Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats in the House hold a hearing on alleged “anti-LGBT violence,” blaming this made up epidemic on hate speech. But what is hate speech? And what’s so bad about it? Nothing, as it turns out. Also, the Senate moves to ban TikTok on government devices, but really it should be banned on all devices nationwide. A new film starring AOC earns a staggering 10 thousand dollars in its first week of release. Plus, Nancy Pelosi is caught on film degrading and dehumanizing white males. But what else is new?
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout and get $35 off your order: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh
LifeLock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh
PajamaGram - Get a FREE matching Naturally Nude NIghty with your order: https://www.pajamagram.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats in the House hold a hearing on alleged anti-LGBT violence, blaming this made-up epidemic on hate speech.
But what is hate speech and what's so bad about it?
Nothing, as it turns out.
Also, the Senate moves to ban TikTok on government devices.
But really, it should be banned on all devices nationwide, so when are we going to do that?
A new film starring AOC earns a staggering $10,000 in its first week of release across the entire country.
Plus, Nancy Pelosi is caught on film degrading and dehumanizing white males.
But what else is new?
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Hard year on the economy means that essential, practical gifts will be in high demand this year.
Give the most essential gift of all, America's best meat and seafood from Good Ranchers.
With discounts on orders of five boxes or more, you can save on gifts for the whole family.
When you give a box of Good Ranchers, you're giving them a true steakhouse experience with 100% American USDA prime and upper cut choices of beef, chicken, and seafood.
Other meat delivery companies and even your local grocery stores import lower quality meat from overseas.
Don't give your friends and family less than America's Best this year.
Not sure what to order?
Well, Good Ranchers now offers gift cards so you can let your friends and family choose for themselves what they want.
Or you can give the gift of a subscription and inflation-proof someone's meat budget for them.
Go to GoodRanchers.com.
Use code WALSH at checkout to get $35 off your gift.
That is GoodRanchers.com.
Code WALSH for $35 off.
Good Ranchers.
American meat delivered.
Even after the White House was lit up like the Gay Pride rainbow and drag queens were invited for a celebration of a bill codifying gay marriage and effectively abolishing religious liberty nationwide, still Democrats in Washington decided that they had not done enough LGBT-related virtue signaling this week.
They'd done quite a lot of it, but not enough.
You can never do enough, in their minds, anyway.
And so, yesterday, a House of Representatives Oversight Committee held a hearing on the subject of, quote, anti-LGBTQI plus violence and extremism.
Now, much of this hearing revolved around the Colorado gay club shooting, an attack that the media and the left are still blaming on alleged anti-gay rhetoric, even though no actual motive has been identified or announced.
In fact, it's been several weeks now since this happened, and we've still been told almost nothing about the guy who did it, who is still alive and in police custody and has been talking to police, but we haven't heard anything about what he said, which is quite suspicious.
But all of that, of course, is unimportant to the propagandists.
There were several notable moments to come out of the hearing, and not all of it had to do with supposed anti-LGBT violence and extremism.
For instance, one witness, a woman named Jessie Pocock, with an activist group called Inside Out, took the opportunity to effectively deny the existence of detransitioners.
They don't exist, she said.
Listen.
A lot of people in the news coming out detransitioning.
Could you speak to that phenomenon and what's that person going through?
Did they get it wrong?
Were they going through a period?
Is it just a fluid thing?
I mean, could you speak to that?
Well, you know, I can't really speak to an individual's personal experience.
I mean, you know, somebody's gender is just a really personal experience, but I can speak to you.
I've been in this work for a long time.
I know a lot of trans folks, close friends, family members, and I've just never heard a case Of anyone detransitioning?
So I honestly don't think it's a real... There's a number of cases in the news right now where this is happening and the concern for parents have is, you know, we've all had awkward teen years where we've questioned things in existence and a lot of things and the question is, is kids who are maybe making a permanent decision even without the input of their parents, Now the congressman unfortunately speaks over her at the end rather than allowing her to continue to bury herself with her own insanity, but she does say, to quote her, I've never heard of a case of anyone detransitioning, so I honestly don't think it's a real thing.
Now there are only two ways to interpret that claim.
The first and most likely interpretation is that she's simply lying and knowingly denying the existence of detransitioners so that she can continue to trans the kids without impediment.
The other possibility, which really isn't any better, is that this woman lives in such an enclosed, sealed off, hermetically sealed bubble that she actually has managed to avoid ever hearing about any case of any person regretting the fact that they mutilated themselves.
Either way, whether she's a godforsaken liar, or oblivious in the extreme, or some combination, she is not a credible voice on this subject.
And yet, she's been brought on as an expert witness at a congressional hearing.
Somehow, though, that wasn't the most disturbing thing that she said during that exchange.
She was also asked about the age of consent for gender transitions, and this is how she answered.
You know, we have to do everything we can to make sure that young person is safe and protected.
We have we are constantly filing reports of abuse and neglect because of parents not seeing young people who they are.
It sounds like you're deflecting the question a little bit.
I understand cases of abuse.
There's laws to protect the abuse.
I mean schools actually are legally obligated to report cases of abuse same for churches and the like anyone who deals with young people, but you know, Do parents have a right?
Should they be informed about what's going on?
Do they have a right to know what's going on in their kids' lives?
Those of us who are protecting and supporting young people are there and trusted with the information of the things that they are dealing with.
In terms of parents' rights to know at schools, I mean, here in Colorado, parents don't have the right.
If a young person is questioning their gender or their sexuality, there are laws in place that say that they have the right to process that with their trusted counselor and so forth.
So you do a significant amount of your work with kids even starting at age 13?
Yeah.
What would be the age of consent then in your mind?
In our community, the age of consent to mental health therapy is 12 years old.
So we have laws that enable young people to connect with trusted adults who can support them.
That is just so important.
It prevents suicide.
And so we serve young people at 13 because we know they come to us and we can prevent negative health outcomes for them.
This is just so frustrating to watch, and not even only because of the crazy nonsense she's spewing there, but because her questioner bails her out time and time again.
Bails her out by cutting her off.
At the beginning of that clip, she says that she has filed numerous reports of abuse and neglect against parents who don't accept their child's trans identity.
I'd like to hear more about that.
What does that mean?
So if, what, an eight-year-old boy says, Daddy, I'm a girl, and is not immediately affirmed as such, you're going to file an abuse and neglect claim with CPS over that?
That doesn't surprise me.
I know that they're doing that kind of thing.
Let's talk about that.
Instead, he just moves on from that.
And in fact, even agrees with it.
Says, well, we know that abuse and neglect, of course, is bad.
Though what she says later is just as shocking.
Parents, she says, don't have the right to know about their child's gender transition and that the transition can begin at 12, which is, according to her, the age of consent.
Now, she says it's the age of consent for mental health therapy, but what she's really talking about when she says mental health therapy is the indoctrination of a child into their trans identity.
They are able to consent to begin that process at the age of 12.
But this is a direction that the Democrats didn't want the hearing to go.
What they wanted to focus on instead is all the dangerous rhetoric and hate speech which is giving rise to this purported epidemic of anti-LGBT violence.
And to that end, a trans activist named Olivia Hunt tried to explain how words like groomer are contributing to this supposed problem.
People who are already receptive to that message take it to heart and it reinforces their prejudices.
In their minds, trans people either become victims to be saved from ourselves or villains to be punished.
One example of this inaction is the misuse of the term groomer.
Anti-LGBTQ activists have appropriated this terminology used by survivors of childhood sexual abuse and used it to slander LGBTQ people and our allies as predatory,
harmful toward children.
In reality, trans people are significantly more likely to be the victims of sexual abuse than perpetrators of it.
And now, this misused terminology has become part of the political discourse around trans people,
and is invoked as a reason to further restrict our rights in the name of protecting children.
This same rhetoric has subsequently been used as justification for violent anti-LGBTQ activism.
Heavily armed protesters have made numerous attacks or attempts at intimidation against family-friendly pride events and drag performances around the country.
Even hospitals have been targeted with bomb threats and intimidation tactics, based on social media figures spreading baseless stories that the providers are, in their words, mutilating children.
There's a straight line that can be drawn from the legislation trying to strip trans people of our human rights, to the increasingly hostile and inflammatory rhetoric portraying us as a threat to society, to the acts of violence that have taken far too many lives.
Okay, so a few quick points here.
First of all, it's true that many trans people have a history of being sexually abused.
That's true.
Now, if the psychiatric industry in this country had any moral courage or intellectual curiosity, they might be investigating why exactly people who have experienced sexual trauma are more likely to try and disassociate themselves from their own gender and claim a new identity.
Might there be some sort of connection there that's worth exploring?
But we don't explore it.
It's just something we're not even supposed to talk about.
Second, it's not in our words that hospitals are mutilating children.
They are, in fact, chopping the breasts off of minors.
They are, in fact, prescribing drugs that chemically castrate and sterilize kids.
The word mutilate means, according to the dictionary until they change it, to inflict serious damage on.
That's what it means.
All of these things constitute damage, and the damage is both physical and serious.
So when we use the term mutilate, we are using it because it is the most accurate way to describe what is going on.
And third, we hear again how rhetoric causes violence.
And this was, of course, the main theme throughout the hearing.
And as one witness put it, hate starts with speech.
Hate rhetoric from politicians, religious leaders, and media outlets is at the root of the attacks, like at Club Cute, and it needs to stop now.
Rhetoric that makes people less than for being different.
Rhetoric that threatens to silence what sports we can play, what bathrooms we can use, how we define our family, and who I can marry.
Every American Every American, especially those elected to positions of power, has a responsibility and a choice to use their words consciously.
Hate starts with speech.
Hate starts with speech.
Now, this was also the thesis of a Scientific American report published this week titled, How Anti-LGBTQ Plus Rhetoric Fuels Violence.
And it warns that hate speech from the far right is increasing the risk of violence against LGBTQ plus people, such as the Club Q shooting.
Now, the report then, of course, as always, specifically singles out myself, Libs of TikTok, Tucker Carlson, the three foremost peddlers of hate speech in the country, we're told, and it asserts that we have sparked an increasing epidemic of anti-LGBT violence.
Now, I say asserts because there is nothing like proof or evidence provided, whether in the Scientific American Report or in this hearing or any other time they talk about this.
There's certainly no evidence that we have inspired violence, much less called for it, but there's also no evidence that the epidemic of anti-LGBT violence is even occurring in the first place.
Outside of the Club Q shooting, an event that, once again, we still do not have a confirmed motive for, they don't give very many specific examples of actual acts of violence carried out against gay or trans people.
A picture is painted of a country where LGBT people are being constantly assaulted and killed by right-wing bigots, and yet the picture is quite fuzzy, and there's not a lot of detail to it.
That's because it is largely imaginary.
They have invented this crisis, They've invented it, which means that they can invent the cause too.
And the cause is me, Libs of TikTok, Tucker, you, all of us who express views on gender and sexuality that they disagree with.
We are guilty because we are peddling hate speech.
And that brings me to the crux of the matter here.
What is hate speech exactly?
Well, hate speech is any speech that the left hates.
And it really is that simple.
If you don't believe me, Then go up to any leftist, and really test me on this, go up to any leftist, ask them if there is any criticism of gender ideology or the LGBT agenda that they would not consider hate speech.
Is there any way to, for example, object to the transitioning of minors without engaging in hate speech?
No, I know I get blamed for being very abrasive and direct and blunt and inflammatory in the way that I phrase things.
Fine, whatever.
Is there any way that I could phrase it that would be acceptable, or at least not hate speech?
Is there any way to advocate for biblical marriage without engaging in hate speech?
Is there any way to defend the biological nature of womanhood without being guilty of hate speech?
Have they ever in their lives heard anyone ever express any of these views in a way that they did not consider hate speech?
The answer on all counts will be no.
And I dare any of them to prove me wrong.
I dare any of them to provide an example of a fundamental criticism of their view on gender and sexuality that they do not classify as hate speech.
They can't.
And that's because hate speech simply is, by definition, the rejection of left-wing ideas.
That's what hate speech is.
And to be clear, when I say that, okay, it's not that the left has misused or abused the term hate speech to support their causes.
That's not it.
They invented the term.
This is their term.
It exists for no other reason than to silence conservatives.
That's the whole point of the concept.
There is no neutral or non-ideological or non-political way to understand the concept of hate speech.
The concept is nonsense when considered objectively.
If you try to remove ideology and politics from it and just think about it on its own terms, I mean, hate speech?
The hell is that?
So speech that expresses hate is hate speech?
But how could you just lump all that into a category and say, well, all that's bad?
Aren't there things that are worthy of hate?
Don't we all agree that there are some things in life that we all should hate?
If I use my speech to communicate my hatred of slavery or rape, is that then hate speech?
Well, in a literal sense, yes.
I'm using speech.
I'm saying that I hate something.
It's hate speech.
But that's not what they mean, because hate speech is, again, speech they hate.
I think we might better call it hated speech.
So when you hear hate speech, think hated speech.
And that's why I don't bother defending myself against the hate speech charge.
There are some on the right who do, and who waste a lot of breath by saying, I don't engage in hate speech, you engage in hate speech!
You're the hate speecher, not me!
I embrace it.
So when they say, oh, this hate speech, Matt, sure, okay.
Yes, I say things the left hates.
And yes, I myself express hatred.
I hate the abuse of children.
I hate the assault on truth and science.
I hate the left's attack on common sense and reality and decency.
I hate the trans agenda.
I hate it.
With a passion.
Hate all of that.
And I use speech to express that hatred.
And it is speech that the left hates.
So, the speech is hateful and hated.
Hatred all around.
Hate speech.
Sure.
Fine.
Guilty as charged.
And proud of it.
Let's get to five headlines.
[MUSIC]
A recent data breach has left 5.4 million Twitter users exposed to
potential phishing attacks and identity theft.
This is just one example of how cybercriminals can easily access your personal information.
You need to make sure you're protecting your identity with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats you may not spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name or crimes committed by thieves pretending to be you.
If you do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist will work to fix it.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock by Norton.
Join now and save 25% off your first year.
at lifelock.com slash Walsh.
That's lifelock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
So the Daily Wire has this report.
The Senate unanimously passed a bill that would ban the use of TikTok on government devices amid growing national security concerns over the Chinese-owned social media platform.
The No TikTok on Government Devices Act, introduced by Senator Josh Hawley, was passed late on Wednesday.
It says TikTok is a Trojan horse for the Chinese Communist Party.
It's a major security risk to the United States, and until it's forced to sever ties with China completely, it has no place on government devices, Hawley said in a statement.
States across the U.S.
are banning TikTok and government devices.
It's time for Joe Biden and Democrats to help do the same.
The bill will need to be passed in the House and signed by President Joe Biden to become law.
And this is only just one bill related to TikTok.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers is also leading a drive to completely ban the use of TikTok nationwide for everyone.
Senator Marco Rubio introduced the legislation in the Senate this month.
Representatives Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi Let's say, introduced companion legislation in the House.
The Bipartisan Antisocial CCP Act is a strong step in protecting our nation from the nefarious digital surveillance and influence operations of totalitarian regimes.
And Marco Rubio was on Tucker Carlson last night talking about this bill to ban TikTok nationwide.
So, a few things.
First of all, the great thing And of course it should be, to begin with, banned on government devices.
Even if it wasn't a communist Chinese surveillance operation, which it is, we should still ban it on government.
It's a government device.
Why should you have any kind of social media?
Ban all social media on government devices.
Let's do that.
And the really great thing about banning TikTok on government devices is that it will prevent Gen Z from getting jobs in government.
They're not going to want to work in government if they can't have TikTok at the ready.
So I consider that a benefit.
But of course, it should obviously go beyond that.
And it should be banned nationwide.
There's just, there's no arguments.
I have not heard one salient argument as to why TikTok should not be banned.
Nationwide.
Across the entire country.
I haven't heard it.
And yet it remains unbanned.
Yet it's still out there and we're allowed to use it when there's no good argument for it.
It is, once again, just a fact that it's a surveillance operation by the Communist Chinese government.
That's what it is.
That's how it's used.
They're using it to And on top of that, as if we need more reason to get rid of it, on top of that, it's just absolutely toxic for kids.
It's destroying kids.
And it's not the only social media platform.
Of course, if you get rid of one, it'll just be replaced by another.
We understand that.
But that's not a good enough reason to keep it around.
So you've got something that's poisonous to kids, that's just like ruining entire generations of kids who are addicted to this thing, and also it's being used by an adversarial government to spy on us, and yet we're still sitting around talking about, hmm, should we?
Is it really the right thing to ban it though?
Alright, let's move to this.
So, if hate speech makes no sense, neither does the category of hate crime.
And also, at the aforementioned hearing, there was another witness who, much of what he says here, unlike some of the other witnesses at this hearing who just were, everything they said was totally insane, much of what he says here I agree with, and he calls for the death penalty for hate crimes.
Let's listen.
At the population level, most people who hate will never convert their hate into a crime, meaning that education produces little prevention per hour or dollar expended.
Rather, if the members of this committee want to more effectively combat hate crime, they should do so by supporting the criminal justice system.
Increase funding for police hiring to remediate the decline in police employment per capita since the Great Recession.
better fund police investigations integral to clearing hate crime cases;
support state and local prosecutors in forming specialized hate crime bureaus,
including by coordinating information sharing in the challenging area of hate crime prosecution;
increase federal hate crime penalties and encourage the Department of Justice
to pursue hate crime charges in states where local laws are insufficient,
such as in New York State, where the Buffalo Grocery Shooter cannot be executed for his hands offense,
a situation I relied which also obtains in Colorado; hate crime against LGBTQ people and otherwise is a serious
issue and we must take it seriously.
Doing that means treating hate criminals like the criminals they are
and bringing the full power of the justice system to bear on them.
Now I agree that these mass shooters should be executed.
Absolutely.
Execute them.
Execute them.
Do it swiftly.
Do it publicly as far as I'm concerned.
Bring back public executions.
I've long advocated for that.
For mass shootings and for many other crimes as well.
But the issue is with the category of hate crime.
As we've talked about on the show recently, is there any motivation for a mass shooting that would be less bad than any other motivation?
Okay, is there a less bad version of a mass shooting?
Now, I'm not sure that I believe, as some will say, that all such crimes are motivated by hatred, because that's one criticism of the hate crime category, is that, well, if you're killing people, then obviously you hate them, so how can we even distinguish?
I don't think I agree with that.
I think that crimes can be motivated by other things, indifference to human life, envy, A kind of psychopathic boredom.
I mean, these people are motivated by all sorts of things.
It's hard to know exactly what's going on in the mind of a mass murderer.
Whatever's going on in there, it's dark and twisted and horrifying.
But why does it matter?
I mean, imagine you have two mass shootings, okay?
Imagine two mass shootings on the same day, in the same town, killing the same number of people, okay, hypothetically.
In one case, the mass shooter is a racist, and we know that because he's got the manifesto and everything, and he's targeting black people, and he's very open about that's why he's doing it.
In the other case, the mass shooter is, let's say, a psychopathic nihilist, indifferent to human life, killing people of all different races, and doing it just for entertainment, and to feel a sense of power and control in his life.
Same number of dead people.
Same trauma for the survivors.
Same bloodshed.
Is the former crime really worse than the latter?
Really?
It's worse?
I mean, how can it be worse?
How can either be worse than the other?
It's as bad as you could possibly get.
Um, should one be treated harsher?
Like, are you going to walk onto the scene of the second shooting and go, oh my God, what happened here?
Why did he do this?
And someone says, well, he's a nihilist, a psychopath, he's indifferent to human life.
Oh, so this wasn't hate?
Well, phew, thank God!
I thought he had a bad reason to murder 32 people.
In fact, if anything, if anything, it goes the other way.
If anything, we should be slightly less worried about the hate crime perpetrator.
Because hatred can be redeemed.
A hateful person can be, in theory, reformed.
Now, mass murderers should all still be executed, in my opinion.
But my point is simply that of the two types of violent scumbags, the hate crime bigot and the nihilistic psychopath, if we have to parse this and split hairs and everything, and who's worse than the other, the latter probably poses the greater danger and is less likely to be reformed.
I think you could make a better argument for that.
But though, again, to my mind, they should be treated the same.
Because this whole argument is, you know, maybe it's interesting on an academic level, but when you try to put it into action in the criminal justice system, it's just absolutely ridiculous.
Because no matter why they did it, it doesn't matter.
It's just as bad, no matter what the reason was.
All right, the Daily Mail has this reported documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, reveals that the House Speaker was speaking to President Barack Obama after Democrats endured the famous off-year shellacking, and this is back in 2010, blaming white male voters getting in a mood over the sour economy.
Her assessment came after a wipeout that cost the party its majority after enactment of
Obama's signature Affordable Care Act, then often derided as Obamacare by its opponents.
So this documentary is apparently called Pelosi in the House.
And if you want to watch it for some reason, it's on HBO, so you can go.
If you want to watch a documentary about Nancy Pelosi, you can go do that.
But here's the scene in question.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
The white male thing.
She says the white male thing.
When they don't have a job, they get in a mood.
Now, needless to say, this is a career killer, even for someone like Nancy Pelosi, if you put any other group in that sentence.
Imagine her saying, you know, the black male thing.
Really getting in the mood sometimes.
She says that and it's done.
It's over.
Like, this is someone who's been in the House of Representatives for 350 years.
Before it even existed, she was in it.
And that would be enough to kill her career.
But you could say that about white males.
And the thing is, you know, they put this in a documentary.
It's not like this was some behind-the-scenes footage that she did.
This is her daughter, put this out there.
This wasn't some kind of expose.
They have no problem with this.
She would say this publicly.
The Democrats would say, she would say almost exactly that in front of a microphone at a press conference.
She has no problem with that.
Because there's no penalty.
There's no downside, really, politically, to heaping scorn and contempt on white males.
The white male thing.
She's calling us things, just to be clear.
So why not?
They're very open about it.
And one of the reasons why they can be so open about it, and why there is no penalty, is that Republicans don't have the guts or the brains to counter this.
She can go out and say whatever she wants about white males.
Because even her political opponents won't say anything about it.
They're not going to stand up there and say, she has hatred of white males, she is anti-white male, she's a racist and a sexist.
They're not going to get up and say that.
They're not going to accuse her specifically by name of anti-white male bigotry.
They won't say it.
Even though that's exactly what we just heard, and Democrats could not be more clear about it.
In villainizing and demonizing white males.
They're very open.
But Republicans, of course the media is not going to call her on it.
So if the media is not going to call her on it, and her political opponents won't call her on it, then that's it.
She's fine.
And Republicans won't do that.
They will not name anti-white racism, and they will not name especially anti-white male bigotry.
They won't do it.
To their own detriment.
Because, you know, they're afraid that if they do, they're afraid they get up there and they say, what we just heard is dehumanizing and bigoted against white males.
White males, they are a group of Americans in this country.
They deserve to be defended.
They don't deserve to be treated this way.
The Republicans are afraid that if they say that, that it's going to upset all the other groups that they're trying to win.
They're worried that it's going to alienate the black vote if they speak up for white males.
Which, by the way, even if it did, from a political perspective, as a Republican, you're only going to win a very small portion of the black vote anyway.
So even if it's true that it made your numbers go from 3% to 2%, politically, who cares?
Because the white male vote politically is more important to you because they're voting for you in greater numbers.
But, more to the point, it's not true that it's going to alienate other groups.
Now, far-left activists, of course, if you speak up for white males, they're going to accuse you of, well, you're saying that you don't hate white males?
Well, that must mean that you do hate black people.
Yeah, far-left activists are going to play that game, but they're not going to vote for you anyway.
Who gives a damn what they say?
Normal people aren't going to interpret it that way.
A normal black person, a normal woman, a normal person of any racial minority, they hear you speaking up in defense of white males, especially when they're being degraded and dehumanized in that way.
Normal people in those groups, they're not offended by that.
Of course they're not.
So you're not offending normal people, but you could actually be motivating white males.
Which is an important voting block.
It's a voting block that you need.
If you don't have them, you don't win.
And that is also a voting block that has been demoralized and disenfranchised.
You know, this is one of the things that, after 2020, we never talked about.
You know, because we talked about a lot of things with the election.
We never actually talked about the fact that, you know, Trump lost white males.
He didn't lose them, he lost the percentage.
White males were less invested in that election than they had been in 2016.
The numbers went down.
We never had that conversation.
Which, maybe we should.
Maybe that's a group of people.
Politicians specifically speak up in defense of every other group by name.
They'll speak up for black Americans, they'll speak up for women, they'll speak up for Asians, they'll speak up for every group.
But they will not speak up for white males by name.
And it turns out that does have an effect.
Because when you've got a group of voters who feel like you don't give a crap about them, that you won't even acknowledge them by name, they're less motivated to vote for you.
Doesn't mean they're going to vote Democrat, it just means that they're going to stay home, they're not motivated.
They don't feel represented.
All right.
What else do we got here?
Okay, well, speaking of documentaries, since we're on the subject, maybe we should mention this too.
This is from the Daily Wire.
The climate may be getting hot, but AOC's new movie is most definitely not.
Well done.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a new documentary out, To The End.
And if movie theaters are paying attention to ticket sales, they realize it's already run to the end.
The flick opened on December 9th at 120 theaters.
But since then, it's made $9,667.
Okay?
$9,667.
Okay?
In about a week, on over 100 screens, That is $80 a screen.
And let's say the tickets are $16.25, as they are at Regal Theatres, that would equate to fewer than 600 people who actually saw it.
So that's about, I'll do the math on that, so that's like just about 5 people, 5 or 6 people, a theatre, went to go see this movie.
Perhaps viewers just didn't want to sit through this.
This is the movie's synopsis.
It says, Stopping the climate crisis is a question of political courage and the clock is ticking.
Over three years of turbulence and crisis, four young women fight for a Green New Deal and ignite a historic shift in U.S.
climate politics.
Now, the film drew 83% approval from Rotten Tomatoes, of course.
Nobody actually wants to see this thing, and I know that you're really hoping that you'll get a chance to watch the trailer of this, because you're hearing the description, you're thinking, I need to see some clips of this thing.
And don't worry, I got you covered.
Here's the trailer.
Fighting for change politically requires faith.
We are building an army of young people to stop the climate crisis and create millions of good jobs for our generation.
Everyone wants to talk about this dispassionately, but this is the world that I will raise my kids in.
The more centrist wing is arguing that they want to maintain the status quo.
This is going to be the moonshot of our generation.
Moments of crisis crack open the window of possibility.
Sometimes I feel like my job is to get my hands dirty.
You're not going to trick us.
Hell no.
Welcome everybody!
Now is the time to leverage our power.
We have tens of thousands of new people joining.
We're in the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
Make them feel like they're going to lose their seats if they don't support this.
Let's stop.
Let's stop watching it.
So you've seen enough of it.
A few things.
First, interesting things going on here.
I mean, nothing interesting in the film itself.
But first, the Democrat Party just doesn't have any stars at all.
They don't have any interesting people in the Democrat Party.
AOC is the closest.
And yet, you know, she's probably the biggest star in the Democrat Party.
She's not the one that has the most influence in Washington.
For sure, but she's the biggest star.
Most well-known, most famous, popular, I guess.
And yet still, she's the best they can do as far as that goes, and yet nobody cares.
Because she's actually not interesting at all.
She's not an interesting person.
Part of the problem is that in order to be interesting, you have to have some rough edges.
You need to have some aspects of yourself that aren't politically correct.
That's what makes someone interesting.
But when you perfectly fit yourself into this politically correct box, it may prevent you from getting backlash, it may make you above criticism in the mainstream, fine, but it's not interesting.
And also, the left, once again, as we see, they find it difficult to make films that preach their message in an appealing and entertaining way.
They didn't always have this difficulty, because the Hollywood has been left-leaning for decades, and they've been putting out films that, you know, propagandize In their direction, and they've been doing that for decades, but they used to be able to do it in a way that people found interesting and found entertaining and wanted to go watch the movies.
They're not as able to do that anymore.
Part of that is, like we always talk about, it's the kind of Christian film phenomenon where they do the same thing in the reverse of what Christian films do.
They put the message before anything.
So they go message first.
They worry about getting the message across before they worry about actually putting out an entertaining piece of content.
That's part of it.
I think also, you know, they don't think that the masses are worthy of being appealed to in the first place, I think.
They think almost like they would be beneath them to try to appeal to the masses.
Because they have contempt for them.
They have too much contempt for the masses at this point to actually try to connect with them.
I think that's part of the issue.
All right, finally.
This is from The Mirror.
It says, science fiction is about to match up with reality as the world's first artificial womb facility has been announced, where you'll be able to choose your baby's characteristics from a menu.
Ecto-Life, the brainchild of Berlin-based Hashem El Jalil Gal...
Gai Li, a biotechnologist and science communicator, is a concept based on over 50 years of groundbreaking scientific research.
In theory, they'll be able to grow 30,000 babies a year in their lab, and he believes the facilities would allow infertile couples to conceive a baby and become the true biological parents of their own offspring.
But they also plan to offer an elite package that would allow you to genetically engineer the embryo before implanting it into the artificial womb, with everything from eye and hair color to strength, height, and intelligence as choices.
Hashem explains, introducing Ectolife, the world's first artificial womb facility, which is powered entirely by renewable energy.
According to the World Health Organization, around 300,000 women die from pregnancy complications.
Ectolife artificial womb is designed to alleviate human suffering and reduce the chances of C-sections.
With ecto-life, premature birth and c-sections will be a thing of the past.
And so they want to farm all this out, rather than doing it the old-fashioned way of having, you know, women gestating the children in their womb.
We don't need to do that anymore because they'll have artificial wombs.
So you make the baby, you know, it's like baking a cake or something.
You mix all the ingredients together, pop it in the oven, and you can go live your life while they grow the baby in the artificial womb.
You know, I'm skeptical about whether this technology will ever actually be functional, or if it will just continue to exist in theory.
They've been talking about doing things like this for decades, and maybe they're closer now than they've ever been, but I'm skeptical of that.
Either way, I will never fail to appreciate the irony that we are, as a culture, obsessed with organic All natural, you know.
We're obsessed with that when it comes to items you find at the grocery store.
We're obsessed with finding things that are not genetically engineered.
Unless we're talking about human beings themselves.
Right?
As our food gets more organic, our manner of human reproduction, on the other hand, becomes less organic.
So we can see the value of doing things organically when it comes to food, when it comes to cosmetics, whatever.
But somehow, the very same people who see the value there, they can't see it when it comes to themselves and reproduction.
I mean, eventually our salads will be more organic than the people eating them.
That's where we're headed.
And I think many people on the left in particular can't see a problem with this because They don't have any concept of human dignity to begin with.
They just have no concept of that.
And so, for those of us who have a concept of human dignity, even if we struggle to articulate what human dignity is or why it's important, because it's something that, you know, for most of human history, it was not something that was fundamentally challenged.
But now it is.
Like, we have people that are just flat out denying that human dignity exists in the first place.
And so, but those of us who innately recognize it, it can be hard for us to understand.
And we see something like this and we just, because we innately recognize the value of human dignity, we see something like this and we immediately see it as horrifying.
Like, of course.
You know, grow babies in an artificial womb and pick out what kind of people they're going to be from a menu?
And just, like, constructing them like Frankensteins?
It's horrifying.
We instinctively recognize that.
But people on the left, they don't, because they don't see human dignity as a thing.
And, you know, human dignity is rooted in the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God.
That's what it's rooted in.
But, if you believe, as people on the left do, that there is no God and that we are gods, ourselves, then it makes kind of sense.
We are gods, there is no God, except the individual, and so I can make a person in my image, because I am the God.
I think that's what's happening here.
Let's get to the comment section.
That's one thing I know for sure.
Pajamagram makes it really easy for us men.
This year, I'm getting my wife a set of pajamas from their Naturally Nude line.
The texture and feel of these pajamas is so silky and smooth that I know she'll love them.
If you have no idea what to get your girlfriend or wife this year, trust me, she wants these pajamas.
But you need to order today because last year, they sold out before Christmas.
Order today and Pajamagram will include a free matching Naturally Nude Nightie.
With your order, that's $75 of savings on their best-selling holiday gift.
Pajamagram offers free gift packaging so you can give your gifts and put them under the tree and it's all ready to go.
So go to pajamagram.com right now.
Order the Naturally Nude Pajamas.
That's pajamagram.com for Naturally Nude Pajamas.
Don't forget to tell them Matt sent you.
Laura says, I'm alarmed that the Christian group was denied service, but at least they didn't give their good hard-earned money to those haters.
I live in Brooklyn, and one time several years back, I overheard two 20-somethings saying that they didn't and wouldn't patronize a certain very popular diner because they found out that the owner donated to pro-life organizations.
This is something that's happening more and more.
In fact, I don't even know about this.
It was revealed on Backstage last night, our Christmas Backstage episode, if you watched it.
That this happened, now I didn't, we had our Christmas party a couple days ago.
And I didn't go because, you know, my wife's very pregnant and she didn't want to go.
She wasn't feeling very well.
I could have still gone by myself, but parties are bad enough.
If I'm going to go to one, I need my wife there.
She's my, she's my pinch hitter.
She's like, she's the one that does all the talking.
So I can't, I couldn't go if she wasn't going.
So I stayed home.
And so I found out about this after the fact, but apparently there was, you know, a nearby restaurant where some members of the Daily Wire were going to go trying to reserve a table.
We're told by someone at the restaurant that essentially they're not welcome because they pose a, I think the phrase was something like a danger to the staff.
You know, you're dangerous people.
So, seems to be happening with increasing regularity.
That people, whether because Christian or conservative, being denied service, in this case they'd already made the reservation.
Put down a deposit on it.
Told you're not welcome here.
So there are cases of that happening.
In fact, in our case, very close to home.
I'm not aware of any case anywhere in the country of something similar happening on the left side or to the left side of a Christian or conservative business owner saying to A group of people, you know, to gay people, we're not going to serve you because you're gay.
Or even going up to left-wing activists and saying, well, because of your ideological convictions, I can, in good conscience, serve you.
I haven't heard of any case like that.
All right.
Gary Lancaster says, how can Media Matters watch Matt every day and not become fans?
I ask myself that same question.
Jenna says, what is your take on Knowles' tweet that he feels sorry for Sam Brinton?
Well, he's a nice guy.
I mean, he's base, don't get me wrong.
A dangerous right-wing extremist, of course.
Not even welcome in restaurants.
But he's nice also.
And I'm not as nice.
I have to say that I don't feel sorry for Britain.
I understand the point.
And I've heard this from other people, too.
He's a pathetic figure, and he is.
He's mentally deranged, and he lives in a culture that encourages and foments that derangement rather than helping him deal with it.
And so he is a pathetic, pitiful, strange freak of a person, and so it makes sense to pity him.
It does, and I get that.
Perfectly justifiable way of looking at this.
But I don't, because I actually don't think that a guy like Brinton is crazy.
It's a reasonable theory that he's just mentally deranged and crazy.
I don't think, I think he's a deviant.
And deviance is, well, deviance is deviant, but it's not the same thing as being delusionally insane, right?
It's not the same thing as being psychotic.
It's not immoral to be insane.
It's not a moral judgment.
If somebody's actually insane, we're not going to pass a moral judgment on them for being insane.
It's not their fault.
It is immoral.
It is a moral choice to indulge your deviance the way that Sam Britton has on the other hand.
So what I see rather is just a totally narcissistic guy who's chosen to act this way.
And he wants to act out his fetishes in public, and he doesn't care how it makes anybody else feel, how uncomfortable it makes them.
He feels he's totally entitled to do whatever he wants.
That's what stealing a luggage is all about.
Just someone totally consumed by their own sense of entitlement.
And so I have a lot, a much harder time pitying someone in that case, I think.
And finally, Joe says, Matt, a month later, do you think it was a good idea for Trump
to announce early?
Announce his candidacy early.
(paper rustling)
You know, we talked about this at the time when he announced his candidacy a month ago, and I said, it's definitely a risk because I understand the thought process.
The thought process is get out in front, try to crowd out the field before anyone else jumps in, also change the subject from the midterm.
So that makes sense.
I understand the logic behind it.
But the risk is that you get in so early, and now you've announced, and now you're in your campaign mode, because you've announced your campaign, and now you've got to keep the momentum going for like two years.
That's a long time to have to try to draw that momentum out.
And you also don't have any other candidates in the field yet.
So there's no one to attack.
There's no one to be debating.
So you've got to totally on your own generate this excitement and momentum and keep it going.
The worst thing you could do is announce your candidacy and then just sort of disappear.
And all the momentum dies.
And it seems like that's more of what has happened so far.
And it was kind of doomed to happen that way.
It's just not possible.
Even Trump, it's just like, how do you keep the momentum going that long?
So I think in the end, it seems to me to have been a miscalculation.
In effect, what it means is that he's going to have to sort of relaunch his campaign at a later date.
He's already announced it, but then he's going to have to kind of, once we get closer to it, he gets to a point where he can actually maintain the momentum, then sort of relaunch it.
I think that's what he's going to have to do.
Have you been procrastinating your holiday shopping until the last minute?
Well, I'm here to tell you that the last minute is closer than you think.
Today is your last chance to guarantee that your sweet baby gang swag shack items arrive before Christmas.
You gotta get them now.
Get my best-selling LGBT children's book.
Johnny the Walrus, it's cuddly plush walrus companion.
You can indulge in the nostalgia of the Sweet Baby album tee and find the epitome of the SBG with the Matt Walsh Superfan Bundle.
And for the Sweet Baby ladies in the audience who are struggling to find a gift for the men who aren't in the Sweet Baby Gang, don't forget to check out Jeremy's new hair, skin, and body care gift bundles that are 100% woke-free and now 30% off.
If they're in Sweet Baby Gang, they can get that too.
I don't know why we're...
Delineating that way.
Men need soap and shampoo, but they don't enjoy buying it for themselves, and they especially don't enjoy buying it from woke corporations who hate them and their values.
Be it the luxurious Jeremy's Beard Kit, the Tea Tree and Peppermint Shampoo and Conditioner, or my personal favorite, Bamboo Charcoal Body Wash, made from the primary food source of my least favorite animal, pandas.
We're starving more pandas by the day.
Buy them all up now.
Today is the last day to order and receive in time for Christmas, so don't procrastinate any longer.
Go to jeremysrazors.com, get 30% off your Jeremy's gift bundles today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
White guilt is a scourge in this country, and a problem we often talk about on this show.
A video that recently went viral from TikTok seems to have captured this phenomenon, perhaps better than anything else we've seen.
Here it is.
You know what?
While we're on the topic of how white people are just f***ing the world up for everyone, you're not one of the good white people.
There are no good white people.
There are only anti-racist white people and racist white people.
Anti-racism is a lifelong project, and the end goal is not for you to be good.
It's for society to be good.
De-center yourself.
Do the work.
It's hard.
You're gonna get it wrong.
But if you are not out there, every day, actively trying to understand, you're not a good white person.
Stop patting yourself on the back.
Stop congratulating each other.
Stop separating us from the bad white people.
Don't sit out there in comments and say, we don't claim them.
We are them.
We are them.
We are the ones shooting up schools.
We are the ones raping people.
We are the ones enslaving people.
We are.
We're them.
Well, speak for yourself, lady.
I have, in fact, never done any of those things.
And of the people who have done them, they are not exclusively white, not even close.
In fact, when it comes to mass shootings and violent crime in particular, white people are underrepresented as a group in that category.
As for slavery, Forms of the practice do still exist in the world, but they are happening in parts of the world with names like India and Africa and Southeast Asia.
These are not predominantly white areas of the globe, just to be clear.
But I'm not really interested in fact-checking this poor, unfortunate, I'm assuming quite lonely, white guilt-plagued woman.
This actually is someone that I feel sorry for.
Needless to say, you know, she has no notion of what actually happens in the world, much less what has happened in the world, her grasp on history being even more precarious than her understanding of current events.
This is a person, like so many others in our culture, who exists in a bubble, and the atmosphere inside that bubble is comprised almost entirely of self-loathing and narcissism.
It is a volatile, often quite confusing mix.
And that's why I'd really like to use this lady as a case study and conduct something of a psychological evaluation of the white guilt brigade.
Every member of the brigade is an individual brought to this sorry state through their own relatively unique set of circumstances, yet there are some obvious through lines here.
Some things they all seem to have in common.
And we can see many of those things manifested in this video, so let's go through this point by point, three points in particular.
White guilt can either be performative or sincere, and sometimes perhaps usually a mix of the two.
The fully performative variety is usually found among the white people who have gotten into the race hustling business and who are profiting immensely off of it.
They're the ones who are writing the books.
They're the ones who are giving DEI seminars and so on.
And for them, this is a scam.
You know, it's a kind of a Ponzi scheme.
It's a business opportunity.
They're like the televangelists in the private jets.
They found a way to profit off of a belief system that they probably don't subscribe to themselves.
But the disciples really do believe it, to some extent at least.
This woman, I'm going to assume, is not making millions selling anti-racism books or hosting anti-racism seminars.
She is the person buying the books and attending the seminars.
She's spending money on the racket, not making it.
And that's because, as you can tell just from that one minute clip, she really does buy into this nonsense.
She actually does hate herself.
And that's the point.
The anti-racism snake oil salesmen are exploiting the self-loathing of people like this.
She was already lonely.
She already had a low self-image.
She already hated herself before she ever discovered anti-racism or learned the vapid, meaningless mantras like, do the work.
Anti-racism simply gave her a way of understanding her own self-loathing.
It gave her something to channel it into and through.
So, what she gets out of the deal is, if not financial profit, at least, um, and if not emotional stability or happiness, at least she gets a feeling of unearned moral superiority.
She hates herself, that much is clear, but she also gets to feel superior to other white people who have not done the work as much as she has.
This is exactly the attitude that she's ranting against in the video, but she is lecturing other white people for their feelings of superiority, while herself standing on a perch of moral superiority.
This is ultimately the promise of anti-racism.
This is the reward that it offers to white disciples.
It will not make you feel better about yourself, it will not give you happiness, but it will at least make you feel holier than those other white scumbags.
Second, it's interesting to note How white women in particular seem to be so susceptible to this stuff.
Most of these sorts of videos, and I've seen too many of them, are made by women.
And if you talk to anyone who's ever been to an anti-racism seminar, they will tell you that it's usually a majority women.
And I think that's because, most obviously, women tend to be more emotional, which is a good thing, generally.
You know, a man might sometimes complain about the overly emotional women in his life, but the truth is that he wouldn't want it any other way.
His wife or girlfriend's emotional outbursts might annoy him sometimes, but he certainly would rather she be emotional than cold and distant.
This is the nature of the two sexes, right?
The things that frustrate us about each other the most are the things that we love about each other the most.
But a woman's more emotional nature can make her easier to emotionally manipulate in this way.
And in particular, women are more naturally empathetic than men.
Now this, again, is a positive trait.
It's something that men love about women.
Yet, that empathy, if not properly calibrated and pointed in the right direction, can be exploited and weaponized and turned against itself.
White guilt is, in part, a sort of misplaced, mangled, perverse, deranged form of empathy.
It's not entirely unlike, you know, the psychology that leads some women to strike up love affairs with murderers in prison.
Kind of a similar thing going on.
Third, final point.
Whether it's a man or a woman expressing their anti-racist white guilt, what we're also seeing is the religious impulse at work.
This is maybe the most important point to understand.
There is no escaping the fact that man is religious by nature.
We naturally search for the transcendent truths that will give our lives meaning.
Not only that, but we naturally recognize our own sin, our own guilt.
And we look for ways of relieving ourselves of that burden.
We seek atonement.
We seek absolution.
We seek penance.
Anti-racism provides an outlet for those desires.
It's the wrong outlet.
It's wholly unsatisfying and insufficient, but it's the sort of religion that non-religious secular liberals are stuck with.
This is all they got.
The religion has borrowed, you know, the concept of... It borrows a lot of the concepts because it doesn't create anything of its own.
Leftism never does, so it can only borrow from what already exists.
In this case, it borrows the concept of original sin from Christianity.
And comes up with its own warped version.
Of course, in Christian theology, original sin is guilt shared by all people everywhere.
We are flawed, we are a fallen race, you know, and by race we mean the human race.
But the leftist anti-racist religion preaches about a flawed and fallen race, meaning specifically the white race.
We, white people, are the carriers of original sin.
While the other races are angelic, guiltless, uncorrupted beings.
This is their mythology.
It's their creation story.
It's their religion.
Because we all need religion.
And we will end up with one, one way or another.
And so, in some ways, this person being liberal, lonely, sad, self-loathing, and also a woman, she was destined to fall into the anti-racism religion, the anti-racism cult.
It was always going to end up this way, these days.
And yet, she is still, today, I must say, in spite of that, cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members' block, hope to see you there.
