Ep. 1046 - The Left Ramps Up Its War On Human Life
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as prominent Democrats openly advocate for eugenics, and Canada drastically expands its euthanasia program, we’ll take a look at the origins and intentions of the Left’s war on human life. Also, some exciting updates on our rally tomorrow in Nashville. Plus, speaking of exciting, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez continues to be shouted down by angry constituents at her town hall events. And test scores have fallen dramatically in the public school system. They’re still blaming it on the pandemic. But I think there’s a lot more to the story. In our Daily Cancellation, a congressional candidate offers a bizarre defense of what she calls our “right to sex.”
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access movies, shows, documentaries and more: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Stop giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values. Shop Jeremy’s Razors instead. Visit https://www.jeremysrazors.com/ to get your Founder’s Kit today!
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days For Life - Get their book "What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion." Available on Amazon or at https://www.40daysforlife.com/en/
HumanN - Get up to 35% OFF Tart Cherry Gummies + FREE shipping: http://mytartcherry.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, as prominent Democrats openly advocate for eugenics and Canada drastically expands its euthanasia program, we'll take a look at the origins and intentions of the left's war on human life.
Also, some exciting updates on our rally tomorrow in Nashville.
Plus, speaking of exciting, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continues to be shouted down by angry constituents at her town hall events, and I think it's just great.
Also, test scores have fallen dramatically in the public school system.
They're still blaming it on the pandemic, but I think there's a lot more to the story.
In our daily cancellation, a congressional candidate offers a bizarre defense of what she calls our, quote, right to sex.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
and going to the grassroots.
No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life for this fight.
With about a million volunteers in 1,000 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
They have a larger presence in blue states, with California being their largest state.
Some former abortion facility directors say these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which is detrimental to their abortion business.
These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America, and nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities, where abortions remain, and will remain, legal, including closures in San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle.
40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.
You can check out their locations, podcasts, and free magazine at 40daysforlife.com.
It's important that you support 40 Days for Life and their work, because as we know, even with the end of Roe v. Wade, this fight is far from over.
So, for more information on 40 Days for Life, go to 40daysforlife.com.
So yesterday we briefly discussed comments made by Stacey Abrams, where she proposed
a novel solution to our economic woes.
As Abrams explained, all we need to do is just kill more children.
And in case you missed that clip, well, here it is again.
You're running for governor of Georgia.
I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but while abortion is an issue, it nowhere reaches the level of interest of voters in terms of the cost of gas, food, bread, milk, things like that.
What can a governor, what could you do as governor to alleviate the concerns of Georgia voters about those livability, daily, hourly issues that they're confronted with?
But let's be clear.
Having children is why you're worried about your price for gas.
It's why you're concerned about how much food costs.
For women, this is not a reductive issue.
You can't divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child.
And so it's important for us to have both and conversations.
We don't have the luxury of reducing it or separating them out, but we also have to talk about what a governor can do.
A governor can address housing prices.
A governor can address the cost of education.
A governor can put money into the pockets of everyday hardworking Georgians instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
That's what I talk about on the trail, and that's what's resonating.
But let's not pretend that women, half the population, Especially those of childbearing age.
They understand that having a child is absolutely an economic issue.
Now, I called this a novel solution, but of course that isn't really true.
There's nothing novel about it.
The Democratic Party has always promoted abortion as a path to financial security.
And the logic is simple.
It's morally depraved, but simple.
Kids cost money.
Get rid of the kids.
Get rid of the expense.
Financial prosperity awaits, allegedly, even though it doesn't actually work out that way.
This is the eugenic engine that has driven the pro-abortion movement since its inception.
It's just that only recently have the pro-aborts started to once again be more open in their eugenicism advocacy, and I say once again because years ago, Before the movement went through a series of rebrands and they started talking more about so-called reproductive health and all the rest of it, before that, the pro-abortion movement used to be much more direct and explicit about all of this and about the fact that it was advocating for eugenics.
Back in 1969, the vice president of Planned Parenthood at the time, named Frederick Jaffe, At the request of an organization called the Population Council, produced a memo with a number of recommendations for how the government could control population growth.
This is the JAFF memo, as it's now called, and it outlines a series of strategies, all falling under four broad categories.
And those categories are social constraints, economic deterrence, social controls, and preventing unwanted pregnancy.
So, just to highlight a few here, and we put the memo up on screen so you can see it yourself, just a few.
Jaff suggested restructuring the family, encouraging people to postpone or avoid marriage, He coupled this with compulsory government education and an encouragement of increased homosexuality.
He also recommended that women should work outside the home.
Under the deterrent category, he listed a number of strategies, including the brilliant idea that the government could reduce population by fostering, quote, chronic depression.
It's actually on the memo.
Elsewhere in the memo, he recommends the wide distribution of contraception, along with sterilization, and of course, tax-funded abortion.
Now, some of his ideas, like compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, that's one of the things that he advocated, that hasn't yet come to pass, but a great many of them have.
In fact, all the rest of the ones that I just listed have.
So, the eugenicists, they told us exactly what they were going to do, and why they were going to do it, and then they did it, and are still doing it now.
It took them several decades, but Planned Parenthood, they even found a way to implement their mass sterilization plan.
Under the guise of gender affirmation, they now provide sterilization drugs to children.
So that is yet another box on the JAF memo which has been checked off.
This was the dystopian future that Planned Parenthood predicted and advocated for and fought to establish, and now we're living in it.
Actually, we're living in something far beyond it, we might say, because somewhat surprisingly, Frederick Jaffe never thought of, or at least didn't include in his memo, the idea of simply just killing off large numbers of adults and calling it a medical treatment.
Put them down like dogs.
Euthanasia did not factor into his calculations, not on the memo anyway.
Perhaps he didn't have an imagination twisted enough to conjure up possibilities like that at the time.
And yet, at some point in the years following, the eugenicists did arrive at this conclusion, and now the death merchants are rapidly expanding their war on human life.
Last week, I told you about a report from a journalist named Rupa Subramanya, who reveals the extent of the euthanasia regime in Canada, or the medical assistance in dying, as they call it there.
She chronicles the plight of one distraught mother, you may recall, who's fighting to prevent her 23-year-old son from killing himself through euthanasia.
Her son, like so many of the other doctor-assisted suicide, quote, patients in Canada, is not terminally ill.
He's just depressed.
And he no longer wants to live.
Rather than provide him with mental and emotional counseling, his doctors are simply going to kill him.
That's their way around it.
Unless his mother can stop it, though, she has no real legal means of doing so.
In fact, the euthanasia laws are expanding so much in Canada and are becoming so permissive that by early next year, they're expected to start killing minors without parental consent.
Although, even if they did it with parental consent, that would be no less horrifying.
So, Rupa provides more details on just how pervasive this has become in the country.
Reading now, she says, in 2017, the first full year in which MAID, which is Medical Assistance in Dying, which is administered by provincial governments, was in operation, 2,838 people opted for assisted suicide, according to a government report.
report. By 2021, that figure had jumped to 10,064, accounting for more than 3% of all
deaths in Canada that year. There have been a total of 31,664 made deaths, and the large
In 2017, only 34 made deaths were in the 18- to 45-year-old category.
between the ages of 65 to 80 when they died.
In 2017, only 34 May deaths were in the 18 to 45 year old category.
In 2018, that figure rose to at least 49.
In 2019, it was.
In 2020, it was 118.
And in 2021, it was 139.
Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying successfully to kill themselves.
Indeed, in some Canadian provinces, nearly 5% of deaths are made deaths. 5%.
In 2021, the province of Quebec reported that 4.7% of deaths in the province were due to Maid.
In British Columbia, the number was 4.8%.
Progressive Vancouver Island is officially, or rather unofficially, known as the assisted death capital of the world, according to doctors.
Now, the other thing to understand is that those who apply for doctor-assisted suicide can have their applications accepted quickly.
The process is streamlined.
Now, what that means is that you'll have better luck in Canada getting accepted for euthanasia than you would for, say, getting a building permit to put an addition on your house.
There's usually tons of red tape and it takes forever to get approval from anything through the bureaucracy, and that's the case in Canada and the United States, of course.
But if you want to kill yourself, well, they'll get you through that process quickly.
The AP reported this a few months ago, "Allen Nichols had a history of depression and other
medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized
in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to 'bust him out' as soon as
possible. Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized, and he was killed."
Within a month.
Submitted the request and was killed.
Within a month.
Despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.
His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die.
Hearing loss.
Nichols' family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably among the requirements for euthanasia.
They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn't using the implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.
Now think about that for a second.
He was sent to the hospital because he was suicidal.
And his family thought the hospital would help save him from suicide.
And instead, according to the family, the staff at the hospital helped him kill himself.
They killed this man because he had hearing loss.
They'll also kill you in Canada if you're homeless.
City News has a report about a 54-year-old man named Amir Farsood in Ontario.
He applied for medical assistance in dying and has already received one of the two doctor's letters of approval that he needs, all because he is potentially about to be homeless.
Here's their report.
How would you describe the quality of your life?
Awful, non-existent, terrible.
I do nothing other than sort of manage symptoms, manage pain.
There we go.
Amir Farsood lives with never-ending agony from a back injury.
How bad does it get?
At worst, it gets bad enough that I'm crying like a five-year-old and not sleeping for two days in a row.
But that's not why he has applied for medically-assisted dying, otherwise known as MAID.
Nor is it the depression he lives with.
Farsood has applied because he is in danger of losing his housing.
He lives in this St.
Catherine's rooming house, sharing this space with two other people.
But it is up for sale.
Farsood lives on social assistance, and says he can't find anywhere else he can afford.
I don't want to die, but I don't want to be homeless more than I don't want to die.
Medically assisted dying in Canada was expanded this past March to include people with disabilities or those suffering in pain, even if they are not close to death.
Now the thing to remember about this is that it is not as though all of these people would have killed themselves anyway.
And all Canada is doing is providing them a painless way of killing themselves.
Now, if that were the case, it would still be horrifying.
It would still be a horrifying reality.
But it's not the case.
More people are killing themselves.
People who would not have otherwise.
People who would have fought on and continued living and found a way to keep living and to deal with their problems.
Someone like this, for example.
Homelessness is a very real problem, and if you're going through that, or being threatened with something like that, or you're worried about the possibility of that, to call it distressing, of course, would be an understatement.
But you can live through it.
You can fight through it.
There's still hope.
There's light at the end of the tunnel.
And a great many of these people, if they didn't have this system in place to just usher them off the planet, Usher them out of their own lives.
If that system wasn't in place, many of these people would continue living.
So I think Stacey Abrams, when she sees that, she'd be proud.
Because rather than make the country, our country, more livable for children, Abrams suggests that we simply kill them.
And in Canada, rather than address the homelessness problem, they'll just start exterminating them.
Rather than address the problem of depression and despair and mental illness, Just kill them all.
They're not going to concern themselves with coming up with policies or strategies that may help human beings be happy and flourish.
No, in fact, it's the opposite, because human flourishing is a negative in their minds.
According to the powers that be, according to the leftists, human flourishing is a negative.
It's the opposite of what they desire.
Human flourishing, as the Jaffe memo showed in 1969, is the problem that they seek to solve.
And they have spent decades solving it.
it.
From the makers of Super Beats Heart Juice, Tart Cherry Gummies are an easy way to support your metabolic health and reduce inflammation from exercise.
These gummies are made with a clinically studied tart cherry extract that is up to 40 times more concentrated than many other tart cherry extracts.
Just two tart cherry gummies are the antioxidant equivalent of 16 ounces of tart cherry juice.
Or 100 cherries.
So put all that tart cherry juice away.
You don't need it.
All you need are the gummies.
Formulated by a team of scientists led by Nobel Prize-winning doctors, tart cherry has been clinically studied to support metabolic health.
I had tart cherry gummies for the first time the other day after finishing up a workout, and I could really feel the difference.
Plus, they're delicious.
Tart cherry gummies come with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Try them risk-free for 90 days and see how you feel.
If you don't love them, send them back.
No questions asked.
But I think you will.
Right now you can get up to 35% off tart cherry gummies plus free shipping at MyTartCherry.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer available anywhere.
That's MyTartCherry.com slash Walsh for up to 35% off tart cherry gummies.
MyTartCherry.com slash Walsh.
These statements and products have not been evaluated by the FDA.
These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition.
All right, so here's an announcement for you that I'll deliver by way of this Daily Wire report.
Former Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard will be speaking at a Friday rally to end child mutilation led by Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, that's me, at the Tennessee state capitol.
Gabbard, who introduced a bill in Congress in December 2020 that would have banned biological males from competing in women's sports, joins a host of other high-profile speakers who are scheduled to attend the rally.
In Nashville.
So that's the announcement is that Tulsa Gabbard is going to be speaking as well at the rally.
So we've got a wide range, and I think this is great.
We've got a wide range of people represented speaking at this rally.
Tulsa Gabbard is going to be there.
Senator Marshall Blackburn will be speaking.
We're going to have a couple different state lawmakers here in Tennessee who are heading up the fight to to actually ban child mutilation in the state. Dr. Colin
Wright's going to be there. Chloe Cole, who's a detransitioner and an activist, is going to be
there. Scott Nugent from What Is A Woman also will be speaking at the rally, and many more as well.
So this is going to be, as I said, a wide range of people, lots of voices
represented.
And that's what the left wants, right?
That's what they say they want.
Representation is so important.
Well, we're going to have that at this rally.
A lot of different types of people speaking, different backgrounds, but all of us with the same goal to protect children from being horrifically abused and mutilated.
Once again, that's four o'clock outside the state capitol in Nashville.
Obviously, the larger the crowd, the better, because we're trying—again, this is not just about pushing for a law here in Tennessee to make this kind of thing illegal.
That's a big part of the plan.
That is what we're advocating for.
But it goes beyond that as well.
You know, this is about building a national movement.
To protect children and also to just stand for basic truth and moral decency.
So, really hope to see you all there.
Moving on to this, AOC is having more trouble at her town hall events and let's...
We saw the footage last week.
She was at a town hall event, sparsely attended, and she was being shouted down by protesters.
Protesters from the left who were accusing her of being a warmonger, going along with the United States' involvement in Ukraine, and accusing her of Being part of the problem, ushering us towards potentially nuclear conflict, all of that is true.
And here, once again, she's at another town hall event, and the audience, not big fans, it would seem.
Let's check this out.
Ma'am, you're saying ask us why y'all been talking for 20 minutes, okay?
We know why.
We know why you're mad.
Let's talk about it.
[crowd shouting]
I'm going to cut the lights out.
You know, there is a slightly bigger crowd.
That's good at least for her.
Now she's standing outside the building.
Oh, now she comes back in.
Alright.
So you get the idea.
Crowd not happy.
So it's slightly bigger.
Now at the town hall event last week, it was a room about that size and there were maybe five people sitting in the room.
And in this case, she's got a good solid crowd of probably 20 or 30 people.
So give her some credit for that.
That's nice.
But it seems like a certain portion of the crowd are only there because they want to yell at her.
Which once again, I think that's fantastic.
This is the treatment that politicians Now, in many other contexts, if you're going to watch a speech or a talk or a panel discussion or something like that, you shouldn't be in the audience screaming and shouting and disrupting.
You shouldn't be doing that, even if it's leftists up on the stage.
But with politicians, totally different ballgame.
And when it's a politician like AOC, this is the treatment that she should be getting.
People should be yelling at her and basically showing as much respect for her as she shows for them, which is none at all.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
Like, in theory, right, these are public servants, so in theory they work for us.
And the respect should come that way.
You show respect for us and maybe we'll return it to you.
But if you don't have any respect for us, we're not gonna have respect for you.
This is a... That's what a healthy democracy looks like.
That, what you just saw there.
That's what a healthy democracy looks like and sounds like.
Ineffectual, worthless, useless politicians being yelled at by their constituents.
It's a beautiful thing.
It's music to my ears.
I love it.
And she has nothing to offer them.
She has nothing to say to them.
This is what we talked about in the opening.
As a far-left Democrat, she's not worried about what's going on in their lives.
She's not worried about, you know, helping them flourish, which is what she should be doing.
She should be advocating policies that are all directed towards human flourishing.
But she has the opposite intentions.
And they're letting her know about it.
Since we're on the subject of Democrats embarrassing themselves, I want to just throw this in as well, briefly.
Here's a South Carolina Democratic Congressional candidate named Annie Andrews in a debate, I think this was this week, and she was asked who will pay for the health care plan that she has outlined.
And let's watch that exchange.
Who pays for your plan, Dr. Andrews?
30 seconds.
I'm sorry?
Who pays for your plan?
How would that plan be paid for?
So we need to focus on delivering high quality healthcare that focuses on prevention and that becomes more affordable.
We need to get big pharma and big insurance out of this so that we can focus on our patients and delivering high quality preventable healthcare which is evidence based and cost effective.
So, not answering the question.
Who pays for the plant?
I'm sorry, what was that?
Who pays for the plant?
Sorry, I can't hear you.
I have water clogged in my ears.
I took a bath earlier.
Well, the answer, of course, is the taxpayers pay for it.
But she doesn't want to say that out loud.
For some reason, they're always quite hesitant to actually say out loud that, well, here are all of our plans, and by the way, all of this is coming directly out of your pocket.
Of course, the reason they don't want to say that is because they present all of these ideas, especially when it comes to something like healthcare, they present it as, oh, we're giving this to you for free, we're going to provide you with free healthcare, free this, free that.
Well, if they then have to admit that you are paying for the free thing, then you'll quickly understand that it's not free at all.
Alright, a couple of stories here having to do with the situation in our school system.
First, Tim Ryan in Ohio, hopefully about to lose to J.D.
Vance in a couple of weeks here, has this to say about our schools.
We have to have honest conversations about, and we've got people who want to turn our schools, when we should be focused on shop class, and trauma-informed care, and robust investments into joint vocational schools.
They want to turn our schools into the next battleground in the culture wars.
We can't let them.
We can't let them.
It's up to us.
Yeah, oh, we are turning the schools into a battleground in the culture war.
We're doing that.
So, on the left, they're putting pornographic material in the schools, and they want to have conversations about gender identity and transgenderism with kindergartners.
And they want that so badly that if, say, in Florida, you pass a law that simply says you can't talk about transgenderism with kids between K through third grade, if you do that, the left loses their mind about it and hasn't stopped losing their mind over it.
So that's what they're doing, but we're the ones turning it into a battleground in the culture war.
And am I saying that the left on their own has made education a battleground in the culture war?
No, I wouldn't even say that.
I mean, it's education that we're talking about.
Inevitably, it's going to be a battleground in the culture war.
Because the education system determines so much of our culture.
The education system, to a large extent, shapes our culture, decides what the culture is.
And so if there's a culture war, it's going to end up in the school system.
Inevitably.
Speaking of the school system, Axios has this report.
The average ACT test score for students in the class of 2022 dropped to its lowest level in more than three decades, according to information out on Wednesday.
The decline in scores is the latest indicator of the pandemic's detrimental effects on the nation's students.
An underscore is the extent to which graduating high school students are ill-prepared for college.
ACT CEO Janet Godwin says the magnitude of the declines this year is particularly alarming as we see rapidly growing numbers of seniors leaving high school without meeting the college readiness benchmark in any of the subjects we measure.
The national average composite score for graduating seniors in 2022 was 19.8 out of 36, which is the lowest score since 1991, and down from 20.3 for graduating seniors in 2021.
In addition, 42% of students failed to meet any of the ACT's subject benchmarks in English, Reading, Science, and Math, which are the minimum test scores required for students to have a reasonable chance of success in typical first-year college courses.
Then there's this part, which is important.
ACT test scores have been on the decline for at least five years, Godwin said, adding that it is a worrisome trend that began long before the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted.
Okay, that's an important qualifier here, because when you hear this claim that the pandemic has caused test scores to go down and kids are less ready for college or whatever, first of all, the pandemic Didn't do any of that.
The pandemic itself had no effect on test scores.
That's not how pandemics work.
Pandemics aren't going to make test scores take a nosedive.
Pandemics don't have anything to do with test scores.
This is, if it's related to the pandemic at all, it's about how we responded to the pandemic.
And when I say we, I don't mean we, I mean the government.
It's what the government did, and what the school system did, which is part of the government, in response to the pandemic.
Shutting down schools for a year, and in some cases almost two years, you didn't have to do that.
They decided to do that.
And obviously when you shut down the schools for extended periods of time, you are going to see kids performing, you're going to see academic performance decline.
It's not a surprise.
And it is incredibly frustrating to read stories like this in the media.
Especially because there's always this tone of surprise to it.
Shock and surprise and alarm.
And they're raising the alarm now and say, oh, look what happened because of the pandemic response.
Yeah, we told all of you that in the beginning.
We told you that from day one that this would happen.
And we were shouted down for years.
And now you come along when it's too late and say, oh, okay, you were right about that.
Only you're not even saying you were right.
You're not acknowledging that we were right.
But also, it's important to note, as it does at the end there, that we've been trending in the wrong direction for years.
So the pandemic response, not the pandemic, the pandemic response aggravated or exacerbated a problem that already existed.
So this is, you can't even put it all on the pandemic response.
The education system is failing and has been failing for years and has for years been trending in exactly the wrong direction.
And I say all that even though I don't like standardized tests.
I'm skeptical about tests in general as a means of gauging a student's grasp on the subject.
I certainly don't agree with teaching to the test as all of the schools do.
That's the way the system is set up.
That the goal of any class, it's not really to help kids have a grasp on the subject matter.
It's not to make them more knowledgeable and intelligent, certainly.
It's just to make sure that they can score well on the test.
And then head off to the four-year institution.
That's what the entire system is set up for.
Score well on the test.
Go spend six figures on a four-year institution.
That's it.
I don't agree with any of that.
I don't think that should be the goal of the education system.
And again, I am extremely skeptical of standardized tests and the idea that you can sufficiently gauge a student's grasp and understanding of the subject through a test.
I think what you're actually gauging is the ability of a student to memorize certain bits of information and regurgitate them onto a sheet of paper.
That's what you're gauging.
Memorization and regurgitation.
Which, by the way, it's a helpful skill to have, and it can come in handy even later in life, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actually understanding the subject.
Which is why you can have kids who make it through school and get admirable grades, and they perform well on the tests, and then they become adults, and you go and you try to have a conversation with them about any subject at all, and it becomes clear that they don't know anything.
They did well on the test, but they don't actually know anything.
But that's how I feel about it.
The point is that the school, by their own standards, are failing.
The schools, by their own standards, are failing.
By their own strategies, they're failing.
This is how they've set it up, is that everything is judged based on the tests.
And they've set up the entire system that way.
The entire system exists for the tests, and the kids are still failing on the tests.
So the schools are not even just a failure by my standards, or by the standards of people who are critical, fundamentally critical of the government education system, but they're even a failure by the school's own standards.
Alright, so you've seen this Dylan Mulvaney fellow quite a lot.
He's been selected by the powers that be.
To be a thing, and not just be a thing, but to be the spokesman for womanhood.
And we've seen a few videos from him.
I want to show you this, because this is one of his latest TikTok videos, sponsored by Instacart.
Okay, this dude has all kinds of corporate sponsorships now.
And this is one of his latest.
Just watch this.
You know what I think we need?
A good old-fashioned sleepover!
So much of what I'm doing online is reliving the moments of girlhood that I missed out on, including sleepovers, where I could be silly with my friends all night long without a care in the world.
So I put together a Dylan's Sleepover Essentials list on Instacart that y'all can shop to get my dream sleepover experience!
Speaking of, my order is here!
I have the delivery.
First things first, skincare!
And I'm warning you beforehand, I eat mostly junk food, but we're having a sleepover so it's allowed.
The pizza's ready!
Oh, it's hot!
It's hot!
I still have room in my dessert stomach, so we're having ice cream!
I think we start with prank calls, and then put a finger down, then we'll go around and manifest all of our dreams and goals for the rest of the year, then a rom-com, and then we can paint our nails, and we're gonna stay up all night long!
Visit the link in my bio to shop Dylan's Sleepover Essentials via Instacart now!
Love ya!
I have to remind you again, nothing you need to remind her, it's quite obvious.
That is a grown man, that is a grown adult man, not just identifying as a woman, which he is not, but as a child, as a girl.
And what he says there in the video, sponsored by Instacart, that he's reliving the girlhood that he missed out on.
He is playing the part of an adolescent girl.
To call that creepy and concerning and to say that it raises red flags would be an understatement.
And yet, that's sponsored by Instacart.
So it's just, it's sort of amazing the extent to which All of these corporate brands have selected this guy.
He's a guy, a creep, and then one day he decides, as a TikTok stunt, that he's going to transition, not into a woman, but into an adolescent girl.
And almost immediately, some of the biggest brands and corporations in the country are lining up to give this guy money and make him into a mascot for them.
They're skipping over a bunch of actual women.
If they wanted a real woman to represent... If Instacart wanted an actual woman on TikTok to promote their products, I'm sure they could find plenty.
But they go right to the guy.
Playing the part of a teenage girl.
Alright.
Another big air travel controversy.
Yahoo reports this.
We've had a lot of heavy stuff, so something slightly less serious, though still pretty serious.
Yahoo says, where do you stand or sit, as the case may be, on a controversial air travel issue?
For years, people have weighed in on whether they or other passengers should fully recline their seats during a flight, especially amid a long flight, because the act of reclining that seat means the person seated behind the airplane chair will have far less space than otherwise.
People are vehement on both sides of the issue.
Now comes further discussion and controversy.
A user on Reddit named Cherry I guess I can't judge all these news outlets for constantly mining Reddit for content, because I do that all the time also.
and it makes it into the news.
I guess I can't judge all these news outlets for constantly mining Reddit for content
because I do that all the time also, but then again, this is not a news program.
Anyway, Cherry Ham recently shared that she was on a flight to the US.
from Australia, 14 hours she added, and sometime into the flight, I reclined my seat to sleep.
But then the person posted, the girl behind me poked me and told me to not recline my seat because she was uncomfortable.
What is the etiquette here?
Fox News Digital reached out to the user for comment.
Ree Winter, an Australian, replied and shared further details of her trip with Fox News Digital via email.
That's naive.
News outlets reaching out for comment about someone because they had an issue reclining their seat on a plane.
She says, I was flying to America to see my partner.
It was a flight to LAX.
After the woman behind me poked my seat repeatedly, I turned to look at her and she then told me that she was trying to watch a movie and I shouldn't recline my seat.
Winter told Fox News Digital further about the incident.
It's a 14-hour flight, so you really want to be able to sleep through some of it.
When it was obvious that this woman thought she was in the right and was
going to continue to annoy me, I called a flight attendant, explained the situation,
and asked if I could move seats. Winter said the attendant was happy to oblige
since there were a couple of seats vacant. And then anyway, so the other
Reddit users chimed in and gave their own opinions about it.
Should you recline the seat?
Should you not?
This to me, I'm just going to make the definitive declaration on this one because they say that it's a controversy.
It's really not a controversy at all.
It's really quite simple.
If you want to be treated vaguely like a human being on a plane, you need to sit in first class, okay?
You have to pay the extra, depending on how long the flight is, maybe the extra $1,000
for first class.
Because it's not even that you get necessarily luxury in first class.
It's just you'll have human-like conditions.
And you can do things like recline your seat.
That's what first class is for.
If you're sitting in coach because you don't want to pay the extra money, then you're basically
not human for the duration of the flight.
I don't like it.
I'm not saying it should be that way, but that's how it is.
You're packed in there, you're treated like livestock, and that's just it.
That's part of the bargain now.
Which means that, yeah, you might think, yeah, I paid for the seat, I should be able to recline it.
No, you can't.
You cannot recline the seat.
That's the verdict here.
Reclining seats, that's, you gotta pay $1,000 and sit in first class, but you don't recline your seat in coach.
It's one of the most selfish things you can do.
Because you are, yeah, you're restful, but you are directly, the person behind you has about four inches of leg room.
You're gonna recline that seat so you can catch some Z's and get a nap or whatever, and you are taking all of that space away.
How can you even sleep knowing that you're doing that?
I don't know how you sleep on a plane in general, but how do you sleep knowing that you're sleeping in the lap of a stranger behind you?
And not only that, but the entire time while you're resting, you know that they're sitting there stewing in anger and just glaring at you because they can't do anything else.
They can't watch a movie on the... They can't watch the screen that's on the back because you reclined it, so they can't watch a movie.
They can't read a book.
They can't do work because you reclined your seat.
They can't use the tray table.
They can't eat.
The plane shouldn't be set up this way, but they are.
I don't even know how you sleep.
What kind of sociopath do you need to be?
To be able to sleep in those conditions.
So that's it.
That's the verdict.
Now we can all move on.
Now let's get to our comment section.
I've quit emojis cold turkey and my mind feels clearer for it.
Jess says, I have never felt more aligned with Matt Walsh than I was during his emoji rant.
WP Max says, Matt, my fellow, I'm almost with you on the emoji front.
I hate emojis in almost every single instance.
The only time I use them is with my wife and it's never in place of communication.
I only use them to accentuate a statement that I make prior to its use.
But they should never be used in place of linguistic communication and never in a business interaction.
It's just unprofessional.
Using emojis with your wife?
You're going to emasculate yourself that way?
By using emojis?
And you say you use the emoji... You accentuate a statement prior to its use.
So you put the emoji before the statement that you're about to make?
I don't even understand that.
Although I was, there were a lot of comments that were in support of my anti-emoji position, which I was relieved to see that.
I was also surprised, because what I see when I look out in the world is like everyone is using emojis.
And so I'm wondering, of all the people that are now saying they agree with me in principle you shouldn't use them, are you using them anyway?
Because there should be.
If we're all anti-emoji, then this should be a pretty easy problem to solve.
Jesus Saves says, you're so right about people who attempt to make a middle ground by agreeing to the most common of the absurd new takes.
By the way, the control room is putting emojis up on the screen as I speak because this is what I have This is gonna haunt me for the rest of my life.
You're so right about people who attempt to take a middle ground by agreeing to the most common of the absurd new takes.
I saw the same thing when people started to say that homosexuality is fine, but I can't agree with transgender.
Now it's, I'll call people the wrong pronoun as long as the pronoun exists.
Eventually, they will allow for more and more.
If we don't stand on the truth, then we'll keep falling for more and more evil.
As I said yesterday, if you are willing, when it comes to the pronoun thing, If you're willing to abandon what you know is true in order to go along with the crowd or because you want to be polite or whatever else it is, you're willing to do that, then you've opened the door and there are no limits anymore.
Okay, another comment says, Weeb is short for Weeboo.
Which used to be a derogatory term coined on the chans to refer to Western anime fans that had an overly idealized impression of Japan that bordered on obsession.
These days it can be a derogatory term referring to someone whose engagement with the fandoms of Japanese media is bleeding over into their other social interactions, It can also be a term of endearment or self-description that refers simply to enjoying Japanese media.
Okay, I did ask what weeb means and I got the explanation and I stopped caring halfway through reading it, but now I know at least.
McKinley says, I will never get over the irony of the people who claim to always support science and follow what the science says being the ones who support all of this nonsense.
That's one of their many contradictions, obviously, but it's also worth, you know, noting that their conception of science, their idea of what science is, is totally confused.
I could do a follow-up to What is a Woman called What is Science, and it would also be a stumper for the left.
It's actually a good question to ask them when they start talking about science says this and that.
You ask them, what is science?
What do you mean that the science says this?
What do you think it means?
Because what they actually think science means is they think that science is an institution.
That's what they think.
They think that science is like an organization.
And it has representatives.
It has gatekeepers.
It has people who hold the magical secrets of the universe.
And if those people and those institutions declare something, then the science declares it by extension.
Fauci said this about himself almost verbatim multiple times.
He is the science.
He represents the science, he said.
And that is how the left sees it.
But that's not science.
Okay, you know what science is?
You know how you define it?
Very simple.
Science is a process of understanding the physical world.
And every part of that definition is important because it is focused on the physical world.
Science can only tell you about the physical world.
Now, if you're a materialist, you would say that all there is is the physical world.
There's nothing outside of it.
I would say that there's more to reality than the physical world.
But either way, all science can do is deal with the physical world.
And when it comes to the physical world, it is a process of understanding.
It's not a declaration.
It's not a statement.
It's not a verdict.
It is a process of understanding.
So when you say the science says XYZ, it actually doesn't make any sense because science doesn't say anything.
People say things.
So people can use science, that is, they can engage in a process of understanding the physical world, and they can arrive at conclusions, and they can tell you what those conclusions are.
That's not the science speaking, that's the person.
And maybe they're right about the conclusions, or maybe they're wrong.
So, it's kind of like looking through a telescope and then saying, the telescope says that the moon is right there.
Well, the telescope doesn't say anything.
The telescope is just a tool.
It's a tool that you use to see what is there.
And you're probably right that the moon is there.
But it's you saying that, it's not the telescope.
The telescope is just the tool that magnified physical realities so that you could see them better.
And same thing with science.
Alright.
Thorium says, I used to be SBG, but now I'm a proud Cooper Trooper.
We are the superior gang.
Well, you were never SBG.
Okay?
That's one of the fundamental rules here.
What's rule number one of SPG?
We don't explain it to anyone.
Rule number two is that you never leave.
And if you do leave, then you were never in it to begin with.
You can't, you can't, you can't, you can't do that.
And can I tell you something else too?
I assume you're talking to Brett Cooper, her fans are Cooper Trooper.
You can't, no.
You can't make your own gang.
It has to develop.
See, the beauty of SPG is that it was meant to be.
It was written in the stars.
I didn't invent it.
It just happened.
It almost grew out of the ground, almost.
It was like, it's organic.
The world was crying out for it.
It just came into being.
You can't decide one day, oh, I'm gonna have my own cult.
That's not how it works.
So here's what I'll say.
I will accept Cooper Trooper.
I'll accept that as a subdivision of the Sweet Baby Gang.
I'm okay with that.
Okay, you can have your own little clubs or whatever within the Sweet Baby Gang organization.
But there is only one gang, there's only one cult here at The Daily Wire.
I'm very clear about that.
Are you still giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values, see masculinity as toxic, and think you should teach your daughter how to shave her beard?
Well, there is a be—although if she has a beard, you probably should shave it, so...
But she probably doesn't is the point.
Anyway, there's a better way.
Jeremy's razors are 100% real and 100% woke free.
The premium matte tungsten handle has more heft than the left.
The razor head pivots without caving and has six blades that are sharper than truth.
Those other razor companies, they keep virtue signaling to the totalitarian left and using your money to do it, but you don't have to let them.
When you buy Jeremy's razors, you aren't just making Jeremy richer, you're making the woke left poorer.
95,000 people have already made the switch.
Visit jeremysrazors.com to get your Founders Series Shave Kit today.
That's jeremysrazors.com.
Jeremy's Razors, shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Alexandra Hunt is a self-described public health activist and community organizer whose failed congressional bid made the news due to the fact that she was using OnlyFans to raise money for her campaign.
Now, in fairness to her, lots of politicians are prostitutes, so she was just being more honest about it, you might say.
Before running for Congress, Hunt was, for a brief period, a stripper.
And again, you could argue that that was relevant career experience for an aspiring D.C.
politician.
But now that her political dreams have been put on hold, Hunt has been able to get back to her public health activism.
And that's what she was apparently trying to do, presumably, with a recent viral tweet thread in which she tries to raise the alarm that not enough people are having sex.
She tweeted this quote young men aren't having sex exclamation point
Nearly a third of men under 30 have not had sex and a higher percent do not have as much sex as they like
Not exactly surprising, but this kind of statistic is a sign of much deeper problems now
She then provides a chart from the Washington Post which shows that 28% of men under 30
Haven't had sex in the past year Not that they're virgins, necessarily, as Hunt seems to claim.
Yet, even still, it is indicative of a real problem.
The question is whether she will interpret the problem correctly and offer helpful solutions.
And if we know anything about the left, we know that there really isn't a question here at all.
The answer on both counts is obviously no.
So she continues.
Our society criminalizes sex and sweeps it under the rug.
The consequences are straightforward.
There's more violence.
Since platforms like Craigslist were banned from advertising sex, serious violent crimes against all women, not just sex workers, has increased by nearly a fifth.
A man and men who do not have sex suffer.
They're less likely to be a part of the labor force.
They're more likely to experience depression, nihilism, other mental health issues.
The Me Too movement accomplished so much, and we have to take the next step, normalizing having healthy, positive, consensual sex.
Decriminalizing sex work, funding sex education, and creating outreach programs that help young people develop healthy sexual habits.
We should be moving toward a right to sex.
People should be able to have sex when they feel they want to, and we need to develop services that meet people's needs without attaching the baggage of shame or criminalization.
So let's talk about sex.
We need to bring these discussions to the spotlight.
Normalizing healthy, positive sex will have too many downstream benefits to list.
We need to move past our history of shame.
It's time to bring sex into the light.
Okay.
Well, this is just a mess.
The train has gone careening catastrophically off the rails.
And that's all the more frustrating because in this case, for once, the train was actually initially on the rails, at least partially, at first.
She identified a real problem, part of a real problem, but that's where her insights ended.
They ended because, to summarize, she located a problem caused by the sexual revolution and then sought to fix it With solutions given to her by the sexual revolution.
She's trying to put out the flames by smothering it with dry kindling, in other words.
So let's go through this more thoroughly because it is an important issue.
But what is the issue exactly?
Yes, large numbers of younger men and women aren't having sex.
More to the point, however, they're not in romantic relationships.
They're not married.
The numbers show that the average age of marriage is getting pushed back precipitously more and more each year, and as this is happening, more and more men, and again women too, are dropping out of the dating pool entirely, all but giving up, waving the white flag.
So, the lack of sex is one significant feature of the actual underlying concern, which is that people are increasingly giving up on meaningful romantic relationships with other flesh-and-blood human beings.
Hunt doesn't seem worried about the human relationship part.
She thinks that as long as we can, you know, have sex with each other again, everything will be fine.
If everyone could just go out there and have sex, everything's fine.
Doesn't matter who they're having sex with or in what context.
All that matters is the sex, she thinks.
We could even have government-issued prostitutes, or else we could give sex-starved Americans an EBT-style credit card that they can go and use at the local tax-funded whorehouse.
Like any other progressive, Hunt has decided that everything comes down to sex and the solution, as always, is just more and more sex.
She believes that somehow our society is not open enough about the subject.
We need to talk about it more.
We need to stop sweeping it under the rug, as she phrases it.
But this can't possibly be the problem because there has never been a more sex-saturated culture than ours.
Everybody with an internet connection or a smartphone, including children, can access at lightning speed literally billions of hours of pornography whenever they want.
And even if they don't want to access it, pornography will be put in front of their faces everywhere.
Sex is everywhere.
It's talked about everywhere.
They put porn in grade school libraries.
Gay bars host drag queen strip shows for children.
As a culture, we need more exposure to sex in the same way that a guy on his third plate of the Chinese buffet needs another serving of food.
The problem is not in the lack of sexual exposure, but rather more in its overabundance, and also in the type of sexual exposure we're talking about.
Hunt says that we need all this sexual stuff, and indeed a lot more of it, because we all have a right to sex.
Now that's clearly ridiculous, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time chopping down that particular tree.
Nobody has a right to sex because if you have a right to something, then a person who withholds that thing from you has infringed on your rights.
So the implication then would obviously be that if a person who doesn't have sex with you has committed a moral crime against you, that's the implication.
Like, they don't have a right to not have sex with you, if Hunt's idea is correct.
And this becomes a justification for rape and all manner of other atrocities.
That may not be what she directly intends, but that is the consequence of turning sex into a human right.
Which it is not.
So, her insight on this subject is obviously quite limited, to put it generously.
What, then, are the actual causes of the problem?
Well, here are a few worth thinking about.
First, as mentioned, pornography.
There's been plenty of research done on this, actual credible research, which consistently shows that people who regularly view pornography become less interested in romantic relationships.
This applies also to people actually in romantic relationships, which is part of the reason why pornography usage is tied to higher rates of divorce.
Porn, along with being morally degenerate and spiritually corrosive, is a source of kind of empty calories.
It satiates the human desire for companionship and romance, except that it does so in the most superficial sort of way.
A man who is hungry for food might fill up by eating chips and drinking soda, but he's not actually being nourished.
And in a similar way, a man who is desperate for the company of a woman might get his fill with pornography, but he's not actually satisfying that deep longing of his heart.
He's numbing himself so that he doesn't feel it as much, at least in the moment.
Second, Hunt gives credit to the Me Too movement, but of course the Me Too movement is a major source of the problem.
A man who would otherwise be inclined to go out and pursue a woman is now terrified that he'll trip over any of the countless landmines that are buried all over the dating scene.
He's worried that even if he tries to approach a woman, pay her a compliment, flirt with her, ask her out, etc., he'll find himself accused of sexual harassment or worse.
And third, what lies at the root of all of this is demoralization, a lack of purpose, a lack of meaning, despair.
Hunt mentions nihilism, but she thinks that nihilism is caused by Or a side effect of the lack of sexual relationships, but it goes the other way around.
A man doesn't give up on female companionship and then become a nihilist.
He becomes a nihilist and then gives up on female companionship.
She is pointing to an issue that is much farther downstream.
The problem is not simply that men aren't having sex, but that they aren't getting married to begin with.
And the problem is not simply that they aren't getting married, but that they struggle to see the purpose or meaning in marriage, or in anything else.
And the problem is not simply that men don't have purpose in their lives, but that we live in a culture that breeds purposelessness and despair.
The culture has signposts all along the road pointing in a certain direction, and if you follow those signs and you walk down that way, it will lead you directly off a cliff, where you'll wind up in a moral and spiritual freefall, all the way down into a cold, dark abyss.
Alexandra Hunt, as a leftist, is one of the people who's putting those signs up, directing people into the pit.
And as they fall into it, she stands around the edge shouting, hey, what's the matter?
Why are you so upset?
And that is why she is today finally cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block portion, hope to see you there.
