Ep. 1063 - The New York Times Is Forced To Acknowledge The Dangers Of Puberty Blockers
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in the latest evidence that we are shifting the Overton window, the New York Times is now acknowledging the dangers of puberty blockers. Also, with the help of several Republicans, Democrats in the Senate now have a filibuster-proof majority to redefine marriage at the federal level. Plus, a prominent physicist claims that there are more than two human sexes. The View frets about Republicans raising the voting age to 28. I wish. And the US Men's soccer team replaces the American flag with the pride flag.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Switch to Jeremy’s Razors at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/walsh
PragerU - Download the PragerU app today: https://prager-u.app.link/QOwTHO9rSub
Available for IOS and Android mobile platforms
- - -
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 Walsh Show, in the latest evidence that we are shifting the Overton window, the New York Times is now acknowledging the dangers of puberty blockers.
Also, with the help of several Republicans, Democrats in the Senate now have a filibuster-proof majority to redefine marriage at the federal level.
Plus, a prominent physicist claims that there are more than two human sexes.
The View frets about Republicans raising the voting age to 28.
I wish.
And the U.S.
men's soccer team replaces the American flag with the pride flag.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wells Show.
[MUSIC]
Inflation continues to plague our economy.
The Daily Wire reports that in less than two years, inflation has soared from 1.4% to 8.6%.
As of May 2022, the price of gasoline was up nearly 49%.
As of May 2022, the price of gasoline was up nearly 49%.
The price of meat, poultry and fish was up 14.2%.
And the price of used cars was up 16%.
The current administration's irresponsible spending patterns, including Biden's $1.9
trillion rescue plan, continue to exacerbate the problem.
Now this is not the time to have all of your money tied up in the stock market.
Don't let your savings wither away.
Hedge against inflation with gold from Birch Gold.
That's Walsh to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your
savings with gold.
Birchgold is giving out a free gold bar with any purchase made by December 22nd, but you have to submit your claim to get this offer by Black Friday.
With almost 20 years of experiencing and converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metal IRAs, Birchgold can help you do the same.
Don't sit around while the Fed devalues your hard-earned money.
Text WALSH to 989898 and learn how you can convert at least part of your savings into a precious metals IRA.
If you place an order by December 22nd, Birchgold will send you a free gold bar.
So text WALSH to 989898.
Well, it's only Tuesday, but the New York Times has already had an interesting week.
It began on Sunday with an article about age restrictions for tattoos.
The piece begins with this anecdote.
It says, last month, a 10-year-old boy walked into the nurse's office of his elementary school in Highland, New York.
and asked for some Vaseline.
He wanted to rub it onto his new tattoo, a crude rendering of his name in large block letters on the inside of his forearm.
The nurse called the police.
The boy had gotten the tattoo with his mother's permission from a neighbor, according to local authorities.
While some states have no minimum age for receiving a tattoo if a parent allows it, New York State forbids anyone younger than 18 from getting tattooed with or without parental consent.
Last month, both the tattoo artist Austin Smith, 20, who was unlicensed, and the boy's
mother, Crystal Thomas, 33, were arrested as pictures of the boy's arms stirred outrage
across local and international news sites and social media.
Well, we're then told that tattoos are becoming more and more common and socially acceptable,
which is not exactly news to most of us.
The worst thing about tattoos now is that they're cliched, since everyone has them.
And I say that as somebody who has two.
As we're told, however, most states forbid children, those under the age of 18, from getting these permanent markings on their bodies.
Yet, 12 states or so, around a dozen states, do allow tattoos on children with no minimum age requirement at all, as long as they have parental consent.
Back to the article, it says, it is a situation that Dr. Cora Bruner, a pediatrician and professor at the University of Washington Medical Center Seattle Children's Hospital and author of Guidance on Tattoos for Pediatricians, issued by the American Academy of Pediatric Medicine, finds troubling.
Quote, it is a permanent mark or a symbol you're putting on your body.
I don't think kids under 18 have that kind of agency to make a decision, Dr. Bruner said.
We need to look at these laws again.
Now personally, I couldn't agree more.
Children do not have agency to make permanent, life-altering decisions.
It's good to hear that the American Academy of Pediatrics has reached this common sense conclusion.
Like most people, the American Academy of Pediatrics can clearly see, when it comes to tattoos, that children are impulsive, suggestible, unable to think through the consequences.
In fact, the Times article ends by telling us that everyone involved in the tattooing of the 10-year-old now regrets it.
It says, Ms.
Thomas, the parent in Highland, New York, near Poughkeepsie, described her case as a misunderstanding.
She said she favored age limits and that she had mistakenly believed her son was asking for permission to get a temporary tattoo.
No little child should get tattooed, she'd said.
She has been charged with endangering the welfare of a child.
A few days after he was arraigned in Lloyd Justice Court on charges of dealing unlawfully with a child, a misdemeanor that can entail up to a year in prison, Mr. Smith, a tattoo artist, said that he is racked with deep regret over tattooing the 10-year-old.
Quote, it's the worst mistake I've made in my life, he said.
At the time, I thought that if you got your parents' permission, you could get a tattoo.
As for Miss Thomas' son, today he feels differently about Mr. Smith's agreeing to give him a tattoo.
Quote, he should have said no, the boy said.
Now, you may be skeptical about the mother's excuse here.
It's hard to see how a misunderstanding could result in a 10-year-old getting tattooed.
But the point is that most people, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recognize that there is no good reason to make these types of body modifications to a child.
Yet, it's hard not to notice that their views on a child's ability to consent and the propriety of making permanent physical alterations to a minor who lacks agency seem to be rather inconsistent.
After all, the AAP also fully endorses medical and surgical gender transitions for children.
The very group that, when it comes to tattoos, they readily admit lack the capacity to consent.
This is not cognitive dissonance on the part of the medical establishment.
For them, it's fully intentional.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They want you to have the cognitive dissonance.
They're trying to create, or at least exacerbate, a mental disconnect in your head, whereby you adopt an entirely different set of values and priorities and fundamental beliefs depending on the topic.
When it comes to tattoos, you're meant to see children as children, incapable of making these kinds of long-term choices.
When it comes to gender transition, suddenly even a five-year-old possesses agency, the capacity for long-term thinking, a deep and mature internal sense of what is best for their own well-being.
This is how the gender ideology game has always worked, as proponents want you to see gender as its own world, its own universe, where entirely different scientific and moral laws obtain.
The whole thing comes crashing down once you simply apply the same scrutiny to gender ideology that you apply to everything else.
And that's why it's interesting that the New York Times printed another story on the same day, which, for the five people who still read the print edition, appeared on the same page.
And this one is titled, They paused puberty, but is there a cost?
Puberty blockers can ease transgender youth's anguish and buy time to weigh options, but concerns are growing about long-term physical effects and other consequences.
Now, the article is somewhat tentative in its criticisms of puberty blockers, but it does say this, quote, As the number of adolescents who identify as transgender grows, drugs known as puberty blockers have become the first line of intervention for the youngest ones seeking medical treatment.
Their use is typically framed as a safe and reversible way to buy time to weigh a medical transition and avoid the anguish of growing into a body that feels wrong.
Transgender adolescents suffer from disproportionately high rates of depression and other mental health issues.
Studies show that the drugs have eased some patients' gender dysphoria, a distress over the mismatch of their birth, sex, and gender identity.
But, as an increasing number of adolescents identifies transgender in the United States, an estimated 300,000 aged 13 to 17, and an untold number who are younger, concerns are growing among some medical professionals about the consequences of the drugs, according to a New York Times examination.
The questions are fueling government reviews in Europe, prompting a push for more research and leading some prominent specialists to reconsider at what age to prescribe them and for how long.
A small number of doctors won't recommend them at all.
There is emerging evidence of potential harm from using puberty blockers, according to reviews of scientific papers and interviews with more than 50 doctors and academic experts around the world.
We're then given a brief and incomplete list of some of the complications from these drugs, but these are important complications to list anyway.
It says the drugs suppress estrogen and testosterone hormones that help develop the reproductive system, but also affect the bones, the brain, and other parts of the body.
During puberty, bone mass typically surges, determining a lifetime of bone health.
When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines, on average, according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of the observational studies examining the effects.
Many doctors treating trans patients believe they will recover that loss when they go off the blockers, but two studies from the analysis that tracked trans patients' bone strength while using blockers and through the first years of sex hormone treatment found that many do not fully rebound and lag behind their peers.
That could lead to heightened risks of debilitating fractures earlier than would be expected from normal aging, in their 50s instead of 60s, and more immediate harm for patients who start treatment with already weak bones, experts say.
Quote, there's going to be a price, said Dr. Sandeep Khosla, who leads a bone research lab at the Mayo Clinic, and the price is probably going to be some deficit in skeletal mass.
Now the article does provide equal space, or better in fact, better than equal space, to the other side, quote unquote.
And this mostly consists of lengthy anecdotes and quotes from various medical professionals making wild assumptions about the totally unsubstantiated alleged benefits of the drugs.
That doesn't matter.
The point is that the New York Times is acknowledging the criticisms of these practices and even providing an accurate though incomplete accounting of them.
They are, in other words, legitimizing the debate.
Acknowledging that there is a valid reason to doubt the mainstream consensus.
Now, to be clear about this, I'm not giving them credit, okay?
I'm not applauding the New York Times.
I'm not going to applaud them or nominate them for a Pulitzer.
They're a decade late to the party.
And they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this point.
We dragged them here because we are shifting the Overton window.
We are forcing the most mainstream media institutions to take these arguments seriously, to give them an airing for once.
I mean, none of us who've been in the trenches on this issue will ever get credit from the New York Times, of course.
They're not going to quote us.
They're not going to say, as so-and-so has always said, they're not going to do that, but that doesn't matter.
We've done this, and you can forget about the election for a moment, okay?
We are still winning.
Republican politicians in many states may not be, but on this issue and other cultural issues, we are seeing progress.
This is progress.
And it's significant because the left, and this is on all issues, but especially this one of gender ideology, the left relies on manufactured consensus.
Okay.
They can't defend their position.
They can't do that.
So instead, they pretend that no other position but theirs even exists.
They present this united front, which is totally a facade, and they don't allow any opinion but their own to be heard.
Oxygen deprivation is their greatest weapon.
They try to suffocate the other side.
They declare, everyone agrees, even though everyone doesn't agree.
But the people who don't agree don't get a hearing.
They don't get a platform.
And they keep declaring it, that everyone agrees, until eventually, in so many cases, history shows, everyone really does agree.
You know, they can kind of manifest it.
If they say there's a consensus, and they say it long enough and loud enough, then eventually a consensus sort of forms.
They've manufactured one.
Now, if they allow the other side to be heard, Then the public will know that there is another side, and even that the other side is reasonable, and making evidence-based logical arguments.
The manufactured consensus crumbles, and their agenda goes down with it.
I predict that we will see, and we are now beginning to see, this very thing happening with gender ideology.
We have punctured the manufactured consensus bubble.
And now we're going to see it all come apart.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
But what if you could find all the information you need, all in one place, completely free?
Now you can with the PragerU mobile app.
PragerU offers accurate content, fact-based content about politics,
culture, economics, history, and America.
You can access it all on the PragerU mobile app.
They've been reliably putting out fact-based, family-friendly, pro-American content for a long time.
And now with the PragerU mobile app, you can get all the great content you want from PragerU,
like their five-minute videos, their short documentaries, their popular podcasts, all of that, 100% free.
Download the PragerU mobile app right now on Google Play or the Apple App Store and watch PragerU videos
completely ad free.
Plus, you'll get exclusive access to never-before-seen footage from private PragerU events with great thinkers like Dennis Prager, Jordan Peterson, Christopher Ruffo, and many more.
It's fast, easy, and free.
With the PragerU mobile app, you'll get all the information you need to defend your values, share the truth, and easily become the smartest person in the room.
So download the PragerU app today.
All right, so CNN correspondent Manu Raju reports, a bipartisan group of senators say they have a deal on a bill to codify same-sex marriage, and backers expect to have 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.
They released details of their bill, which the Senate punted until after the elections.
And by the way, The Daily, or rather The Blaze, has also an article about this, naming some of these senators.
It says, a bipartisan group of senators is pushing an amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act, which includes a language that is supposed to protect religious liberty.
Those lawmakers who include GOP Senators Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Tom Tillis of North Carolina, and Democrat Senators Tammy Baldwin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, issued a statement promoting their version of the measure.
They say the Respect for Marriage Act is a needed step to provide millions of loving couples in the same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty that they will continue to enjoy the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities afforded to all other marriages.
Through bipartisan collaboration, we've created common-sense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans' religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality.
We look forward to this legislation coming to the floor and are confident that this amendment has helped earn the broad bipartisan support needed to pass our common sense legislation into law.
Well, you know, when they're calling it common sense, I can't remember the last time they called something common sense legislation or a common sense bill and it actually contained any common sense at all.
And that certainly isn't the case here.
So they're calling it the Respect for Marriage Act.
Ironically, you know, the Orwellian twisting of language there.
The Respect for Marriage Act, but what it really is doing is codifying the destruction of marriage into federal law.
You know, it's codifying on a federal level the redefinition of marriage.
And they also include, of course, well, this is about same-sex couples and interracial couples.
Conflating those two when nobody is talking about interracial couples.
No one has an issue with that.
Okay, those of us who believe in, and I always put quotes around this, traditional marriage, because that's a qualifier that, you know, makes it sound like there are many different forms of valid marriage when really there isn't.
You know, using that language for just a moment, those of us who are advocates for quote-unquote traditional marriage, no one in that group is criticizing interracial couples because that does not challenge the fundamental definition of marriage.
Our whole point is that marriage is definitionally, in principle, a procreative union between man and woman.
It lies at the foundation of the family, it's the source from which the family springs, and therefore is the foundation of civilization.
So clearly, no matter what your races are, no matter the racial configuration of the coupling, that does not challenge the definition of marriage.
Because these are still, in principle, procreative unions.
Whereas the union between two men and two women is not and never can be.
And that's the point.
Now, the language here, I'm not going to read the entire thing, but this is the language that was added to the bill.
This is what's getting a 60 vote, you know, this is what's getting, supposedly going to get 60 votes in the Senate.
And there's a whole bunch of stuff about religious liberty.
It says it protects all religious liberty and conscious protections available under the Constitution or federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and prevents this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection.
It confirms that non-profit religious organizations will not be required to provide any service, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of marriage, guarantees that this bill may not be used to deny or alter any benefit, right, or status of an otherwise eligible person or entity.
A lot of language like that.
But then it all boils down to, The fact that, again, they are still codifying at a federal level the radical redefinition of marriage.
So they're putting these supposed guardrails in place to protect religious liberty.
And if you trust that, okay, if you believe that any of this is actually going to protect religious liberty, then there's nothing we can talk about.
There's nothing I can say to you.
If you're that naive, then there's no conversation that we can have.
Obviously, if you do this, It is to begin with, it's not just this, but it is also to begin with, a threat to an attack on religious liberty.
That's where it ultimately leads.
Because if you're codifying on a federal level that two men have a right to get married, it's a human right, a civil right, then that would mean, by extension, that a church that refuses to marry a gay couple is depriving them of their basic human civil rights.
They may not be putting that language in the bill exactly because they want it to pass, but that's what it means.
And that's how it will be used, no matter what the bill says.
And I'll tell you this, you know, any Republican who would sign on to a bill like this, I don't care if they have this Weak, you know, they've created this Trojan horse now where they're pretending that they're protecting religious liberty.
Doesn't matter.
Any Republican who would sign on to that should be exiled from the party.
It won't happen because this is the direction the whole party is going, but that's what should happen.
You know, these are Republicans who are signing on to something that only ten years ago would have been too radically far left for even the farthest left people in the Democrat Party.
Ten years ago, there was basically no one in the Democrat Party pushing for this.
There were very few anyway.
Certainly, you go back 15 years ago and that was the case.
So a decade or a decade and a half you go back, it would be too far left for the Democrats and now you've got supposedly conservative Republicans signing on to it.
You cannot jump on board with the redefinition of marriage and then think that you're going to hold the line on any other issue.
This is the fundamental institution.
This is civilization's fundamental institution.
Marriage and the family.
So you give up on that and say, we don't need to protect that anymore, and then what?
Where are you drawing the line after that?
You're going to erase that line and redraw it where exactly?
This is the Republican Party for you.
And it's no surprise, then, that they lost in the midterms, or at least vastly underperformed.
Because, as I've been saying for the last week, they have no message.
They're not really giving anyone a reason to vote for them.
And voters are saying, hey, if we want left-wing policies, then we have the Democrat Party for that.
What do we need you for?
I mean, you made yourself irrelevant.
So you're going to support You're supporting leftist policies, what now count as moderately left-wing policies, and then you've got extreme left-wing policies, even though, again, this would have been extreme left-wing policy 10-15 years ago.
But voters who want that, they've already got the Democrats for that.
What do they need you for?
You're not providing an alternative.
Okay?
Provide an actual, real alternative to what the Democrats are offering.
Will the voters go for that?
Are we at a point in our culture where the voters just aren't going to be interested in the alternative at all?
I don't know exactly.
So we can't know because we haven't done it yet.
We don't have a political party.
There are, in effect, just two political parties in this country, and it's really a uniparty.
There is no real alternative.
Speaking of the manufactured consensus fracturing, Colin Wright, who is a scientist and evolutionary biologist, also tweeted yesterday, Biological sex is real, immutable, and binary, which of course is exactly correct.
And then Sean Carroll, who's a prominent physicist and has been, you know, he's He's been all over TV.
You've probably seen him in interviews, and he's, in the past, has done a lot of debates, you know, defending the atheist worldview.
He responded to it and said, actual science would like a word.
And he includes this chart with lots of words on it.
And the chart is titled, Beyond XX and XY.
And there's a lot going on in the chart.
There are a lot of words, a lot of colors.
And this, now he doesn't explain, Sean Carroll is obviously, this is a prominent scientist who has bought into gender ideology.
He doesn't defend it or even explain what he thinks this chart proves.
He apparently thinks it proves that sex is not binary, that there are more than two biological sexes.
This is what a mainstream, incredibly prominent, highly educated Scientist is saying that there are more than two biological sexes.
He doesn't go beyond and explain any more of that because he actually shut down comments on his Twitter page after he posted this.
Because this is how healthy scientific debate works, right?
You make a statement, you don't defend it, and then you stop anyone from disagreeing with you.
That's the scientific process now.
But in fact, there was pushback from other scientists, including Jerry Coyne, who's a biologist and, as far as I know, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
He responded, he says, actual science done by biologists shows two sexes, one with small mobile gametes and the other with large immobile ones.
There is no third sex.
Disorders of sex development are not new sexes and biological sex is binary.
Let's not conflate sex, gender and developmental anomalies.
Well, that's exactly the point, because you go back to this chart provided by the physicist Sean Carroll, which apparently he got from a Scientific American article, and you look at it, and this is their attempt to prove that sex is not binary, that it's on a spectrum, and you look at what the chart actually shows.
And again, you're not supposed to look at the chart.
You're supposed to just see that there's a chart there and you see the title.
This chart proves that sex is a spectrum.
And then you're supposed to see just like a bunch of words and arrows pointing to stuff and be impressed with that and then say, well, I guess sex isn't a binary.
But then when you actually look at it, the whole thing falls apart immediately.
Because what you find is, you've got on one end of the so-called spectrum, typical biological female, and then on the other end of the spectrum, you have typical biological male, and then you've got a bunch of genetic abnormalities and conditions that are randomly placed on this spectrum.
So, for example, farther down, like on the left side of the spectrum, but farther to the right, On the female side of the spectrum, they have enlarged clitoris, fused labia, short vagina, normal ovaries, uterix, cervix.
Okay, so that's the description of a genetic condition, which on this chart puts you closer to the male end of the spectrum.
But then you look at that and you say, well, but that's not male at all.
That's a female as an enlarged clitoris and a fused labia.
So this is a female with some abnormalities physically, but that's still just a female.
That's what that is.
If you have an enlarged clitoris as a female, then you're closer to male?
What?
This is what they do.
I've told you this before.
This is how they've expanded the term intersex.
They've got what they call the ideal.
They've decided, they being the people that have come up with this, they've decided what are sort of the typical or ideal male or female.
And if you're outside of what they consider to be the ideal or the typical, then you're intersex.
You're on a spectrum somewhere.
So if you have an enlarged clitoris as a female, then you're closer to male on the spectrum.
They also say that if you have an abnormally small penis, then you're closer to female on the spectrum.
Even though, in the first case, you're still completely biologically female.
And in the latter case, you're completely biologically male.
Now, despite what Sean Carroll appears to be claiming, variations within the sexes Do not count as a third sex.
These are just variations within sex.
Nobody ever claimed that every male is 100% physically identical to every other male.
We're not all identical twins.
Okay, no one ever claimed that.
There are physical variations between, within the categories of male and female.
Every male is a little bit physically different from every other male, but they're still all males.
Just like every human is physically different from every other human, but we're still all the same species.
This is a...
This is what counts as, or what they want to say counts as science, but you see that the claims they're making can't survive a debate if there is a debate.
Which is why for so long they've had success in just making sure there is no debate, but that's not working anymore.
So Sean Carroll can make this claim and put the chart up, but then he has to shut down the comments because he's being disputed by a whole bunch of people, including other scientists, who are saying this is b****, Sean, and you know it.
All right, speaking of BS, this is from the Daily Mail.
It says, climate activists in Austria today poured a black oily liquid over Austrian painter Gustav Klimt's masterpiece, Death and Life, at Vienna's Leopold Museum.
So we're still doing this, and there are still people that are able to walk into art museums holding buckets of paint, and nobody stops them.
It says two members of the group last generation threw the die over the 1950 painting before one proceeded to glue himself to the glass protecting the masterpiece.
A security guard at the museum managed to restrain one of the activists before police arrived at the site.
Museum staff are now concerned that Klim's painting could have been damaged in the protest.
A spokesperson for the museum says restorers are working to determine whether the painting protected by glass has been damaged.
The last generation group defended the protests saying in a tweet that they were protesting oil and gas drilling, which they called a death sentence to society.
Numerous masterpieces across Europe have been attacked in recent weeks in protest at the lack of action against climate change.
And we have a video of it.
Let's watch the video.
We've known about this problem for 50 years!
Alright, so he dumps the black paint.
He walks in holding the paint.
No one stops him.
And he's posing there while someone else films.
Like, everyone knows what's about to happen.
And then a 95-year-old security guard comes in.
All right, so there you go.
And then a 95-year-old security guard comes in.
[speaking in German]
[speaking in German]
All right, so there you go.
[speaking in German]
All right, he's actually getting dragged out by the 90-year-old security guard.
[speaking in German]
All right, that's enough.
I've seen enough of that.
Yeah, it must be... I've never been to an art museum where this has happened.
I mean, I don't know, I think I've been to like one art museum in my whole life, period.
But it seems like it'd be pretty obvious, if they're setting up to do something like this, it's pretty obvious that they're about to do it.
Like, if you see someone walking through the museum with a big bowl of tomato soup, or holding, you know, a container of black paint, and they're wearing shirts, you know, with climate slogans on them, and then someone's setting up to film, like, you know it's gonna happen.
How about stop them ahead of time?
I say again that this could all be stopped immediately.
All of this kind of stuff could be stopped immediately, overnight, by giving just one of these losers a 25-year prison sentence.
Okay?
Or, and as I've suggested, when they glue themselves to stuff, there are two approaches you could take there.
One is to leave them glued to it.
Just leave them, you know.
The other is to Remove them from whatever they've glued themselves to by removing the body part.
So you glue your hand to something, a painting, then we're going to cut your hand off.
I mean, if you don't want to have your hand cut off, don't glue it to a painting.
Don't glue it to something.
That's not your property.
Or if you want to be nicer, public flogging.
40 lashes.
And I'm dead serious about it.
I mean, if I was in charge and you destroyed or attempted to destroy a priceless work of art, I would have you dragged out into the street and beaten with a bullwhip until all the flesh on your back has been peeled off.
That's what I would do.
Okay?
And I would make sure that there's a big crowd and everyone sees me do it.
And that's what a serious country would do.
Because that's justice.
It's severe.
It's immediate.
Public punishment.
Totally, fully, completely deserved.
Because how dare you?
We're talking about works of art made a hundred years ago or more that people have been coming to the museum to enjoy for decades or centuries.
It is literally priceless.
You cannot put a price on it.
And you think you can come along and just try to destroy it because you're having a temper tantrum?
No.
Totally unacceptable behavior.
And until there's a response that communicates, that conveys how unacceptable it is, it will continue.
This is what happens when action is divorced from consequence.
And these climate brats have lived a life where that's the life they lived.
Action has been divorced from consequence, or maybe the other way around.
Consequence divorced from action.
They can do what they want, and the natural consequences that should follow don't.
And you know what?
That not only emboldens them to continue with this, but it also just contributes even more to the nihilism that encourages them to act this way in the first place.
Because these people are not concerned about saving the planet.
They're not concerned about human life.
If you were concerned about human life, you wouldn't be trying to destroy some of the things that make life worth living.
Art, beauty, I mean, these are the things that make life worth living.
And so if you loved human life, that'd be the last thing you'd be trying to destroy.
But they don't care about human life.
They don't care about the planet.
They're nihilists.
They don't care about anything.
Nothing has meaning to them.
This is one of the ultimate statements of nihilism, is to destroy a painting, a priceless painting, a historic artifact.
It's the same thing when they're tearing down statues and all the rest of it.
It is a statement of nihilism.
Well, you're only encouraging more of that when people do not experience consequences for their evil and wicked behavior.
I mean, these are already people who think that nothing matters, you know, nothing matters, nothing has any significance.
And when they're able to just walk into an art gallery and deface a painting like that, with no consequence, then that confirms what they already suspected, that nothing matters, nothing has any significance, just do what you want.
No.
So, you start...
Passing down severe punishments, you not only are going to scare these cowards, none of them would risk it if they thought there'd be a serious consequence.
Not a single one would risk it.
Not one.
So you're not only scaring them straight, as it were, but you're also telling them that, you know what, some things do matter.
Like, some things do matter.
This matters.
It matters to us.
It is significant.
And we're going to show you how much it matters to us.
All right, what else do we have here?
Interesting claim made on The View yesterday about, I don't know, this is a claim about a policy that apparently Republicans have been supporting.
This is news to me, but I don't know, listen.
But I will say this, just like the Latina saved the Senate, young voters saved this country.
And we need to really understand that we are supposed to leave this world in a better place than we found it.
When you look at the youth voter turnout in the 2022 midterms, they delivered key wins for the Democrats.
Younger voters aged 18 to 29, which by the way, now the Republicans want to raise the voting to age 28.
Younger voters were the only voter group by age to overwhelmingly support Democrats in the midterms.
63% of voters So, what was that again?
She says, by the way, you know, Republicans, they want to raise the voting age to 28.
know Cornell as well. He says there are really two electorates, one older and one
What?
younger, fighting to take this country in very different directions. The
Republican Party has to get with it. They are dying out and they are being
extremely misled.
So what was that again? She says, by the way, you know Republicans, they want to raise the voting age to 28. What?
What Republican has said that? Tell me what Republican has said that
because I would be I'd be campaigning for them.
No Republican is saying that.
Raise the voting age to 28.
I haven't heard that from anyone.
Now, you're also mistaken.
I'm not pushing for raising the voting age to 28 either.
I want to raise it to like 35.
But I am far, in a way, in the minority on that.
And I'm also not an elected Republican politician, and I have not heard any suggest that we do that.
And as we talked about yesterday, as much as I think that we should, we should raise the voting age.
We should have all kinds of parameters put in place.
There should be all kinds of restrictions on voting that go way beyond voter ID, same-day voting.
I mean, that should just be the beginning of it.
There should be so much more.
But none of that is going to happen.
It should, but it's not going to happen.
And so we have to get to a point, myself certainly included, in dealing with what actually is happening.
Yeah, our entire system of voting is a joke.
And it only becomes more of a joke every single day.
But if we want to have any chance of changing any of that, we have to deal with that, confront that.
And as I said yesterday, figure out how to navigate this system and exploit the systems that are in place.
Republicans in some states have figured out how to do that.
How do you mobilize mass mail-in voting, early voting?
None of that should exist.
It shouldn't exist, but it does.
And so, are we going to allow Democrats to be the only ones who utilize that?
Or are Republicans going to start utilizing it too?
The system shouldn't be there, but it is.
And so, take advantage of it to the extent that you can.
Because what's the other option?
I don't see any other option.
The other option is to, on principle, say, no, we're not going to do that.
And then you just never win another election ever again.
And all of the policies that you oppose, all of that only gets worse as a consequence.
All right, I wanted to mention this too before we get to the comment section, because this relates to something we talked about yesterday.
We talked about anxiety, depression, these supposed mental illnesses that are especially affecting the younger generation, and we just heard from The View That we should be following the lead of the Gen Z, the younger generation.
They know what's up.
I mean, we should be taking their lead.
We should be putting them in positions of leadership and following them.
Meanwhile, as we saw yesterday, studies show that half of that generation, just about half, has been diagnosed mentally ill.
And yet we should be following them and taking their lead.
Well, on that topic, CNN has this.
A mindfulness meditation course may be as effective at reducing anxiety as a common medication, according to a new study.
The research, published on November 9 in JAMA Psychiatry, involved a group of 276 adults with untreated anxiety disorders.
Half of the patients were randomly selected to take 10-20 mg of a generic form of Lexapro, a common medication used to treat anxiety and depression.
The other half were assigned to an 8-week course in mindfulness-based stress reduction.
The results were stunning.
Both groups experienced about a 20% reduction in their anxiety symptoms over the eight-week period.
Elizabeth Hodge, who's the lead researcher, told CNN that she hopes the research can open up more treatment options for patients with anxiety.
She said, Now, listen, I'm not going to pretend to be a proponent of mindfulness meditation, mainly because I don't even know what that is exactly.
I've heard of it, but I'm not one for meditation, personally.
But at the same time, this is an important result to think about.
Because it shows that, you know, whether it's meditation or, you know, just going outside for a walk, getting some fresh air, exercising, fixing your diet, you know, all of those sorts of things.
And also practicing, and maybe this is part of what meditation is supposed to do, I don't know.
But it's, you know, Learning how to take control of your emotions or at least not be a slave to them.
And that is a skill.
And no one is ever going to be 100% perfect at it.
But you can develop your skill in not being a slave to your emotions.
Sometimes it's a matter of, like, fake it until you make it.
You're feeling down, you're feeling anxious.
Act like you aren't feeling that way.
And very often you'll discover You're acting the part, you're pretending, and then a moment's going to come where you look back and you realize, oh, I feel better now.
These sorts of strategies, they do work, they can work.
We don't need to rely on drugs.
Because, you know, as much as we hear that something like anxiety and depression, these are physical diseases, it's no different than cancer, or no different than diabetes, that's what they tell us anyway.
And yet, no one is recommending meditation for cancer.
Now, as a way to kind of psychologically deal with a cancer diagnosis or something, that might be one thing, but as far as treating the cancer itself, obviously you're not going to do that with meditation.
And I wouldn't say that you're going to do that by taking walks and, you know, all that sort of thing.
But with things like anxiety and depression, you can actually treat the quote, illness itself through those sorts of practices.
Because actually, it's not an illness in the same way that a physical illness is an illness.
It's not the same sort of thing as cancer or diabetes or arthritis.
It's something in your mind.
And it is also an inexorable part of the human condition.
Which doesn't mean it's not serious, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't take people seriously when they say they're struggling with it.
It just means that we should be looking at a different sort of approach.
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
By the way, you know, I hate to have to keep coming to you guys for emotional support on this issue, but Here's what my wife tweeted this morning.
She said, "I've been informed that Matt is trying to bring the 8-foot walrus home this week.
He claims our house is big enough for this monstrosity.
I don't have the room or desire to incorporate it into my beautiful rooms.
I'll leave my Christmas tree up all year if he does this.
Watch me."
Okay, first of all, she already leaves the Christmas tree up all year, basically.
Second, this is what I'm dealing with now.
So I've managed to secure my rights to the walrus, but I haven't been able to bring it home because one battle just led to a tougher battle, and this time the opponent is my wife who refuses to allow the walrus into our house.
We've had so many discussions about this, and it's all the more Disappointing to me, because we have a biblical household and a biblical marriage, and Ephesians 5 clearly says a wife must submit to her husband, including in all matters walrus-related.
And that last part isn't actually in the text, but I think you can infer it.
And she keeps arguing, though, that we don't have room for the walrus.
You know, the walrus is too big, it would be embarrassing.
She actually said that.
She said it would be embarrassing.
I'd be embarrassed to have The walrus in the house.
It's like, oh, you're embarrassed by Johnny the walrus.
Johnny the walrus is paying the mortgage on this house, okay?
This walrus has a right to be in this house.
And meanwhile, she fills our home.
With furniture, throw pillows, random pieces of, like, random decorations.
She'll go buy, like, a decorative, I don't know, wheelbarrow or something and put it in the dining room.
Yet if I want to bring one walrus home, suddenly it's a problem?
Last time we moved, okay?
I don't even realize all the stuff she's bought until we move, and I have to move the stuff.
And so last time we moved, I remember I made like five separate trips to lug a whole bunch of old-fashioned glass milk jugs.
We had dozens of them.
And I said to her, why do we have these?
What is this?
And she said, oh, it's decor.
Decor for what?
A dairy farm?
This is decor?
So here's all I'm going to say.
This is it.
This is really all I'm going to say.
If, and I'm just saying if, if the crew here at the Daily Wire decided that, you know, we don't want the walrus taking up room in the studio anymore.
And so, unbeknownst to me and unbeknownst to my wife, if they were to just, of their own volition, Load the thing into a truck or van and drive it to my house and show up with it and knock on the door and say, hey, we have your walrus.
Do you want us to bring it in or just leave it in the driveway?
If they were to do that, then at that point, I think my wife would have no choice but to accept the walrus.
Especially because the other thing that would happen is that my kids, who are all like little puppy dogs, and anytime the doorbell rings, they just run to the door.
They would show up and they would see the walrus, and they would know what their mother is trying to deprive them of, and they would have an emotional breakdown if she said, we can't take the walrus.
So, I'm not advocating that, okay?
I'm not saying that, that's not my point.
I'm just saying that if all those things were to happen, then I would have the walrus at my house.
That's it.
That's it.
Okay.
The Drummer's Workshop says, the problem with a lot of Gen Z is that they get rewarded for being mediocre.
Then they can't understand, with all the quick fame they've achieved, why they still feel unfulfilled.
And Rational Bacon, which remains one of my favorite YouTube usernames, agrees with this, says, kids today are taught that any suffering is unthinkable cruelty.
Being older, we grew up expecting tragedy.
It made us appreciate good times.
Bubble-wrapping children robbed them of true happiness.
Yeah, and that's the point, is that, you know, when you got all these Gen Z, all these younger people running around, as we said yesterday, there was something like 20%, 20% of the 50% that has been diagnosed with mental illness, 20% of that 50 have actually been diagnosed with PTSD.
And again, not because they're all a bunch of combat veterans, I mean, maybe some of them are, but the vast majority, we can assume, not.
And yet they have PTSD.
And that's real in a certain way.
Now, they haven't really experienced anything that should actually cause trauma, but they do really feel traumatized because they've never learned how to deal with just the normal disappointments that come with life.
They've never been given that skill.
They've never been taught how to hone that skill.
And so now, anytime they encounter any obstacle at all, they just like, they break down.
They can't handle it.
They don't know how to handle it.
And then we write them off as, well, they're mentally ill, just give them drugs.
The drugs might, they might numb some of this.
They, you know, there might be a band-aid solution for some of this, but they aren't going to teach them the skill They aren't going to teach them how to deal with life, how to deal with living a human existence.
Aaron says, Matt, I hear you often criticize the GOP focus on tax cuts.
I think it's misguided.
The problem isn't that they promise tax cuts, but that they promise them and don't follow through.
Well, my issue isn't with the idea of tax cuts.
It's with making tax cuts or issues like tax cuts the central aspect of their agenda and their campaigns.
Tax cuts aren't going to save the country.
Tax cuts aren't going to motivate voters to go to the polls the same way that other issues do.
Tax cuts are just an easy thing to pander with, and that's my issue with it.
But as far as tax cuts go...
I mean, I'm all in favor of them.
I'm in favor of any tax cut for anyone because I like the idea of people keeping their own money and I like the idea of the government getting less money.
Government already gets trillions of dollars, trillions every single year in its income.
That's its income.
Um, and I think that's quite enough, in fact, too much.
And so I'm in favor of them getting less and us keeping more of our money, so I like that.
And I think the whole idea of an income tax is outrageous and tyrannical and we only accept it because we've never known anything else in our lifetimes.
The Founding Fathers, they staged a rebellion because they didn't want to pay a tax on tea, okay?
And I know that there was a lot more to it than that, I realize, but still, they were upset about a tax on tea.
And here we are paying taxes on, I mean, we pay taxes on tea, okay?
You go get an Arizona iced tea at Walgreens, there's gonna be tax.
But we also pay taxes on everything else.
We pay taxes on everything, everywhere, all the time.
Including paying a tax for simply earning a living.
We pay a tax for existing and for dying.
If you exist or if you're born, if you exist, and then if you die, you have to pay tax and all that.
A hefty tax.
And when it comes to the tax on existing, which is the income tax, the government extracts it from our paychecks before we even get a cut of our own paychecks.
I despise the whole idea of it.
Actually, this is one of my problems with the Republican obsession with tax cuts.
It's that it doesn't go nearly far enough.
It doesn't solve anything.
Shaving off a percentage or two, only to have the Democrats raise it again, what does that solve?
What does that achieve in the long run or in the short run?
Be bold, have some conviction, go for the whole thing.
Attack the system and its foundation, its roots.
Talk about abolishing the IRS.
There are a few Republicans talking about that.
Ted Cruz has talked about that.
That's a bold revolution.
That would be a revolution in our country, to get rid of the IRS completely.
Get rid of the income tax completely.
But that's what Republicans do.
They're always just dancing around the edges, at best.
If you want to see one of the most important things I've done in my life, especially in my career, certainly, you have to check out my documentary, What Is A Woman.
It has more than 5,000 audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and even five reviews from critics who were brave enough to touch it.
Just in the month after we released What Is A Woman, The Daily Wire gained more members than at any other time in our history.
Just goes to show that if you make something worth watching, unlike most Hollywood films, people will watch it in droves.
If you haven't seen it yet, go to whatisawoman.com to watch it right now.
That's whatisawoman.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
To my great shame, I have neglected to mention until this moment that this week is Transgender Awareness Week, which leads us up to Transgender Remembrance Day.
And it's important that we have this week and that day to become aware of and remember trans people, just as it's crucial that we have LGBT Pride Month, and LGBT History Month, and LGBT Spirit Day, and Pronoun Awareness Day, and International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, and so on.
It's clear that there is not a special That if there is not a special holiday recognizing and calling attention to LGBT people, and especially trans people, and if we don't have this holiday at least twice a month, then we will all forget that these people exist and they will immediately evaporate.
It'll be like that show The Leftovers, which is a great show by the way, depicting an apocalyptic scenario where a large portion of the Earth's population suddenly vanishes without a trace.
And the creator of that show never said this explicitly, but it's clear that it was supposed to be a parable about what will happen if we don't have enough LGBT awareness days.
So we must always remain aware, we must make sure that everyone else is aware, and that the LGBT club stays at the center of everything, always, no matter what, forever.
And so to that end, the Men's World Cup team is doing its part.
Providing further evidence that soccer is gay, the men's team has redesigned their official crest to get rid of the American flag colors and instead incorporate the rainbow flag.
From the Daily Mail it says, the United States men's national team have made a huge statement at the World Cup in Qatar.
World Cup of Qatar by redesigning their crest to incorporate the rainbow flag in a bid to show solidarity with the LGBTQ plus community.
The tournament, which starts on Sunday and sees the U.S.
play their opener against Wales on Monday, has been hugely controversial in its build-up given Qatar's human rights record and attitude to homosexuality.
As recently as this month, a Qatar World Cup ambassador told a German TV broadcaster that homosexuality was damaged to the mind, and it remains illegal to be gay in the conservative Muslim country.
The USMT appeared to have made an immediate stand on their arrival in Doha, though, by changing their usual red stripes on their crest to a rainbow around their team base.
Pictures from the Al-Gharafa SC Stadium in Arrayan Where the U.S.
has trained on Monday showed a huge U.S.
crest on the wall alongside the slogan, One Nation.
It is understood the crest on the team's kits on the field won't be changed, but the new colors will be shown off at their practice facilities.
So as you can see, the crest is actually an example, really, of trans erasure rather than trans awareness, as it only includes the colors on the old LGBT flag.
That's the bigoted, hateful LGBT flag of our ancestors.
The one that looks tacky but lacks the boldness and courage to be totally chaotic and vomitous and hideous, like a unicorn vomited all over it, as, of course, the current trans-inclusive flag looks.
Yet, fortunately, the other colors are represented elsewhere in their practice facility.
After all, it's not just about the crest.
You know, U.S.
Soccer is doing an entire LGBT rebrand.
Reading more from the Daily Mail, it says, Neil Buthe, the USMNT's Chief Communications Officer, told DailyMail.com, our rainbow badge has an important and consistent role in the identity of U.S.
Soccer.
As part of our approach for any match or event, we include rainbow branding to support and embrace the LGBTQ community, as well as to promote a spirit of inclusiveness and welcoming to all fans across the globe.
As a result, locations that we will manage and operate at the FIFA World Cup, such as the team hotel, media areas and parties, will feature both traditional rainbow U.S.
soccer branding.
So it will have the traditional flag and also the rainbow flag.
Now, you may point out that if U.S.
soccer is actually concerned about Qatar's record on, quote, LGBT rights, they could make a much greater statement by refusing to participate in the World Cup in the first place, I mean, by simply showing up and participating, they are financially supporting the country that they claim to be protesting against.
Which is a bit like protesting J.K.
Rowling by buying a Harry Potter book and then burning it.
I mean, you've already bought the book.
Or protesting Elon Musk by buying a Tesla and then running it into a telephone pole on purpose.
You've already given your financial support.
It's a little bit too late.
Whatever statement you make in the process, or afterwards, is now irrelevant.
But then, of course, this is the whole point of virtue signaling.
That's why we call it virtue signaling, not virtue doing.
We don't call it virtue doing because there is no virtue involved here in the first place, and also because nothing is being done.
The corporate gay pride stuff is all just sheep's blood on the door, signaling that they are the chosen people, so that the angel of cancellation passes them over.
But as far as symbolism goes, I think it is appropriate that they should replace the colors of the American flag with the colors of the LGBT flag.
I mean, it's horrendous, it's traitorous, it's treasonous.
If I was in charge of the country, they wouldn't be allowed back into the country.
But it's also appropriate because the LGBT nation, LGBTistan, we may call it, is, after all, the country that corporate America, as well as the United States government, seeks to represent.
It is the nation that the left pledges its allegiance to.
It is the country that wishes to colonize the world and export its ideas and values to corners of the globe that have no interest in them.
Now, I've often said that the Alphabet Club is a religious cult.
And it is that, certainly.
But maybe on second thought, it's better understood in this way, as a country.
It has its own flag, its own national holidays, its own myths and traditions, its own sports teams, And it has its own government, too, which is formerly known as the United States government.
Now, some people predict that we will eventually, in the future, become two countries.
You know, there's going to be some kind of civil war.
But the point is that we're already two countries.
There's one that salutes the pride flag and despises the American flag, and one that salutes the American flag and has no use for the pride flag.
At this point, it's only a matter of making the split official, I suppose.
Something that we will probably never do, but we should.
And that is why U.S.
soccer is today cancelled.
Though really, a lot of unnecessary words there because U.S.
soccer is already cancelled because it's soccer.
So, cancelled on two levels there.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the Members Block.
