Ep. 1101 - Why They're Filling Our Cities With Hideous Modern Art
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a New York City courthouse adorns its building with a satanic monument to abortion. The statue is creepy and depraved, and also hideous. In fact our whole society is plagued by hideous and creepy artwork. It's all part of a larger agenda I'll explain today. Also, Project Veritas caught a Pfizer executive on camera and what he reveals is truly explosive. Stick around to hear about it. Plus, Eric Swalwell is traumatized after being kicked off of the intelligence committee for sleeping with a Chinese spy. And Google has massive layoffs, leading to some unintentionally funny TikTok videos. We'll take a look at those today.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Get 40% off Jeremy’s Razors subscriptions at www.jeremysrazors.com
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Black Rifle Coffee - Get 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or a Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
Unimed - Use code "WALSH" and save an extra 10% off your ENTIRE purchase: https://genucel.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a New York City courthouse adorns its building with a satanic monument to abortion.
The statue is creepy and depraved, and also hideous.
In fact, our whole society is plagued now by hideous and creepy artwork.
It's all part of a larger agenda I'll explain today.
Also, Project Veritas caught a Pfizer executive on camera, and what he reveals is truly explosive.
Stick around to hear about that.
Plus, Eric Swalwell is traumatized after being kicked off of the Intelligence Committee for sleeping with a Chinese spy.
And Google has massive layoffs leading to some unintentionally funny TikTok videos.
We'll take a look at those today.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
One of the great tragedies of my life is that I wasn't doing a show last week
when Boston's MLK statue, the news cycle, came and went and passed me by.
The thing that motivates me to get up every day and host this show is the very hope that one day I'll be able to deliver a monologue on something as hilarious as a statue that's meant to honor Martin Luther King Jr., but instead looks like a disembodied pile of limbs that arranges itself into a different sex act depending on the angle you view it from.
It's supposed to be a memorial to King, but the sculptor accidentally made a memorial to Pornhub.
Well, I assume it was an accident.
Whether he meant for the thing to be sexualized, to be sort of a sexualized three-dimensional Rorschach test, is anybody's guess, but we do know that what he created, whatever the intention was, is a giant ten million dollar hunk of garbage.
There's a lot to be said about the subject, not just to simply point and laugh at it.
I mean mainly to point and laugh, but also to discuss the continued and rapidly increasing uglification, if I can coin a term, of our society.
This is a process that is deliberate and systematic.
Beautiful art is taken down and replaced by hideous, vomitous nonsense.
Why is this happening?
What is the endgame?
These are the important questions, but I missed my chance, or so I thought, to talk about them.
That is, until New York City came to the rescue.
Only a week after the MLK sex sculpture revolted and amused us all, NYC has made their own contribution to the conversation.
They are attempting, valiantly I might say, to recover their crown as the ugly statue capital of the country.
And with this latest eyesore, they may have succeeded.
Here's the article from Time Out, which is a New York City news site.
It says, "Statues of nine men from history and religion "perch atop the courthouse near Madison Square Park.
"Now for the first time, the representation of a woman "has joined their noble rooftop plinths.
"Hava to Breathe Air Life, "an exhibition by artist Shazia Sikander,
"focusing on things of justice, "has brought stunning golden sculptures
"to Madison Square Park and the nearby courthouse "at 27 Madison Avenue.
Inside Madison Square Park sits Witness, a monumental female figure measuring 18 feet tall and wearing a hoop skirt inspired by the courtroom's stained glass ceiling dome.
The figure's twisted arms and legs suggest tree roots, referencing What the artist has described as the self-rootedness of the female form, it can carry its roots wherever it goes.
You can even use your smartphone to bring the figure to life through AR technology.
Adorning the nearby courthouse now, an eight-foot-tall female figure resembles the park sculpture, but a lotus symbolizing wisdom replaces the hoop skirt.
Her horns indicate sovereignty and autonomy.
A delicate collar nods to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often wore detailed collars with her traditional black robe.
The statue, the only woman represented, sits next to figures including Confucius, Justinian, Moses, Zoroaster.
At last, this work puts a female figure on a level plane with the traditional patriarchal depictions of justice and power.
Well, not quite a level plane, because those other sculptures are legitimate works of art.
This one is a satanic monstrosity.
It's a woman with tentacles for arms and horns on her head, resembling, like, a doodle that a very disturbed ten-year-old might draw.
It's the kind of thing that the child in the horror film sketches in his notebook right before his parents realize he's possessed.
And on top of all that, it looks cheap, as though it was sculpted out of plastic.
It looks like it was made of the same material they use for those little green toy soldiers that you buy in a bag at the dollar store.
This is modern art in a nutshell.
Cheap, ugly, stupid, and vaguely, or not so vaguely in this case, demonic.
New York City, by the way, is no stranger to ugly statues.
Just a couple of years ago, they confused us all with a monument sculpted by a, quote, conceptual artist and placed outside the Rockefeller Center that looks like a giant cartoon head, like something that a not-very-talented caricature artist might sketch.
Really, it looks like a parody of African art, though the artist is black, so he escaped the racism charge, I guess.
But he certainly cannot escape the charge of being a talentless hack, which is what he is.
Now to add insult to injury, while New York litters its streets and buildings with these unsightly lumps, it's also actively removing its good art.
Just a few days ago, the city finally removed the statue of Theodore Roosevelt that has adorned the outside of its Museum of Natural History for nearly a century.
The stated reason for removing this statue is that the depiction of a black man and a Native American man walking alongside Roosevelt makes the whole scene somehow inexplicably racist.
No one ever explains why, by the way.
Just the fact that you've got a white man and then there's a black man there also, that's racist.
But the real reason it was taken down is that the work of art commits two unforgivable sins in the modern age.
One, it memorializes a heroic white man, which of course you can't do.
And two, it's beautiful.
That's a beautiful work of art.
And beautiful art is no longer allowed.
Of course, you don't need to live in New York or Boston to have your eyes assaulted by these memorials to ugliness.
Every American city is plagued by these sorts of modern art mutations popping up everywhere like tumors.
I mentioned this art display sitting outside the Tennessee Welcome Center right off of Interstate 81.
So when you're coming down from Virginia into Tennessee and you stop off because you've got to use the restroom, you'll be forced to look at this.
Now, in times past, they may have welcomed you with a glorious sculpture representing the state's unique culture and history.
Instead, they give you this weird orgy of malformed, ambiguously humanoid shapes.
And again, you find this stuff everywhere.
We were visiting Asheville, North Carolina, not to be confused with Nashville, Tennessee, not long ago, and we found ourselves gawking at this towering pile of shapeless scrap metal, which the artist calls passage, but should have just been called tetanus.
And we could go on with examples.
In fact, a Twitter follow, this might be the worst one.
A Twitter follower sent me this photo that I had to look this up because I didn't quite believe that it was real.
This is a photo of a recently installed statue in Carmel and Indiana.
And the statue is titled Rising Sun, but instead it looks like a hairy potato, or perhaps like something more anatomical in nature, perched on a misshaped platform of some kind.
It has the aesthetic quality of like a Nickelodeon cartoon from the 90s, except a lot more explicit.
So what's going on?
I mean, why are they making this ugly nonsense?
Why are our cities pockmarked with these hideously sculpted abscesses?
Why are we all forced to live in towns with the artistic equivalent of skin cancer?
I think there are a few reasons.
And the first is pretty simple.
Great artists have skill, and they have training, and they have proper education.
Our artists have none of those, so they're not capable of making anything that rises to the level of classical art.
I mean, they couldn't produce a sculpture that could pass for something sculpted 200 years ago, even if they wanted to.
One thing is, like, notice the lack of detail in all of these statues.
This is the thing with all modern art.
You go to a modern art museum, it's the same deal.
There's no detail in anything.
The demon statue in the New York courthouse is mostly just smooth and featureless, which gives it that kind of cheap flavor.
And the artist didn't even attempt to make arms or hands because those are the most difficult to get right.
And so instead they, uh, look, when I was, when I was in art class in like seventh grade, I, I used to do the same thing.
I couldn't, I didn't know how to draw arms and hands because they're difficult.
And so I would do something like, Oh, you know, I'm using my imagination.
This is a person with a, You know, tentacles for arms instead.
Easier to draw.
The sculptor in Boston did make arms and hands, but that's all he made, because it requires great skill to sculpt heads and faces.
So he simply left them headless.
Meanwhile, the other statues didn't attempt to resemble anything at all, so that there's no standard they can be judged against.
You know, if you try to make something that looks like something, Then everyone can look at your art and say, well, they can judge it against what you're trying to capture.
You know, it's the thing, if you make art and you're trying to capture something, or actually say something, then that gives people a frame of reference that they can judge your art against.
And so all this, in part, is a cover for the fact that these artists have no talent.
But then, even if they could make something beautiful, they probably wouldn't.
Modern art is ugly because modern artists can only produce ugliness and also because they only want to produce ugliness.
We are witnessing, as I noted at the top, the systematic uglification of society.
They make ugly things on purpose because to them, to make an ugly thing is to commit a revolutionary act.
They despise tradition.
They despise all that came before us.
And their ugly art is an attack on tradition.
All of this garbage is the diametric opposite of the sort of art that our ancestors produced and celebrated and passed down to us.
And that's reason enough for our cultural elites, those in charge of facilitating our cultural decline, to prefer the garbage.
But most of all, they make ugly things because they hate beauty.
The artists of antiquity made beautiful things objectively beautiful.
Things that all human beings can recognize as beautiful.
And they did this in order to lift the viewer up, to bring them up and into the experience of beauty.
Whereas the modern artist, clouded by his own ego, obsessed with his own hang-ups and preoccupations and anxieties, creates things with the purpose of dragging the viewer down, sinking them into a state of anxiety and confusion.
A man named Jeremy Wayne Tate on Twitter made this point very well.
He wrote, quote, And that is the truth, no doubt.
And truth ultimately is the enemy here, as always.
and draw them into beauty, they were primarily interested in their subjects,
modern artists aim to shock and confuse their primarily interested in themselves.
And that is the truth, no doubt.
And truth ultimately is the enemy here, as always.
Modern artists hate beauty because they hate truth.
The left in general hates beauty because it hates truth.
And as the English poet John Keats said, truth is beauty, beauty is truth, and that's all you need to know on this earth.
They know it and they hate it.
And so they give us this ugliness instead.
Now let's get to our headlines.
[MUSIC]
Our friends at GenuCell Skincare have exciting news to celebrate in.
They're introducing their new Microbiome Moisturizer, which uses the power of probiotics to target skin redness, pesky wrinkles, fine lines, patchy blotches, and other signs of premature aging.
These are the same probiotics that are in your yogurt.
As it turns out, these super ingredients can have the same nourishing benefits on your skin as they do for your tummy.
So if you've ever eaten yogurt and you thought to yourself, I want this on my skin, This is for you.
Probiotic extracts target bad bacteria, and it restores balance to your skin's protective barrier.
Now, every GenuCell Most Popular Package includes their new probiotic moisturizer, free with your order.
My talent manager, Tessa, uses GenuCell under-eye treatment to help get rid of the bags under her eyes, and she swears by it every day when we talk about it.
Right now, you can get GenuCell's Most Popular Package for 70% off.
Visit GenuCell.com slash Walsh and get your probiotic moisturizer today.
Use code WALSH at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire purchase.
That's Genucel.com slash WALSH.
Genucel.com slash WALSH.
We begin with this news, major news.
I'll read the Postmillennial Report because I don't know how well the audio will translate if you can't see the subtitles, but you should go and watch the full video after the show.
This is the report, though, from Postmillennial.
It says, Project Veritas released a new video Wednesday in which a Pfizer executive claimed the company is attempting to mutate COVID via directed evolution in order to preempt the development of future vaccines.
As a result, hashtag directed evolution trended worldwide.
Jordan Tristan Walker, Pfizer's director of research and development, strategic operations, and an mRNA scientific planner, claimed that directed evolution is not the same as gain-of-function research, which according to the outlet is defined as a mutation that confers new or enhanced activity on a protein, meaning that the virus in question can become more powerful depending on the mutation or scientific enhancement.
Walker told an undercover Project Veritas journalist, quote, One of the things that we, Pfizer, are exploring is, like, why don't we just mutate COVID ourselves so we could create, preemptively, new vaccines, right?
So we have to do that.
If we're going to do that, though, there's a risk of, like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating effing viruses.
He added, From what I've heard is they, the Pfizer scientists, are optimizing the COVID mutation process, but they're going slow because everyone is very cautious.
Obviously, they don't want to accelerate it too much.
I think they're also just trying to do it as an exploratory thing because you obviously don't want to advertise that you're figuring out future mutations.
And then Walker pleaded, don't tell anyone, promise you won't tell anyone.
The way the experiment will work is that we put the virus in monkeys and we successfully cause them to, successfully, successively cause them to keep infecting each other and we collect serial samples from them.
You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn't create something that just goes everywhere, which I suspect is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest.
It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere.
It's BS.
Okay, like I said, you could watch this whole, I think it's about 10 minutes, you see this whole conversation where a Pfizer executive is saying that they intend to do the same thing they did in Wuhan.
But we've got to be really careful.
It's like the safety of the human race is at stake, and we're just gonna trust that, you know, Pfizer is careful.
Like, they can do things that if it goes wrong, millions will die.
But it's alright, because we can just trust them to be careful.
Because we know that these people historically have been very careful, right?
Now, I mean, this obviously should be breaking news in every media outlet.
We have a high-ranking official advisor admitting that they're working on mutating the virus, admitting that it's the same kind of thing they do in Wuhan, pleading that nobody finds out about it.
Like, how much more explicit can you be?
Yes, we're doing this dangerous thing.
Please don't tell anyone we're doing it.
What else do you need to hear?
Big Pharma Must be stopped.
And I'm not interested in voting for any Republican who isn't serious about holding these psychos accountable.
They've been operating with impunity for way too long.
Way before COVID.
Way before COVID.
Okay, before COVID came along, and before the vaccines came along, how about turning half the country into drug addicts?
Inventing diseases to treat and profit off of.
Conducting dangerous experiments that Imperil the human race.
Injecting whatever they want into our bodies.
Lying about it the whole time.
It's got to stop and we need leaders with the wherewithal to stop it.
Now, I've already told you, we talked yesterday about the penalties that I would prefer to see for drug traffickers.
So you know what I would like to do with drug traffickers?
Well, let's start here.
I mean, let's start with the ones who wear suits and have offices on the top floor of fancy Skyrises.
I mean, after we try them for their crimes and convict them in a court of law, because that has to be the first step, we're way past the point of congressional hearings and investigations.
We need both of those things.
But they don't mean anything if they don't lead to trials and criminal charges, convictions, punishments.
And there are other actual policy changes, too, that could be made if we really wanted to rein in Big Pharma.
And some of this might seem slightly indirect.
But really it's not, and we need to be doing it.
Reining in Big Pharma, right, means, either it means it's simply a talking point, something that you say, but if it's more than a talking point, it means cutting off the funds.
It means taking money away from these people.
That's how you do it.
Or that is at least a major part of any effective plan, to rein them in.
Another big part is, again, criminal charges, trials, punishments.
You got to take the money away.
And I'll tell you one way to do that.
We've talked about this plenty of times on this show.
Ban the pharmaceutical companies from advertising their products directly to consumers.
Whether it's a pill that they're pushing or a vaccine or anything, they should not be allowed to advertise it directly to consumers.
And that is already the policy in almost every country in the world.
Almost every country in the world.
Most countries, they don't let the pharmaceutical companies advertise directly to consumers.
That was the policy in this country until I think it was the mid-90s when the FDA changed it.
The fact that this policy was changed and has not been changed back The fact that we still allow them to advertise to consumers only shows you that our politicians are in their pockets, because there's no good argument for allowing this.
I just read an article a couple days ago, and I'll pull it up maybe tomorrow.
We'll talk about this in more detail, because it's very important.
You know, according to this article, the drugs, there's kind of an inverse correlation here because the drugs with the biggest ad budgets have the lowest therapeutic value.
And why is that?
Because drugs that work and are safe, are actually safe and actually effective, they don't need to be advertised.
Doctors will prescribe them because they work.
There's no reason to advertise it.
Okay, if the drug works and it's effective and all that, then you don't need to go to your doctor and ask about it.
Can I have this drug?
No, it's supposed to you go to the doctor with your symptoms and then your illness is diagnosed and treated.
But drugs that don't work need advertising because they need you as the patient to go to your doctor and ask for them.
And then they need to incentivize the medical industry to distribute these drugs, whether they work or not.
And the other thing that they do with these advertisements, the drug ads, they're not just selling drugs that are ineffective and potentially dangerous.
I mean, they're doing that.
But they're also selling the disease.
They sell the disease.
That's why all the ads are the same.
They say, do you have this XYZ symptom?
Well, talk to your doctor about this drug.
They're not even asking you, oh, well, if you already have this disease, here's a drug for you.
It's like, let's convince you that you have this disease, a disease that you might not actually have, diseases that might not even exist, because Big Pharma, they also invent diseases that don't exist so that they can treat them and profit off of them.
And then once they've toyed with your hypochondriac mind and convinced you you have this thing, you go to the doctor and you plead for the pills that you want, and then most of the time you get it.
There is no good reason to allow this.
There is just no good reason.
The only reason to allow the drug companies to advertise directly to consumers is if you're very concerned about making sure that the big pharma executives make a lot of money.
That's the only benefit.
The only benefit is that they make tons of money doing this.
If you don't let them do it, they make a lot less money.
There is no benefit to the population.
There's no benefit to me or you.
It's only harm.
I bring all that up because, again, this is one way you reign in Big Pharma.
But also, if you're wondering why nothing is being done by the powers that be to hold Big Pharma accountable when it comes to COVID and the vaccine and the lies that we're told, if you're wondering why, all you need to look at is this.
That should be one of those very rare bipartisan issues.
Because it should appeal to both sides.
The right pretends to be skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry.
The left pretends to be skeptical of corporations and corporate greed in general.
Well, here you go.
Here's an issue that both sides should agree on.
And they don't.
At least not in Washington.
Because, obviously, they're in the pockets of this industry.
On both sides.
All right.
I'm sure you recall a few weeks ago when there was great panic across the land because Republicans couldn't agree on who to appoint as the new Speaker of the House.
And this was a source of tremendous heartache and fear and misery in the population.
And I mean specifically the population of corporate media offices in D.C.
Nobody else really gave the slightest damn about any of this, nor should they have cared about it.
But for those Particularly on the right, who are concerned that, you know, not handing the speakership over to Kevin McCarthy automatically, concerned that if we didn't just give it to him, that it would somehow have disastrous effects.
I think those people should check out what Kevin McCarthy, now the Speaker of the House, has been doing over the last several days.
One of his first acts as Speaker of the House was to kick Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff off of the House Intelligence Committees, which is a very good thing.
But the fact that he's doing these good things is not evidence that we shouldn't have resisted his speakership, but rather it's evidence that it's a very good thing we did.
Because it's clear that McCarthy's resistance from the base has resonated with him.
We do have some power and control here, but we have to use it.
And even if it didn't provoke an authentic conversion experience for Kevin McCarthy, it at least is forcing him to act like something other than an establishment shill for right now.
And that's just as good as far as I'm concerned.
I don't, like frankly, I don't care if these people mean it or not.
I don't care.
I don't care what they actually think in their hearts.
I don't care about any of that.
It doesn't make any difference to me.
Who cares about that?
All I care about is what they do.
The policies they implement.
Even if they do it begrudgingly.
If they do it and they wish they didn't have to do it, but they're only doing it because they're being held accountable by the base and they hate us and they're muttering about us the whole time.
Fine, I don't care.
Just do it.
If they're doing it to appease us, good.
That only shows the power that we have.
So McCarthy kicked him off the Intelligence Committee and then he had this really fantastic exchange with the DC journalist who challenged him on it.
And again, what you're about to hear from him, you would not have heard had we not challenged, if the base had not challenged him, you wouldn't hear this.
And we haven't heard anything like this from Kevin McCarthy until now.
That's not a coincidence.
But we'll watch a little bit of this exchange.
He's got elected by his district.
Okay, let me be very clear and respectful to you.
You ask me a question, when I answer it, it's the answer to your question.
You don't get to determine whether I answer your question or not, okay?
In all respect.
Thank you.
No, no, let's answer her question.
You just raised a question, I'm gonna be very clear with you.
The Intel Committee is different.
You know why?
Because what happens in the Intel Committee, you don't know.
What happens in the Intel Committee, although the secrets are going on in the world, Other members of Congress don't know.
What did Adam Schiff do as the chairman of the Intel Committee?
What Adam Schiff did, use his power as a chairman and lie to the American public.
Even the Inspector General said it.
When Devin Nunes put out a memo, he said it was false.
When we had a laptop, he used it before an election to be politics and say that it was false and said it was the Russians.
When he knew different, when he knew the Intel, if you talk to John Radcliffe, DNI.
He came out ahead of time and says there's no intel to prove that, and he used his position as chairman, knowing he has information the rest of America does not, and lied to the American public.
When a whistleblower came forward, he said he did not know the individual, even though his staff had met with him and set it up.
So no, he does not have a right to sit on that.
But I will not be like Democrats and play politics with thieves, where they removed Republicans from committees and all committees.
Good, yeah.
And then he goes on to talk about Eric Swalwell.
I mean, Eric Swalwell was involved in a romantic affair with a Chinese spy.
So, yeah, should he be on the Intelligence Committee?
I mean, he's involved in a romantic affair with a Chinese spy.
He also has chronic flatulence.
So those are two good reasons why.
I mean, it's not fair to the other people on the committee to have him in there for really both of those reasons.
And that's the point that Kevin McCarthy made.
Well, he didn't bring up the flatulence thing.
I wish he had.
That's the only criticism I have of this moment from Kevin McCarthy.
A moment that, once again, I do not believe we would have if we hadn't challenged him to what we did.
Now, Swalwell, for his part, is very upset about not getting his committee assignment.
It's another one of those things, right?
The D.C.
shows how terminally out of touch they are.
With any normal American.
That they think we care about, like, they think they can come to us with a sob story about not getting a committee assignment and they think that we'll care about that.
They think there's anyone in the country who's sitting around going, I really feel bad for Eric Swalwell not getting his committee assignment.
So he's addressing the media about it and holding back tears.
He's very upset.
So this is purely about political vengeance.
The cost is not only removing us from the committee on the Intelligence Committee.
The cost is not only breaking, shattering the most precious glassware in the cabinet, a committee that's always been bipartisan.
The cost are the death threats that Ms.
Omar, myself, and Mr. Schiff keep getting because Mr. McCarthy continues to aim and project these smears against us, even though we have said publicly Oh, he made a threat there himself.
That's a threat, isn't it?
Actually, I am worried about Eric Swalwell having more time on his hands.
behind it. But we will not be quiet. We're not going away.
I think he'll regret giving all three of us more time on our hands.
Oh, he made a threat there himself. That's a threat, isn't it?
Yeah, actually I am worried about Eric Swalwell having more time on his hands.
How many other foreign spies can he sleep with in a given year with all that
extra time?
I am a little bit concerned about that.
By the way, nobody is making death threats to Eric Swalwell.
I don't think anyone's ever made a death threat to Eric Swalwell.
No one would take him seriously enough.
To actually make a death threat.
He's not a serious enough figure in politics to warrant that to begin with.
But also, he wants us to believe that people are making death threats because of him not being appointed to the House Intelligence Committee.
I mean, no one is even aware of that or cares.
And the kinds of people who would send random, angry death threats to politicians, these are not the kinds of people who are paying attention to what the committee assignments are.
So that's all very good stuff.
All right.
DeMar Hamlin, after his cardiac emergency on the football field a few weeks ago, we're
told he spent several days in the hospital, but he's now out.
Though still in need of lots of physical assistance, including oxygen, is what we're told.
Now, Hamlin showed up to the Bills playoff game on Saturday or Sunday, whenever it was.
And they lost, but the big story was Hamlin's presence.
At least according to the media, this was a big story.
And he was up in a box seat.
He wasn't on the field.
He was up in a box seat.
He was watching.
And the announcers referred to him frequently throughout the game.
Cameras kept showing him.
And the TV production made a really big deal about him being there.
The weird thing is that Hamlin, though he was on camera a lot, we never saw his face.
They never showed his face.
He wouldn't show his face, and there were a few times where they showed him up in the box seat, but it was at such an angle that you couldn't really see anything.
All you could see is silhouette.
He had his face covered and all that.
So he showed up, but they didn't want to show him, and he didn't want to be seen.
It's kind of bizarre.
And then any kind of bizarre thing will lead to theories on the internet.
The internet theorists, some of them, speculated about or wondered whether Hamlin wasn't actually at the game, but rather was represented by some kind of body double.
And then from there, you know, from that theory, then it branches off and then it could get, you know, even more implausible.
So maybe he's alive, but they sent the body double to the game so they could get the storyline of him being there.
Maybe he's dead, you know, and this is a body double they put.
So all kinds of theories like that.
As you can imagine, the media does not like any of this one bit.
Very upset about the theories.
As this, just one example, this NBC Sports article makes very clear headline, Crazy Disturbing DeMar Hamlin Conspiracy Theory Emerges.
It says, in many respects, the modern world has lost its damn mind.
Conspiracy theories abound over everything.
And it was unavoidable, we suppose, that some nutty conspiracy theory would emerge regarding Bill's safety to Marr-Hamlin.
Our original plan was to ignore it, to give it no attention, no credence, no oxygen.
Sometimes, however, it's important for the rational to expose the irrational so that some of the irrational aren't tempted to swallow the crazy-ass cheese.
What?
Who wrote this?
I wish I had...
To swallow the- what kind of writing is this?
So they're not tempted to swallow the crazy ass- First of all, is that- what are we- the crazy ass cheese or the crazy ass cheese?
Which one are we talking about?
Both are disgusting, but one is particularly more disgusting.
Anyway.
How does- how does the phrase crazy ass cheese make it into an article that is then published by NBC News?
How does that make it through the editing process?
What is your editor doing if they're not going to flag you down and say, hey, you know that part about crazy ass cheese?
I don't know if we maybe would at least take out the ass.
Anyway, as it relates to Hamlin, there's actually a theory completely unsupported by a shred of evidence that Hamlin died from the COVID vaccine and that he has been replaced by a body double.
Think about that one.
The person who attended Sunday's game between the Bengals and Bills isn't Damar Hamlin.
It's someone else disguised as Damar Hamlin, and presumably his family and his teammates are in on it.
And then it goes on and on and on, you know, scolding the people that have spread this conspiracy theory around.
Now, a few things about this.
First thing is that, as always, actually, the media While they complain about these conspiracy theories and they pretend to be very offended and upset by it, they actually like them and they want to encourage them.
That's the only reason to report on this.
I didn't know that this theory existed until I read some of the news articles condemning it.
Like so many other people, I only found out about the theory because of the left-wing media scolding those who were propagating the theory.
But really, they themselves are the ones propagating it.
Because they like it.
They want that.
Now, I don't think DeMar Hamlin is dead and replaced by a body double.
Okay.
I don't think that.
For a lot of reasons.
I mean, for one thing, just the sheer number of people who have to be involved in a conspiracy of that sort.
We're talking about family and friends and doctors and teammates, the NFL, the media, like all of them would have to conspire to remain silent for, what, forever?
You'd have to keep it going forever and pretend this guy is still alive.
Doing that so they can cover up what?
I guess the idea is that he died from the vaccine.
Well, they already gave their version of why he was in the hospital.
So if he died, they would have just blamed that.
They would have said he died from the football injury.
And if you think that there's some sort of cover-up going on, then that would be the cover-up.
It's a lot simpler, and you don't need to enlist hundreds of people across multiple industries to cooperate in this conspiracy to pretend someone is alive for the next several decades when he's actually not.
Anytime you're theorizing a massive elaborate scheme involving thousands of people who all must stay perfectly in line and silent, that this scheme is like hatched in order to achieve some extremely negligible benefit or whatever.
Anytime there's a theory like that, it demands a lot of evidence to believe and otherwise you should be extremely skeptical.
It doesn't mean that those kind of theories are always wrong.
It just means that I'm going to need to see some real good evidence for that.
Especially in this case, when there's a much more plausible explanation, which is that DeMar—my theory would be that DeMar Hamlin's face got kind of messed up from a stroke related to the incident, and he doesn't want people to see.
Like, that's my—that would be my theory.
That's the most plausible sort of explanation.
Which brings me to, if there's a scandal here, you know, the real scandal, if there is one, is that the NFL insisted on making Hamlin, they wanted the story.
That's the thing.
That's what the NFL cares about.
They care about the ratings, obviously.
That's what the media cares about.
They care about the ratings, they care about the story, they care about that more than anything else.
And so, the moment this happened to Damar Hamlin, The parasites in the media and NFL corporate offices, they were like, you know, they saw the money signs and being able to capitalize on this storyline now.
They wanted a storyline and so that's why they wanted to trot them out at this game.
You know, insisting on making Hamlin into some kind of hero, some sort of martyr.
And they really wanted that storyline of him.
And in reality, Tamar Hamlin suffered something very terrible.
I feel very sorry for him.
And that's it.
There's not much else to be said about it.
But they wanted to make it a lot more than that because they wanted the ratings and they wanted the storylines.
So they brought him out when he clearly was not ready to be out there.
And they exploited the whole situation throughout the entire broadcast by going back to it again and again and again.
And the fact that he didn't want to show his face just makes the whole thing all the more bizarre and weird and just, you know, gratuitous, I think.
But you know, also, as I've said before, I don't The people that indulge in elaborate conspiracy theories, oftentimes I don't believe those theories for the reasons I've said.
But I don't blame people anymore for it.
I just don't.
Because there's been a total collapse of trust.
People simply don't trust any of the supposed authorities that are supposed to be in charge of, you know, disseminating information and telling us what's going on.
The public doesn't trust any of those people anymore, for good reason.
And because they don't trust anyone, then everyone is left to kind of make their own assumptions about everything.
And some people tend to make more kind of cinematic assumptions than others, but I think the blame ultimately goes with the people who have lost our trust and have created this situation.
All right.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Black Rifle Coffee Company is on a mission to build a support network for
veterans, first responders, and law enforcement by serving you the best coffee you've ever
had.
And thanks to your support, that dream has become a reality.
This year alone, Black Rifle Coffee donated over 120,000 bags of coffee to veterans and first responders while expanding their own team of active duty service members, veterans, and veteran family members.
If you want to continue supporting this incredible company, go to BlackRifleCoffee.com.
Use promo code WALSH at checkout for 10% off your purchase and your first Coffee Club order.
The coffee is truly one-of-a-kind, but it's your support that gets gear, funding, and supplies into the hands of those on our front lines.
Go to BlackRifleCoffee.com.
Use promo code WALSH for 10% off.
You can also find Black Rifle Coffee in grocery and convenience stores near you.
Black Rifle Coffee.
America's Coffee.
LFTR says steep and highly socialized penalties work.
It's called a deterrent.
As society has backed off and reduced penalties for crime, our cities have become graffiti-tagged, crime-ridden hellscapes.
This is not a coincidence.
It's a direct result of choosing not to punish criminal behavior.
Of course it is.
That's obviously what's going on.
Anyone who claims that punishments are not a deterrent for behavior, this is someone who is denying one of the most basic realities of human psychology, including their own psychology.
Okay, everybody is motivated by incentives and disincentives.
Which isn't to say that people are directly, perfectly controlled by such incentives.
No, you can incentivize a certain behavior, and there will be some people who still do not engage in that behavior.
You can disincentivize certain behaviors, and there are people who still will engage in that behavior.
So that will happen.
But still, people are highly influenced by incentives and disincentives.
Everybody is.
So to deny it outright, as people do, to claim that You know, no matter how much we clamp down on criminal behavior and no matter how much we punish it, no matter how severe the punishments are, it'll have essentially no effect on the frequency of that criminal behavior.
That claim is not credible at all.
Let's see, Jay Anderson says, from a historical perspective, drowning women as witches was normal.
Just because it was normal in history is no justification for the same actions today.
Obviously, I hope.
Yeah, which is why my argument for corporal punishment and the increased use of capital punishment, my argument is not simply based on the fact that people have always done it.
That's not my only reason.
Though it is true that when it comes to cruel and unusual punishments, well, these punishments are certainly not unusual.
They are probably the most usual punishments in the world historically.
That's not the be-all and end-all of the argument, but that is a reality and it's worth pointing out.
Because yes, the fact that something has always been done a certain way is not in and of itself a sufficient reason necessarily to keep on doing it.
But it does mean that if you are suggesting that we do things in a radically different way, then you need to have a good reason for that.
It does shift, to a large extent, the burden of proof over to you.
If human society has always done something a certain way, and we've got the testimony of our ancestors going back through the ages saying, this is the way to do it, this way works.
It could be that we need to change courses and not do it this way anymore.
Sure.
But if you're coming along and saying that, if you're saying, no, let's cut it off right here and go in this radically different direction because all those people are wrong.
Okay, I'm open to hearing your argument.
I really am.
But you've got to make the argument.
You have now assumed a burden of proof that in so many cases, the people who are demanding that we sever ourselves from our ancestors never meet.
They never meet that burden of proof.
Instead, they try to go the other way.
It's almost like, For a lot of people, the fact that our ancestors did it is reason enough to not do it.
And that's supposed to be self-evident, which it isn't.
And these days we do have, many people have anyway, a radically different concept of what constitutes justice and how we should deal with and punish crime.
We have a radically different notion of it today.
A notion that would have been totally foreign to most people who have lived on Earth.
That in and of itself doesn't make it wrong, but you've got to be able to defend it.
And defending it essentially by just saying, well, corporal punishment for thieves, that just makes me squeamish.
It just makes me feel weird.
That seems to basically be most people's argument, and I don't find it particularly compelling.
B Reese says, I once spoke to a woman who was against the death penalty.
She had bumper stickers that mocked the death penalty.
One said, why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
I said, we don't do that.
I said, we kill people who kill people so they don't kill more people.
Her response, I hadn't thought about that.
I said, well, think about it.
After the death penalty is executed, the person will never have a, will never be a repeat offender, never.
Have a nice day.
Well, you're right about that.
That is one of the benefits of the death penalty, is that the recidivism rate, okay, so we can talk about the deterrence rate, but certainly the recidivism rate for the death penalty is zero, so that is a benefit of it.
But, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I also wouldn't surrender to her argument in that way.
Like, it's, yeah, you can, it is a valid method.
To communicate the severity of a crime through the death penalty.
Look at it this way.
Kidnapping someone, right?
If I were to take someone and lock them in a cage in my basement, I would be kidnapping them, and I'd go to jail for that.
But I'm going to jail, and they're locking me in a cage.
So would this woman say, we shouldn't lock people in cages to show them that locking people in cages is wrong?
No, the answer to that is, yeah, that's exactly what we should do.
What are you talking about?
That's actually a great way to show someone that what they've done is wrong.
Okay, if you don't know that locking people in cages is wrong, probably the best way to show you that it's wrong is to put you in a cage.
How else?
What's a better way?
Is a better way, if you really want to show them locking people in cages is wrong, is a better method to keep them out of a cage and just sit them in a classroom and give them instruction?
Maybe have them talk to a therapist?
Who tries to convince them by the force of argument that they shouldn't lock people in cages?
No, the best way to communicate it is, okay, here's what that feels like, here you go.
And so yes, it is entirely valid to make a societal statement.
That killing is wrong by killing people who kill.
That is an entirely valid method.
And let's see, what else?
Finally...
Kenny says, we'll end on one person who agrees with me anyway.
I was a career criminal.
I was in prison.
Guess what?
Mr. Walsh speaks truth.
And I have to tell you, Kenny, that I hear this a lot from people who have actually been in prison and who have lived a criminal life and have come out on the other end of it and have reformed themselves.
They tend to be bigger fans of law and order and criminal justice and punishment than the people who have never experienced this.
And I think that probably tells you something.
Yesterday I told you about how YouTube removed an episode of our show because my comments about men who want to have uteruses implanted in their bodies were deemed too offensive and hateful.
Well, these restrictive speech policies exist because the world is on a mission to make you woke.
But our good friend Dennis Prager is on a mission to make you wise instead.
And thankfully, Dennis has created a brand new series with Daily Wire Plus called The Master's Program to do just that.
We've had a long-standing relationship with Dennis Prager for good reason.
He's been leading the charge against stupidity for longer than I've been alive, with content like PragerU's five-minute videos and so many other things as well.
The Master's Program takes 40 years' worth of wisdom and experience from one of the most influential conservative thinkers in America today, distills it all down in a way that is relevant and accessible to everyone.
Episodes explore topics like, is human nature basically good?
I think we can say for certain that I'm obviously good, but I can't speak for anyone else.
We'll see what Prager says.
The series also covers the consequences of secularism, which, by the way, are so dire it needed two episodes to explore.
And those two episodes of PragerU Master's program are available to stream right now, but only on Daily Wire+.
So head to dailywireplus.com to become a member and watch PragerU Master's program and more.
That's dailywireplus.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A little while ago, when Elon Musk took over Twitter and began making sweeping layoffs, he was condemned as a heartless profiteer, a man who took over a company and gutted it out of spite or just for fun.
But recent events would suggest that Musk was only ripping the band-aid off.
He was doing what needed to be done, but doing it in a much quicker fashion.
A few months after those layoffs, the rest of big tech is now involved in its own purge of its workforce.
The Daily Wire reported this week, quote, Spotify revealed plans to cut headcounts by 6% due to macroeconomic turmoil following similar moves from other prominent technology firms.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek informed staff members in a Monday note that the music and audio platform would reduce headcount to streamline operations.
The announcement implies that 600 of the company's 9,800 employees will lose their positions.
Spotify is one of several technology companies to announce layoffs in recent weeks as a response to overzealous hiring in the sector and broader economic woes.
Microsoft revealed that the company would dismiss some 10,000 employees, while Google will reduce its headcount by approximately 12,000 positions, and Amazon plans to dismiss 18,000 employees.
More than 46,000 workers have been discharged from prominent American technology companies in the first month of 2023, according to a report from CrunchBase, even after firms in the sector dismissed 107,000 positions last year.
So perhaps, as it turns out, the most successful businessman in the world made those layoffs because it was the right business decision?
Maybe he didn't become the richest human in history by doing things haphazardly or without good reason?
There's an interesting thought.
And what's even more interesting is that big tech employees themselves, while still complaining about layoffs, have in the past inadvertently revealed why the layoffs were necessary.
Case in point, Nicole Tsai, who's a partner services program manager at Google, or I should say, a former partner services program manager at Google.
Tsai, like several infamous examples from the Twitter ranks, Enjoyed posting these insufferable day-in-the-life videos to TikTok where she documented her exploits throughout the day, which mostly consisted of bragging about all the perks that she enjoyed as a big tech minion.
I still remain personally perplexed as to why or how these day-in-the-life videos become so popular.
I can understand watching such a video about somebody who lives an interesting life, And does interesting things, like maybe a day in the life of a scuba diver who explores shipwrecks, or of a scientist on a remote research station in Antarctica, or even one of those guys who repairs power lines 150 feet up.
Like, I'd watch that.
A day in the life of that guy, I want to see.
These are impressive jobs that would make for fascinating content.
A day in the life of a Silicon Valley pencil pusher doesn't exactly measure up.
Yet even so, Nicole Sy posted this.
this here it is. A day in my life working from the Google LA office. I always grab
some candy from the reception before heading in. This used to be an old
aircraft hangar so the decorations hanging from the ceiling kind of looks
like an aircraft flying in. Before it was a Google office this aircraft hangar
belonged to Howard Hughes so there's tons of memorabilia.
Next I'm gonna pass by these art installations.
They're a really good photo op or you can sit in there and get some work done.
I'm gonna head to the coffee shop to grab some coffee and a fruit cup since I missed breakfast and then I'm heading over to this butterfly themed room to take my first meeting.
Then I'm gonna head over to the confetti room to take my next meeting.
It's so sparkly and beautiful in here.
I love that a lot of our rooms are themed.
Then I'm gonna grab my two favorite drinks which is this green tea and coconut water.
Next, I'm gonna go upstairs and grab some lunch.
They always have pizza and a variety of different vegetables and meat.
The food is always really good and of course everything you see in the office is free.
On my way out of the cafe, I ran into a doogler which is a dog googler and ran into some ghosts.
When they were renovating the office, there were a lot of spooky stories from the crew.
So there's a whole area in the office where you can listen to them.
Then I got more work done and headed over to the massage chairs to wrap up my day.
Let me know what you want to see next!
Well, it's important to get that massage in after a grueling day of eating candy, drinking coconut water, taking selfies, perusing art installations, petting the dog Googler.
Now, in fairness, she did take two meetings, okay?
So there were two meetings, and that was her entire day.
She had the two meetings and the rest of that, mostly just hobnobbing around, taking it easy, attending a meeting or two.
The one thing missing from her day is work.
Or anything that we might call work.
She didn't, like, do anything or create anything or make any important decisions from the looks of it.
It's not clear from that video why Google needs her in the building.
And it apparently wasn't clear to Google either, which led to this unintentionally hilarious follow-up video.
Here it is.
A day in my life getting laid off at Google.
So I woke up to this really ominous text from my boss and I honestly had no idea what it was going to be about.
So I called her the minute I woke up and saw this and she told me to check the news and my email.
So I rushed downstairs to find out that I had lost access to basically everything.
I couldn't log into my email or even check my calendar.
I called my boss back and we just sobbed over the phone because she was also finding out about my layoff
for the first time today too.
I started getting calls from a bunch of my coworkers and started finding out who else was let go on my team
and some neighboring teams as well.
But I think the worst part is that it seems like no one was consulted on this decision
and everyone was just finding out about the layoffs at the same time.
It just felt like a really bad game of Russian roulette and there was no consistency around who was let go.
It was also not performance based so it just felt really random.
I opened up LinkedIn which honestly was not great for my mental health.
There were so many people who were in the same boat that were both equally as shocked and blindsided but it did help me feel a little less alone.
Honestly, I spent so much of the day crying that I just felt so tired from being sad and wanted to do something that would just make me feel better.
Luckily I have an annual pass so I headed over to Disneyland because I wanted to go eat my feelings.
So I started off with a Cinnamon Galaxy churro and then went to the Teriyaki Turkey Leg.
This is a special limited edition item for the Lunar New Year celebration at Disney California Adventure.
I had some Rice Krispie, a corn dog, did some drawing, and even had another churro.
I don't really know what's next for me but I'll be vlogging my journey and posting more content about it so feel free to follow along.
I have a sick sense of humor, so I really want someone with an even sicker sense of humor to make a parody video of what would happen if one of these people was on death row and had to do a day in the life of their execution.
I just think that would be fun.
Here's a day in the life when I'm being executed.
I woke up, had my last meal.
A couple of things.
First of all, she says that the layoffs were a really bad game of Russian roulette, which seems to suggest that there's such a thing as a good game of Russian roulette.
The whole point of Russian roulette is that someone dies at the end, so it's going to be a very bad day for someone at least.
Although maybe not for you, so okay.
Second, she just got laid off, lost her source of income, and her first reaction was to run down to, was it Disneyland?
To blow her discretionary funds on carnival snacks?
Doesn't seem like a great strategy.
Third, listen, I don't have anything against this woman.
Predisposed to dislike her because she works for big tech, but for all I know she's a very nice and delightful person.
For all I know.
But my ability to feel sympathy for your tears is severely limited when you take out your phone to capture your tears on video.
I have been sad in my life.
I've experienced setbacks like we all have.
I've never once felt the urge in the midst of that sadness to document it with my phone.
That's actually the last thing I would want.
I'm very sad about something and then I have a phone in my face.
It's the last thing I want.
The instinct to pull out your phone while you're crying is not one that I can begin to understand, and it automatically makes your sadness at least partially performative because you're using it for content.
You're using it for clout.
You're not taking your own misfortune seriously, and so why should I take it seriously?
Finally, there's a lesson here that I hope Nicole learns and all younger people learn.
It's not fun, but it's the truth.
In the working world, everyone is expendable.
Everyone is replaceable.
Now, you're not expendable as a human being.
I'm not saying that you as a human are expendable.
You're not expendable in certain contexts, like in the context of your family, you're not an expendable person.
But at your job, you can be replaced.
And eventually, one way or another, you will be.
Whether you quit, fired, laid off, retire, I mean, one way or another, eventually you're replaced.
And that's the case for all of us.
But you can greatly mitigate your replaceableness.
You can make yourself much less expendable.
You can make it so that though you can still be replaced, there are not that many people who can replace you.
Your own vulnerability in this regard, the reality that you will never be entirely indispensable, that shouldn't be a cause for despair, but rather it should drive you and make you more ambitious and innovative and propel you to work harder.
Not in a paranoid way, but just in a, like, staying humble and working hard kind of way.
And if it does, if it does motivate you that way, then even if and when you are replaced, you're nearly certain to continue on the path to success, though by the way of a detour.
We will always be, to one degree or another, expendable at our jobs, but you can become virtually undeniable in pursuit of your larger goals.
If you hone your abilities, if you never become entirely complacent, if you work harder than everybody around you, you will be successful.
It is virtually guaranteed.
I have never known in my life a hard-working, talented person who was not, by some measure, successful.
Maybe not rich, but rich is one potential manifestation of some forms of success.
It is not in and of itself success.
So, I'm not saying that every hard-working, talented person is a millionaire, but they are all successful at the same time.
So, here's your problem, Nicole.
And it's a problem shared by many.
You don't seem to be doing anything, or even attempting to do anything, that cannot be done by virtually anyone.
That is the most vulnerable position you can put yourself in.
When you are contributing in a way that could just as well be emulated by nearly anyone who walks in the door.
In fact, your contributions can be absorbed by other people without anything really being lost.
You've made yourself highly, highly replaceable.
And you've deprived yourself of any leverage.
Further down the professional ladder, there are some workers in the fast food industry who find themselves in the same position.
They clamor for higher wages, but they have almost no leverage because their positions can be simply erased and replaced by touchscreens.
Now the best response then is to work hard, develop your skills, become innovative, put yourself in a position either in the same industry or somewhere else where you bring something to the table That very few people can match.
Now, this isn't about defending corporations or greedy billionaires.
I'm not telling you how I wish things were.
This is not my vision of how I want the world to be.
I'm telling you how it is.
And all we can do is, to start with, confront the fundamental reality for what it is and figure out how to succeed within its confines.
Whether you like the confines of reality or not, there they are.
You have to figure out how to operate in spite of them.
That's the way forward.
Though for now, I must say, you are still 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.
