pictures that you're sending to people, in which case it's very easy.
That's the thing about a lot of these sex offenses committed by these creeps.
That there's kind of a scale, and many of them are really easy to prove because they're doing it, they leave a digital paper trail, but then there's a whole other category that's almost impossible to prove.
But yes, it's all relevant because it shows that yes, this is someone who you have selected because it helps to prove your, who you thought helped to prove your point, and even he turns out to be still a danger to society.
That's just, that's the nature of this kind of crime.
The people who behave this way, who treat others this way, it is very difficult to rehabilitate them.
You can't say it's impossible.
We can't say that it's categorically impossible for someone to change.
Anyone, in theory, can change.
But outside of the realm of theory and in reality, the vast majority of these people will never change.
We could talk about why that is and it gets into psychological facts and spiritual facts, but the fact still is that the vast majority never change.
So what happens when you take them and you put them in prison?
And you have them kind of stewing in that environment with other sociopaths and dangerous people and scumbags, and you have them stewing in that environment for several years, and then you release them back into society.
Are they likely to be less dangerous magically during that time?
No, even more so.
I mean, you could argue that if you're going to take a dangerous sex offender, put him in jail for three years, and then release them, you might as well not put him in jail at all.
Because all you're doing is now delaying the inevitable and you're putting them in an environment where they're only going to get worse.
And then you're inflicting them on society.
So it seems to me the most logical and practical thing is that if you're going to put these people in prison, which obviously we should, you keep them there.
For a very long time, if not forever.
All right, we're going to kind of skip ahead here.
I don't think this is five, it might be four headlines today because I do want to play this for you too.
This is Kamala Harris and I'm playing this for you because this is the one, I've never found her to be relatable at all.
This is her one relatable moment because here she is visiting the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.
And she's talking to people who've got a lot on their mind.
Okay, they're dealing with it.
There are plenty of things they have to worry about being in the DMZ.
And she thought, though, it was a good time to have this conversation.
We decided, have you seen the photographs from the Red Telescope?
It's humbling.
So, we invested in this telescope.
And the images just came in.
And they show us three billion years back to the beginning, to all these galaxies.
It's the most humbling thing you have ever seen.
You gotta have somebody care for it.
It's absolutely humbling.
Galaxies we didn't know existed.
So when we think we've seen everything, we did.
We gotta be smart about it.
Looks like we're ready.
Okay, I'm ready.
This is why you shouldn't smoke weed before visiting the demilitarized zone.
And you gotta feel for those military officers, because they're standing there thinking to themselves, why are you telling me this?
What are you babbling about?
And yet, she's talking about outer space, and all the cool stuff happening in outer space, in a very uninformed way, going on about how awesome it is, to people who do not care, and in a context where it could not be more irrelevant.
And for that reason, I have never found her more relatable than in that moment, because that is what I do all the time.
That's what I do on this show about three or four times a week.
So, we at least have that in common.
We have nothing else, but at least we have that.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Marissa says, whoa, who would have thought that if during the summer of love we simply
got Lizzo to twerk on the statues, leftists would have thought history is cool and stopped
tearing them down.
Yeah, I mean, that brings up another important point about this Lizzo, James Madison flute situation, which is that they're all pretending to find the flute cool.
So it's a nice cool piece of history because of its ties to James Madison.
But we know they don't really see it that way.
Since when have they thought that anything related to the Founding Fathers was cool?
This is the only time.
You have these people in media say, oh, that's awesome, it's something, James Madison.
Since when have you cared about that?
Usually anything we can tie back to the Founding Fathers is problematic and bad and evil.
So that's just how you know.
The claim that this was done out of respect for the Founding Fathers in American history, you know right off the bat that that's not true, because these people have no respect for American history, least of all the Founding Fathers.
Alright, PG says, I didn't think pigs could fly, but now I know they can play the flute.
Sean says, sorry Matt, Lizzo is proof you can indeed grow up to be a walrus.
I'm disappointed in those comments.
We don't make... We don't body shame.
We don't... I'm deeply, deeply disappointed in both of you.
Ethan says, to destroy a people you must first sever their roots, quoting Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Which, yes, this is... Now, you could say the flute thing is a rather petty example of it.
The more dramatic examples are tearing down the statues, taking names off of buildings, and all the rest of it.
But as we talked about yesterday, the pettiness is the point.
That's part of the point here, is to find these really small, superficial ways Of kind of driving the knife in deeper, and that's what this was.
Jimmy says, Lizzo playing a priceless piece of history that the other 332 million people that live in this country will likely never even see, let alone hold and play, proves once again just how underrepresented and oppressed she really is.
Stunning and brave.
Yeah, that is another.
There are other comments making that observation as well, that along with everything else, this once again goes to show That although we're told someone like Lizzo, being that she's a racial minority, she's a woman, she's overweight, she checks a lot of victim boxes, and yet she is being honored in a way that, according to her, nobody else ever has been in American history.
So that's what it means to be oppressed, apparently.
And District 97 says, funny how Matt and other conservatives didn't even know this flute existed until seven seconds ago, but yet are indignant about this.
That is the laziest response to this.
I have to tell you, District 97, with all due respect, you know, that's the laziest response possible and the dumbest.
You didn't even know the flute existed!
You're right.
I didn't know the flute existed.
Guilty as charged.
I did not know that James Madison had a crystal flute dating back to 1813.
I didn't know that.
You're right.
You know what?
There are many things in the Smithsonian, in fact, almost every artifact in the Smithsonian right now, because it's been a long time since I've been there, I have no direct knowledge of.
And there are many things that the You know, there are many things archived that I have no direct knowledge of.
There are many priceless artifacts and works of art that I, right now, could not list off for you.
And yet, I would still be opposed to those things being defaced.
So, if I hear about someone defacing a Michelangelo painting, That I never heard of.
I'm not going to say, oh, I never heard of that one.
Who cares?
Yeah, go ahead.
I only care about the ones that I had heard of before this moment.
What?
Yeah, I, in principle, am opposed to defiling, defacing, desecrating, disrespecting priceless historical artifacts.
That's, across the board, I'm opposed to all of it, whether I've heard of them or not.
That's my position.
Quite radical, I know.
In the dense emotional fog and mass hysteria that was the infamous historic Walrusgate scandal, I almost forgot to release a patch in the most highly coveted patch program in the history of patch programs.
Yes, I, Matt Walsh, still have a patch program that I did not forget about.
I could never forget about it.
And that's why this month's patch is the Sweet Baby Walrus patch.
It is a beacon of hope A light at the end of the proverbial tunnel where the shadowy figure at the end is a giant stuffed walrus of arguably inconvenient size and questionable utility.
As always, these are limited edition and will sell out fast, so you don't want to wait.
And while you're in my shop, you can also pick up our own official Johnny the Walrus plushie.
So you can go to dailywire.com slash shop to get the latest installment in the Matt Walsh patch program and your very own walrus today.
Also, I'm going to speak to a segment of my audience I've never directly addressed before.
Frat guys.
Where the hell is this going?
I have no idea.
You know, I may not be one of you, but in some ways, we're not so different, you and I. We're both unfairly portrayed by the media, and we're both among the men most hated by, oh, the woke razor companies and leftist ideology, which is unfortunate when you consider the fraternities raise millions of dollars every year for charity.
One Virginia Tech fraternity alone raised $255,000 for St.
Jude's Children's Hospital last year.
So, with that influence and moxie in mind, I thought I'd share an idea that I obviously had.
I had this idea that I'm reading for the first time from a teleprompter.
You know Jeremy's Razor's contest to win the car, the one where you can win Jeremy's McLaren?
Well, we get that you don't want to shuttle everybody around in a two-seater sports car.
That's why if you win, you can take the $250,000 cash prize instead.
So I'm sure your imagination will suffice to paint a picture of all the fun and goodwill that a quarter million dollars will enable for you and your friends.
Listen, most of the top players in the contest still haven't hit the 10 referral mark, so there's plenty of opportunity for you to jump into the race and take it all, take the money and run.
Just go to jeremysrazors.com slash play to get your referral link, and come November 1st, 2022, we'll see which of you is the most woke free fraternity in America.
Peace out, dudes.
Is that even current lingo for frat guys?
Anyway, terms and conditions apply.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So, Haley Bieber is, I'm going to assume, Justin Bieber's wife.
Or, um, I guess she could be his sister, based on the last name.
I didn't feel like checking Wikipedia, so, you know, these things will remain a mystery.
All I know is that Haley Bieber came under intense scrutiny this week, sparked backlash, provoked outrage, as the media puts it, for wearing a certain color lipstick.
Now, you may not have realized that there are significant implications to the color of one's lips, but that is apparently the case.
I don't make the rules.
If I did, we would live in a better society, I think.
Better for some of us, anyway.
Not better for the sorts of people who have turned lipstick into a political issue.
Under my theocratic fascist regime, all such people would be exiled to a barren volcanic island somewhere in the remote Pacific, where they would be free to live out their lives for as long as their survival skills will sustain them, which I guess would be about 45 minutes or so.
And certainly, on the first boat to that island, under my regime, would be the entire cast of ABC's Good Morning America, which earlier this week did an entire report, in fact their cover story, on the Hailey Bieber lipstick controversy.
Here it is.
Now we're gonna go to our GMA cover story.
Haley Bieber facing backlash.
It's the cover story.
It's very important.
You have to realize.
After sharing a makeup look on TikTok with some users causing the look cultural appropriation.
Stephanie Ramos has the details.
Good morning, Stephanie.
racist lips.
Michael, good morning.
Haley Bieber doesn't claim to have invented this particular lip combo in her video, the
brown lip liner and the clear lip gloss, but that post about that combo led to an influx
of TikTok users recreating the look on the platform and crediting Bieber.
Do you think she's embarrassed as a reporter to be doing this?
calling it cultural appropriation.
This is a moment where she looks in the mirror.
And this morning, supermodel Hailey Bieber facing backlash after sharing her new lip routine
on TikTok with the caption, "Ready for all the fall things,
including brownie glazed lips."
(upbeat music)
The now viral post causing a wave of criticism.
Social media users calling out the supermodel, claiming she is culturally appropriating
the makeup routine using dark lip liner and clear lip gloss, a popular style from the
late 80s and 90s.
I know that that lip combo is not Haley Bieber lips.
It is a Latina and black woman lip combo.
Got her.
You got her.
You're right.
The issue is when something is sort of presented as if it's something new, when it's a practice
that has been around for decades and decades, African-American and Latina women get denigrated
for the ways that they present their body, the way Oh, okay.
Good point.
Yeah.
Good points.
Okay.
That's right.
This report went on, by the way, for several more minutes about the lipstick.
denigrate women. It was ghetto, it was trashy, it was not cute.
Many pointing out that the lip style was accepted when a white woman did it, but not when a
woman of color did.
Good points. Okay. That's right. This report went on, by the way, for several more minutes
about the lipstick. Now, they're making it sound like Hailey Bieber literally stole a
black woman's actual lips, like ripped them off and super glued them onto herself like
some kind of weird female TikTok version of Leatherface.
And if that's what she had done, I would be the first to condemn her.
It is inappropriate, I will say right now, to steal another person's facial features without their consent.
I have been very consistent in denouncing such crimes, as you know if you've listened to this show.
But that is not exactly what happened here.
Instead, Hailey Bieber simply put on some lipstick, which presumably she didn't pickpocket out of a black woman's purse, but rather purchased from the store.
So the lipstick is rightfully hers by any legal or moral standard.
Now, we don't need to spend a lot of time, I think, explaining why the cultural appropriation charge is always stupid, especially in this specific case, because there are two ways of looking at this issue.
If by cultural appropriation you mean that someone, an outsider, an interloper, is stealing a product or style or concept or aesthetic or type of music or whatever from an entire culture, If that's what you mean, then cultural appropriation understood that way is a myth.
Because by definition, stealing means two things.
First, that a thing is being taken without permission.
And second, that the victim of this theft is now deprived of the thing that was stolen.
So this is how it works when you steal a car, or a piece of jewelry, or $5 out of somebody's wallet.
But neither of those conditions can be met in any case of cultural appropriation, because the thing that's allegedly being appropriated is not owned by any individual, and so there's no one to seek permission from.
You can't steal what's not owned.
Also, nobody is deprived of the thing that has supposedly been appropriated.
Black women are not prevented from wearing brown lipstick just because Haley Bieber wore it.
This is not, therefore, a case of theft.
But if by cultural appropriation you mean simply that someone is adopting a concept, style, idea, etc.
that originated or was developed by another culture, then cultural appropriation does indeed exist, and it's also a very good thing.
We used to call this cultural exchange, and it was considered a positive and enriching thing until the TikTok pitchfork mob took over the country.
Along with being positive and enriching, it's also inevitable.
Cultures are not static.
They're not these immutable blocks of concrete separated from each other by impenetrable force fields.
Especially not in today's world, but they never were, even in ancient times.
Cultures are living, breathing organisms, basically.
To use a term popular in every context except where it actually applies, cultures are fluid.
They change over time, for better or worse.
In the case of modern Western culture, most of the recent changes have fallen into the latter category.
They've been for the worst.
But whether good or bad, cultures will change.
And they will borrow, and they will learn from each other.
Now, of course, I don't really need to explain any of this, do I?
Because the people who rail against cultural appropriation already understand all of it.
That's why they would never in a million years suggest that non-white people ought to refrain from using or wearing or partaking in things that originated with white people.
You'll never hear them say that a racial minority is culturally appropriating by wearing denim jeans or using electricity.
This only ever goes in one direction because it's actually got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with finding yet another way and another reason to criticize, denigrate, and control white people.
And inventing rules that only one race of people have to follow and no other race of people has to follow is racist.
And that's what most of this is about.
But the complaints about cultural appropriation also speak to something else.
That is, that many people in our society are bored, unserious, and frivolous in the extreme.
They have no purpose in life.
They have nothing to strive for or struggle against.
They are oppressed by their own comfort and security.
They go out looking for dragons to slay in order to give their lives meaning, but they don't have the energy or courage or spiritual depth to find and confront the true evils in this world, of which there are many.
So instead, they look for the easiest targets.
Problems they can solve by making a TikTok video or participating in a hashtag campaign.
They are deeply miserable and teetering always on the edge of full-blown despair, but they're too shallow to understand their own misery, and so they blame it on the most superficial and frivolous things imaginable.
They are flailing around, totally lost, living lives utterly devoid of meaning or consequence, and that's really why they complain about Hailey Bieber's lipstick.
Or about whatever they're whining about today, having already moved on from that controversy and on to another one, and then another, forever and ever, until they die old and alone, having wasted their lives caring about everything except the things actually worth caring about.
And that's why they are, today, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you there.
