Ep. 1102 - How I Made It Onto The ADL's Anti-LGBT Extremism Watchlist
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, daycare employees are pushed to promote "non-binary" identities on the children in their care. Meanwhile a public school employee in Tennessee says she's quitting the profession because she can't groom her kids anymore without interference. We'll talk about all of this today. Plus, Memphis police prepare to release body cam footage of an alleged police brutality incident. But everything they've done leading up to the release makes it seem like they want the riots they calm they're trying to avoid. And a clothing company romanticizes self-mutilation in an attempt to promote their products. In our Daily Cancellation a leftist YouTuber tries to take me to task for my "authoritarian" views on criminal justice.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans and watch the brand new series, Master’s Program with Dennis Prager: 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:
Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘WALSH’ at https://jasemedical.com/
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at http://puretalk.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, daycare employees are pushed to promote non-binary identities on their children in their care.
Meanwhile, a public school employee in Tennessee says she's quitting the profession because she can't groom her kids anymore without interference.
We'll talk about all of this today.
Plus, Memphis police prepare to release body cam footage of an alleged police brutality incident, but everything they've done Leading up to the release makes it seem like they want the riots that they claim they're trying to avoid, and a clothing company romanticizes self-mutilation in an attempt to promote their products.
In our daily cancellation, a leftist YouTuber tries to take me to task for my, quote, authoritarian views on criminal justice.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Welcome to another Flannel Friday, everyone.
Now, you know that I try to remain humble.
I certainly don't like to brag, but when I receive a major award in recognition of my work, I think the most humble thing is to acknowledge and show gratitude for it.
And so I must say that I am grateful to start this year off with not one, but two Prestigious awards.
The first came at the beginning of the month.
We talked about when the New Republic named me the Transphobe of the Year for 2022.
As I said at the time, I'm blown away by the honor.
The competition was obviously formidable.
There were several worthy nominees who have been doing important work in the field of transphobia.
But ultimately, I took the prize, and I couldn't have been more thrilled.
A fantastic way to begin the month and the year, and this is an almost as fantastic way to end the month.
The Anti-Defamation League, which of course is a far-left activist group, they put out a report this week naming the biggest amplifiers of anti-LGBTQ plus extremism.
And here's how they begin their report.
They say, in recent months, a handful of high follower social media accounts have driven the rapid spread of dangerous and false narratives designed to marginalize and demonize the LGBTQ plus community.
Online amplifiers of anti-LGBTQ plus hate and extremism use their influence to push baseless tropes and conspiracy theories to their millions of followers.
These claims are frequently picked up by major far-right media personalities expanding their reach.
Online amplifiers are key players in an ecosystem of anti-LGBTQ plus hate that drives online harassment campaigns against LGBTQ plus individuals and groups and spreads narratives which inspire real-world extremist activities, threats, and even violence.
The Center on Extremism is tracking several of the biggest online amplifiers of anti-LGBTQ plus extremism.
Now the list of those being tracked, quote, by the Extremism Center include Libs of TikTok, along with Chris Ruffo, The Blaze, Gays Against Groomers, and then of course, yours truly, the transphobe of the year.
ADL describes me this way, says, Matt Walsh is an anti-LGBTQ plus extremist commentator for the far-right media outlet, The Daily Wire.
As seen in his anti-transgender content, such as his documentary, What is a Woman?, Walsh is one of the biggest purveyors of erroneous and harmful narratives surrounding gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary youth.
His rally to end child mutilation targeted one such provider in Tennessee and was attended by known violent extremists as well as prominent right-wing politicians.
Walsh has over 1.2 million Twitter followers and nearly 2 million YouTube subscribers, and his content is regularly promoted by mainstream conservative media figures such as Piers Morgan, Joe Rogan, and Tucker Carlson.
Now, actually, I have over 2 million—over 2 million—YouTube subscribers.
Not nearly 2 million, but who's counting?
Besides me, every day.
The point is that I have, again, been honored and recognized for my transphobic extremist efforts, and I feel greatly blessed by that.
Now, as humbled as I am to win these trophies, I sometimes suspect, maybe I'm paranoid, but I suspect that maybe they don't mean for it to be taken as an award, because it almost seems like they think we'll somehow be upset to be labeled this way, and even intimidated to know that we're being tracked.
It's as though they imagine that I'll be, like, in a group chat with Libs of TikTok and Chris Ruffo frantically messaging them saying, you know, guys, the Center for Extremism is on to us.
It's time to lay low.
But unfortunately for them, that is not exactly how we react to these sorts of things.
Actually, the ADL and Media Matters and all the rest of them, they do find themselves in a little bit of a bind.
It's kind of a lose-lose situation, because on the one hand, we are incorrigible bastards, so you can't shut us up or change our minds with insults or intimidation.
In fact, we find it amusing.
We like it.
So you only encourage us more when you do that.
We're happy when we upset you.
If you work for Media Matters or ADL or Southern Poverty Law Center, There is nothing negative you could say about us that won't make us happy, because we're so happy to have upset you people.
That's what we want to do.
But on the other hand, if you ignore us completely, well, then we're free to engage in our extremist activities without resistance.
So, there really are no great answers.
That's why you have to feel kind of sorry for them.
I mean, I don't, but maybe you do.
In fact, I have, for my part, never been more encouraged and determined to continue down this path of extremism, especially given two other stories from this week.
Now, the first one is a video posted to social media by Jordan Chamberlain, who works with the Washington Free Beacon, and it's a clip from a documentary called Reflecting on Anti-Bias Education in Action, The Early Years.
And it was reportedly presented by the North Carolina Association for Education of Young Children to a group of daycare providers in the state.
Here's the clip.
Watch this.
Huckleberries, today I wanted to introduce you to a new friend in our class.
Well this, Huckleberry's, is my friend Nash.
It's their first day in our class.
They're just looking around at all of you and they're so curious to know who you all are.
Today was fun.
It was really interesting though knowing going in being like I don't know what questions kiddos are going to have or what they're going to say, which is both nerve-wracking but also kind of exciting.
It's that place of not knowing as a teacher and just being okay with that.
And the friend likes to ask the question, are you a boy or a girl?
And Nash answers, I'm just a kid.
But kids can be boys or girls.
They can be boys or girls.
Or maybe non-binary.
It was just like, non-binary, yeah.
That's just something that we know.
This is something, I mean it's like, They're four and five years old and they just didn't make a big deal out of being a boy or a girl.
And I think it was a huge testament to how much we've been talking about it in the classroom that you never mentioned the term non-binary.
It was a child who brought that up because it's constantly in conversation.
Ah yes, a testament to what they've been doing in the classroom.
That it is.
She's right.
I mean, what's fascinating about that clip is that we get the propaganda and then the reality right next to each other.
First we hear from the teacher who tries the familiar maneuver of pretending that a child's acceptance of concepts like non-binary and transgender is proof somehow of the concept's self-evident validity.
To the kids, it's normal, they say.
The kids accept it without a problem.
So, why do you adults have an issue with it?
Yes, well, why is it normal to the kids?
Why do they accept it?
Why do they repeat the jargon?
The other teacher lays it out plainly.
They accept it and repeat it because they constantly hear about it in the class from the teachers.
The teachers are hammering these ideas into their heads, which results in the kids, what do you know, having these ideas in their heads.
Isn't it so amazing how if we continually tell them something over and over and over and over again, eventually they repeat it?
Isn't it amazing how kids work that way?
No, it's not amazing.
That's how every kid works.
In fact, you don't even need to repeat something over and over and over again for the kid to pick it up and repeat it too.
Like, any parent that's ever been in a car and, you know, got cut off in traffic, and you let a profanity slip out, and then you hear it repeated in the back from the kid who you thought wasn't paying attention, you know how kids aren't like sponges, and they hear a word one time, and they repeat it.
Now, if you take a word like, a concept term like non-binary, and you say it in the classroom, not just once, but over and over and over again, of course they're going to repeat it.
And this is why they're so desperate to introduce gender theory to children as young as possible.
Because they don't even want to wait for kindergarten.
They want to get to the kids when they're still in daycare.
The younger the better.
Because the younger a child is, the more willingly he will accept incoherent ideas without skepticism.
And as the history of the human race clearly attests, if you get someone to believe something early in life, they'll most likely continue believing it all the way to the grave.
Children are not skeptical of anything.
Adults are only skeptical of new ideas, right?
I mean, that's most adults.
Very few adults show any capacity to apply skepticism to ideas that they've always held.
Children aren't skeptical of anything.
Adults are only skeptical of the things that they are newly introduced to.
And even then, many adults aren't even skeptical of that.
That's the game here.
And it's why they've turned daycares and elementary schools into LGBT indoctrination zones.
It's also why we have to oppose these despicable groomers with every fiber of our being.
The opposition does matter.
And it does make an impact.
And if you need to be convinced on that latter point, well, consider this unintentionally encouraging testimonial from a groomer teacher here in Tennessee.
Listen to what she says.
I have no idea what comment this video goes back to but the comment like there's a groomer flag in the background.
I was able to pull a screen grab and if you see in my old classroom I had my pride flag right there.
It's in a different spot in my new classroom.
It's still there.
Here's the thing.
I am going to quit.
I'm 100% going to quit.
And it is because, not comments like this, but it is because people like this have taken over or starting to take over education and education is not what it once was and it's not worth it anymore.
I support every single one of my students, no matter what their views are.
This, it just gets- I have to say, to the extent that I can take partial credit for helping to create the environment that is so hostile and demoralizing to this teacher, driving her out of the profession in frustration, this is an even greater honor than winning Transphobe of the Year.
This teacher has declared that it's not even worth teaching if she isn't able to sexually indoctrinate children.
Actually, it's not worth teaching if she encounters any pushback in her efforts to sexually indoctrinate children.
She demands the ability, and had grown accustomed to, running her indoctrination camp without opposition or any accountability whatsoever.
She pines for those days and laments that they are gone.
And now she is leaving in protest.
Which is fantastic.
One down, many more to go.
This is exactly why we have to keep the pressure on.
Yes, we want to push for policy changes, as we have done.
Yes, we want to persuade people, we want to make the argument, all of that.
But we also want to frustrate and demoralize the enemy until they decide that it's simply not worth the heartache to continue.
That is part of the strategy here.
Frustrate and demoralize them.
We want them to know that as long as they insist on treating children this way, they will encounter opposition, and it will be relentless.
And it will come from people who cannot be emotionally blackmailed, cannot be cowed into silence by accusations of bigotry.
People who are so stubborn and frustrating to you that, in fact, when you try to put labels on us, we'll make a joke out of it and celebrate it.
That's the only way.
That's how we put a stop to this.
And the plan is working.
Slowly but surely.
Now let's get to our headlines.
From COVID lockdowns to Bidenflation, you could probably use a break, and innovation refunds can help with that.
If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee.
It's not a loan.
There's no payback.
It is a refund of your taxes, period.
The challenge is, though, getting your hands on it.
How do you cut through the red tape and get your business the refund money that it's owed?
Well, go to GetRefunds.com.
That's how you do it.
GetRefunds.com.
Their team of tax attorneys are highly trained in this little-known payroll tax refund program, and they have already returned $1 billion to businesses, and they can help you, too.
They do all the work with no charge up front and simply share a percentage of the cash that they get for you.
Businesses of all types can qualify, including those who took PPP, nonprofits, and even those who had increases in sales.
Everyone is potentially eligible for this, so go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, and answer a few questions.
This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time.
Don't miss out, go to GetRefunds.com, GetRefunds.com.
All right, we'll start with...
Daily Wire has this report.
Five former Memphis Police Department officers are in custody and face several charges after their involvement in the death of a 29-year-old male who died earlier this month in a hospital days after a confrontation with authorities.
Tyree Nichols died on January 10th, three days after Memphis Police pulled him over at a traffic stop.
Nichols and the five former police officers involved are black, so everyone involved is black, which Shouldn't be relevant, but it is, because we know that these kinds of cases are usually assumed to be racism, white supremacy, whether or not there was actually any police brutality involved.
Well, there's no argument for that here.
There's no place to make this racial.
There's no place to talk about white supremacy.
But that isn't going to stop the media and the activists from doing it.
Authorities stopped Nichols on January 7th for reckless driving near Raines Road and Ross Road in Memphis.
Police told local media that during the stop, a confrontation occurred, at which point Nichols ran away from police on foot as they attempted to apprehend him.
While attempting to take the suspect into custody, another confrontation occurred.
However, the suspect was ultimately apprehended.
Afterward, the suspect complained of having shortness of breath, at which point an ambulance was called to the scene.
And then the suspect died a couple days later.
Local media reported authorities were charged with official misconduct through unauthorized exercise of official power, official misconduct through failure to perform a duty imposed by law, official oppression, second-degree murder, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping, causing bodily injury and aggravated kidnapping while possessing a weapon.
So these are all the charges.
Now, See, Attorney Bill Massey, representing Martin, told local media that he was indicted, he's one of the officers, and turned himself into authorities.
Memphis Police Chief Cyrillyn Davis issued a statement Wednesday night about the investigation.
This is what she wrote.
In light of the horrific circumstances surrounding the death of Tyree Nichols, it is absolutely incumbent upon me, your Chief, to address the status of what the Memphis Police Department is doing, has done, and will continue to do, in furtherance of finding truth in this tragic loss, ensuring we communicate with honesty and transparency, and that there is absolute accountability for those responsible for Tyree's death.
This is not just a professional failing.
This is a failing of basic humanity toward another individual.
Adding that the five officers involved in his death failed our community, and they failed the Nichols family.
And then she goes on from there.
I mean, the Memphis Police Chief and other officials in Memphis and other political and law enforcement officials have been talking about this video for a couple of days now, leading up to its release sometime today before Friday night.
And as I'm speaking right now, you know, the video has not been released.
I haven't seen it.
But they've been talking about it for days.
And the Memphis Police Chief in particular has been She has used the most dramatic possible language to describe it.
You just heard some of it.
She has said that what's on the video, what's captured on the video are acts that defy humanity.
Okay, so she's using the kind of language that you would use to describe like a war crime or a genocide.
And once again, I haven't seen the video, so it may be as bad as she says.
I don't know.
I haven't seen it.
I believe in this very radical approach of, I don't make a judgment call about a video until I've seen it myself.
And I haven't.
But this is the language that she's using, leading up to it being released.
And it's more than that, too.
We have this interview she did with Don Lemon.
This was last night.
And I just want you to listen.
We'll listen to a little bit of what she says.
Listen to this.
Let's talk about the video.
Yes.
It has been said that it is reminiscent, perhaps worse, than the Rodney King video.
Is that your assessment?
That's my assessment.
I was in law enforcement during the Rodney King incident and it's, you know, very much aligned with that same type of behavior.
That it's worse?
Sort of group think.
I would say it's about the same, if not worse.
If not worse?
If not worse.
So take us through the video tonight, when it is released.
It has been said there's over an hour, there's the pole cam, they said the sky cam, and there's body worn camera video.
What are we going, and how is it going to be distributed?
Are you going to put it on social media?
Are you sending it to the media?
How is this going to be distributed?
Actually, we plan to post it on a YouTube link so that it can be accessible to just about anybody who wants to access that video.
And we'll be pushing that out later on this evening.
The video is broken into four different sort of fragmented pieces, but they're all very relevant to this.
You get the idea.
So she says that this video is worse than Rodney King.
It's worse than the Rodney King video.
And once again, I haven't seen it.
So, maybe it is.
But I haven't seen it.
Here's my point.
If you don't want riots, if you don't want riots, then you would do exactly the opposite of what the Memphis authorities are currently doing.
If you don't want riots, and you're a competent person, and you're a competent leader, you do exactly the opposite.
Because what they're doing right now is that they are emphasizing ahead of time that this is horrible, it's the worst video anyone's ever seen, it's a crime against humanity, it's potentially the worst police brutality beating of all time that's ever been captured on film.
And they're saying that for days ahead of time, leading up to releasing the video on a Friday night.
So if you wanted riots, then that would be the best possible way to do it.
I couldn't imagine a more effective way of handling this if you want riots.
You hype it up ahead of time, you give people the most dramatic possible framing for this video before they've even seen it.
Rather than letting the video speak for itself, if the video is as bad as that, we don't need you to spend two days telling everyone, hey guys, this is so bad, I'm telling you it's the worst thing.
If it's that bad, let people see.
They can see that for themselves.
We don't need the police chief to frame it for us like that.
And then to make matters worse, all of that framing leading up to a Friday night release?
So you've got the build-up, you're giving people time to plan, you're giving the out-of-town agitators time to mobilize, and then right when everything is kind of frothing and everyone is congregating, that's when you release the video.
Like, throwing a hand grenade right into the middle of it.
Right, lighting the match after everything is soaked in gasoline.
I don't know how else to interpret this.
I mean, this is like, the video is not even out yet, and this is the worst handling of a situation like this that I've ever seen.
It really is.
The only possible argument in favor of what they're doing is if you say that Well, they're releasing it on a Friday because this is the Friday news dump strategy, where you put it out on a Friday, there's not a lot of time for the media to hype it up.
People are doing other things, and that's often what you do.
When you don't want a big deal to be made out of something, then, especially in politics, you release it on a Friday.
Well, that doesn't work if you're hyping it up ahead of time and telling people that it's the worst thing ever.
Then the Friday News dump, now, you know what, it's not a Friday News dump, it is a Friday premiere.
You even hear in the video, it's almost like she's an actress promoting a film.
It's like, well, you know, in that video that we'll be pushing out later this evening, just release the freaking video.
We don't need you on camera for days ahead of time weeping over it.
We don't need that.
You're the police chief.
You're supposed to be a leader in this situation.
Which means you use clear language.
Language that is not emotionally charged.
And you say, well, what if it's a really horrible thing?
Then especially in that case, you don't want to be emotionally charged.
Other people can be emotional.
You're supposed to be the leader.
Which is what you keep your emotions in check.
And you try to keep the temperature down.
Describing something as a video, by saying it's acts that defy humanity, and it's one of the worst things I've ever seen, that is not keeping the temperature down.
This is really, you know, it's possible there still won't be riots, you know, because it is cold, so that might be enough to keep the rioters away.
Generally, it's not a coincidence that rioting usually happens.
When it's a little bit nicer out, it usually happens in the spring and the summer.
That's rioting season, typically.
So it would be a little bit unusual in that way, if we did have rioting.
But then again, they've done everything they can to hype this thing up and to build it up.
And this is Memphis we're talking about.
Like, it doesn't take much to get lawless hordes out on the street in Memphis.
I mean, they're already out there.
So it doesn't take much, and we'll see what happens.
Now, I do, you know, I try to always keep in mind the maxim, which I think is a very important one, that, you know, never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity.
And sometimes there's stupidity and malice involved, which might be the case.
But maybe that's here.
You know, maybe they don't want riots, but they're just really stupid and incompetent, and so they actually think this is the best way to handle it.
As far as ascribing motive, you can make your own judgment call.
All right.
What do we have next here?
This is from the Daily Mail, rather.
A new advertisement from Burberry featuring gender-neutral models has sparked outrage for glamorizing girls having healthy breasts removed.
The British Fashion House's latest campaign features a topless young person with scars from a double mastectomy, a procedure that can be used to remove cancer or for those transitioning genders.
Burberry's latest campaign that is entitled Be Mine celebrates intimacy and embrace... Intimacy and embracement.
Is that a word?
I don't think that is.
Celebrates intimacy and embracement.
And critics have assumed that the model is transgender.
Well...
Seems pretty obvious.
I don't think advertisements should be normalizing, in fact glamorizing, girls having healthy breasts removed, one critic said.
Throughout the campaign, real-life couples are captured expressing their moments of embrace, while each couple is also dressed in a selection of Burberry gifts.
Burberry has shared the new campaign on its Instagram account, where it has received hundreds of comments.
Can we put the picture up?
So we have the picture of what this campaign looks like, and it is It is a clothing designer.
There it is.
So there you go.
It's a clothing designer promoting, glamorizing, romanticizing self-mutilation.
This is really no different than a stylized clothing ad that would show a girl showing off her scars that are on her arm from where she cut herself.
Or imagine an ad with a rail-thin bulimic woman puking in a toilet.
It's the same kind of thing.
It's the glamorization of self-harm.
That, of course, is not the media's headline here.
Listen to the Newsweek headline.
New Burberry ad sparks Republican meltdown.
And so, for them, the headline, of course, is not the fact that a clothing company is promoting girls removing their healthy breasts.
Cosmetic double mastectomies.
That's not the headline.
To Newsweek, that's not the headline.
The headline is that people are upset about it.
Now, of course, we know this is the media's game.
The old Republicans' pounce maneuver.
But it's the same deal here.
This is, you know, anti-life, anti-human.
It's hard to think of something more anti-human than celebrating, promoting, glamorizing, and romanticizing self-harm that human beings inflict on themselves.
All right.
This is a story from the Daily Wire.
It says a 15-year-old girl from New York was issued a sentence of three to nine years on Tuesday after submitting a guilty plea over lethally stabbing a peer.
The girl's name was not disclosed because she was only 15 years old.
The Westchester County District Attorney's Office released information regarding the sentencing, stating that the girl had pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter for the deadly stabbing of Kayla Green, who was 16 years old at the time of her death.
A teenage defendant senselessly took the life of Kayla Green and in doing so left the community devastated as a family and the Mount Vernon community remain in mourning.
I want to reiterate my commitment to working with our vital community partners for meaningful violence prevention and intervention, especially for our youth.
This is from District Attorney Miriam Rocha.
So, she wants to do everything she can to prevent violence and Everything you can to protect you know the people from from being victims of violence and The solution then is a sentence of three to nine years For stabbing someone to death And I get that she's kids 15 years old that's a kid and So it's a it's a tragic thing on multiple levels They have a 15 year old
Whose life has gone so wrong that they're already lashing out murderously.
Then you have another girl who's dead.
That's the greatest tragedy of all.
And it's a tragedy on both counts.
But what is solved here?
So you give three to nine years.
That means it's really going to be three years or less than that.
And this girl is out when she's 18, 19 years old.
So you take a 15 year old girl.
Who's already a murderer, who's already the kind of person that would stab someone to death, and then you throw her into, you know, a jail for three or four years, let her kind of hang out in that stew along with other criminals, and then release her back into society when she's 18 or 19?
What have you solved that way?
This is exactly what we talked about earlier this week, and we'll talk about it again a little bit in the Daily Cancellation.
You know, this is why it makes people upset, it makes them uncomfortable and squeamish when you talk about what actual law and order would look like and what it would entail.
But you should be upset and squeamish about this.
That you have dangerous, murderous people Who we take them and our solution is just to put them in a building with other dangerous murderous people for a few years and then release them back into society.
Where statistically, it's almost certain they're going to victimize more people.
And everybody involved knows that.
The system knows that.
Right?
Everyone knows.
The court system knows that this person, when this person is released from jail, Everyone involved in the system will know, oh, we're going to see her again.
She's probably going to kill somebody else, and we're going to see her again.
And everyone knows it.
And we sit back, like, impotent, helpless.
There's nothing we can do about it.
Well, there is something you can do about it, which is to keep this person in prison.
And again, I understand, 15 years old, the idea of taking a 15-year-old, putting her in prison, potentially for life.
Or certainly for decades, you know?
That idea is, it's a very sad thing.
Someone throw their life away like that, but the other option, the other solution is totally untenable.
Another way to look at it is, you know, when you have the criminals who do terrible things, in order to keep society safe, a sacrifice must be made.
There's going to be a sacrifice made.
Either we take the criminal and they're going to be forced to sacrifice their freedom, potentially permanently, or depending on the crime, they may have to sacrifice their own lives, if it's a capital crime.
That might make you upset to think about, but that's one option.
The other option is that innocent people in society and the community have to sacrifice.
Potentially their own lives.
So we don't want to make the criminal sacrifice their freedom or their own lives and so we release them back into society and now a sacrifice is made of innocent law-abiding citizens who end up falling victim to that criminal we just released back onto the street.
Now, you might prefer that there be a solution where no one has to sacrifice anything.
Nobody has to sacrifice their life.
No one has to sacrifice their freedom.
Nobody is hurt.
Nothing bad happens.
I agree.
That would be the best solution.
I would prefer that.
You know?
But that doesn't exist.
All right, Daily Wire again.
Former Baywatch star Pamela Anderson has been busy promoting her newest project, a memoir, Love, Pamela, in a Netflix documentary titled Pamela, A Love Story, and she has reportedly netted some backlash for claims she made in both.
In Anderson's Netflix documentary, for example, the actress claimed that the actor Sylvester Stallone once propositioned her, allegedly offering a fancy car and a condo in exchange for her agreeing to be his number one girl.
She says she turned down the offer, but Stallone says he never made an offer in the first place.
Anderson also claimed in her upcoming memoir that the actor-comedian Tim Allen once exposed himself to her on the set of Home Improvement.
The actress was cast as a tool girl in Tool Time, and she claimed that he opened his robe and flashed her in what she said was an effort to even the score after seeing her naked in Playboy magazine.
Just a general principle here.
I have no idea if any of that is true.
General principle, and I've said this before, that if something bad happens to you, someone does something to you that's bad, and you wait for years and years and years or even decades, and you don't tell anybody until you have a book to sell?
Or until you have a Netflix documentary that you're trying to promote?
Like, if the first time you're bringing something up is in an effort to promote something you're selling, then we are going to automatically dismiss your claim.
Even if it's true.
I mean, we can't know so long ago as part of the problem of waiting so long.
We can't know if it's true or not.
So there's no way for us to know.
He said, she said type of thing.
Which means that we can only go by context.
And the context here is that you are using this to sell something.
And so it's... You had all that time before to bring it up.
You waited until you had something to sell.
Which means that we just can't take it serious.
Because you don't take it seriously.
You obviously don't take it seriously if you didn't say anything until you finally, until you figure, well, this would be a great way to get some publicity for this book.
Nobody would know, right?
Like, nobody would know or care that Pamela Anderson has a memoir coming out.
I wouldn't know about it.
You wouldn't know about it.
Except for that Tim Allen story.
It's the only reason you know.
That obviously is not a coincidence.
All right, one other thing, well, maybe one or two other things, but this...
This is a guy that we've seen on the show before.
Jeffrey Marsh.
And he's all over TikTok.
He's on the other social media platforms.
And he's a professional groomer.
This is what he does.
He grooms and indoctrinates.
And that's all he does.
And he doesn't even try... What's interesting about this guy is that he doesn't try.
To hide the Predator vibes at all.
He's not doing anything to hide that.
And so, here's his latest video.
Watch.
If you need a family, you can come hang out with me.
They may not see the real you, but that does not mean that you're not real.
I love you very much.
I'm gonna go cry.
Like I said, not trying to hide the Predator vibes.
It couldn't be any more explicit than if he recorded that video in a white cargo, in a nondescript white cargo van.
If he pulled up in the cargo van and unrolled the window and said, hey kids, if you need a family, I'm here, let's hang out.
Couldn't make it any more explicit.
But this is also, this is not just grooming, though it is that.
This is also, this is cult indoctrination to a T. This is cult 101 stuff, what you're seeing here.
It's Predator 101 and Cult 101, and obviously those two things are very much linked.
Say, well, if your family rejects you, if your family doesn't want you around, I'll be your family member.
Forget about your family, you don't need them.
You just need me.
I'm here for you.
That's cult indoctrination.
And what makes it even more terrifying is that kids are not only encountering that message on TikTok and on social media.
It's bad enough there, but this is also, of course, what they're getting in the schools.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
I'm not nearly as educated as any master, but I feel better than these modern artists.
And I can say Matt is 100% right about how arms and mainly hands and feet are the most difficult thing for even the most skilled artists, sometimes including myself.
It's the reason why a lot of old art portraits have men putting their hand in front of their coat and the other to the side and hidden, or finding another creative way to conceal the hands.
Yeah, that's what I suspected for a lot of these, especially the sculptures and monuments and that sort of thing.
It's like, I can't even, I mean, taking a chunk of material, a stone or something, and chiseling it away to create An image, you know, I can't even conceive of what is required, the kind of skill that's required to do that.
And then to get all the finite details down, especially hands and all the rest of it, takes an enormous amount of skill.
So when I see these modern art sculptures, the first thing I think, and maybe I'm also being informed from my own experience of being, you know, in school and cutting corners and finding ways around things, the first thing I think is like, okay, that's your way around Having to do the difficult task of creating real art.
Well done, Joe.
I... Once again, I feel... You know, I wish I could tell you that that's a dad joke that I decided to skip over because I was being more mature, but I didn't even think of it.
I didn't draw that connection, and so I'm a little bit ashamed of that.
But... Thank you for your work, Joe.
Evan says, Matt, I've worked for a large tech company in the past.
Trust me, the meetings that the Google employee took were the least productive part of her day.
I think that's the case in, like, almost any company.
And I don't do a lot of meetings.
Historically, I've never done a whole lot, a bunch of meetings.
But, I don't know, of all the meetings I've ever been in in my life, maybe 5% of them are actually productive.
And then the other 95%, it's mostly a meeting.
It's not just in tech companies.
I think this is anywhere.
Mostly meetings happen because for one thing, it's just people feel like they need to have something on their schedule.
And it's really, it's just, it's a process of people justifying their jobs.
That's all it really is.
The meeting is there so that everyone can take a turn justifying their existence in the company.
That's why the meeting exists.
And that's what makes meetings Even more frustrating for, like, if you're in a company and you know what your job is and you're doing your job and you're productive and all of that, when you're forced to sit in a meeting, it's all the more frustrating because you don't need to justify your job and all you're doing is sitting here listening to other people do that.
It's a big performance.
Tony Catman says, Matt, in respect of the modern art, things are in fact worse than you thought.
There are people who are still doing classic sculpture, Jago for example, talented and dedicated.
Unfortunately, they don't get the public commissions or attention they deserve.
The best are still commissioned by private collectors, but this is probably the best way things, this is probably the way things always happened.
Yeah, and I don't doubt that at all, which is why this is the case with all forms of art, whether we're talking about paintings or sculpture or music or film or anything like that.
When people complain, it's, oh, nobody's making good music anymore.
No one's making good movies anymore.
No one's making good sculptures anymore.
And I have been known to complain like that.
But what we really mean is that the culture doesn't celebrate or elevate Good art.
It exists.
I mean, there are always going to be artists out there and good artists, but the question is, what does your culture elevate and celebrate?
And that's the problem.
And also, fund is a big part of it.
Ivy says, Hi Matt, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Disney adults.
We got a little piece of it in Daily Cancellation, but Disney-obsessed adults who go to parks several times each year with or without kids and decorate their homes and vehicles with Disney items seem to be growing demographic in our generation.
I'm curious what you think about them.
Are you curious what I think about them?
Are you actually curious?
Is there any doubt in your mind about what I think of Disney adults who are obsessed with Disney and go to Disney even without kids?
And wait in lines to meet the costumed characters and have little costumed character figurines in their home.
Do I need to lay out how I feel about those people?
I can't stand them.
If I needed to, that's what it is.
Now, I'd like to address something that you've sure all been wondering, I'm sure, is, you know, you may ask, Sweet Daddy, how do you always look so sharp and handsome and well-rested with six kids, including two newborns and a theocratic fascist dictatorship to run?
What's your secret?
Now, this is obviously privileged information, but because the depths of my generosity knows no bounds, I will tell you this.
Every night, I curl up on my giant walrus and read my book, Johnny the Walrus, the world's most comforting work of LGBT children's literature, and it works every time for me.
Luckily, we offer the Johnny the Walrus book and plushie in a convenient bundle over at dailywire.com slash shop, so you too can look as radiant and vivacious as I allegedly do.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop to get your Johnny the Walrus book bundle today.
You don't want to miss out on it.
The Daily Wire is looking for a new director of human resources.
The problem is that most of them are from woke companies who waste all their time focusing on pseudo-diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
We don't do that here.
We need an experienced HR professional who isn't afraid to roll up their sleeves, put in long hours, and competently run an HR department.
If this is you and you stand up against the mainstream leftist agenda, well, we want to hear from you.
So for more information and to apply, head to dailywire.com slash careers.
That's dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Earlier this week, we discussed our pathetic, impotent criminal justice system, which has utterly failed to maintain law and order in our communities.
It's a justice system that seems to be uninterested in justice.
And I proposed, as you recall, that we take off the kid gloves and start dealing harshly with criminals, predators, those who've turned our cities into reeking, zombified wastelands.
In fact, I advocated that we adopt some of Singapore's strategies in this regard.
Strategies that have helped to make Singapore, one of the safest and cleanest places in the world, while our cities look like massive drug-infested garbage dumps.
Specifically, I believe that we, like Singapore, should adopt corporal punishment for thieves and robbers and vandals and the like.
And, you know, we used to use corporal punishment on kids in school.
Now we've decided that it's too mean to even use on multiply convicted felons, and I find that attitude absurd and weak.
The criminals also find our justice system absurd and weak, which is why they have no respect for it, and they have no fear of breaking its laws.
And I also believe that we, like Singapore, and like Donald Trump has frequently suggested for this country, we ought to expand our capital punishment regime to include drug traffickers.
Those who distribute and sell mass amounts of poison, slowly killing thousands of people every year, ought to face the ultimate penalty.
Nearly every murderer who has ever been executed in the United States inflicted less damage and killed fewer people than the most prolific drug traffickers.
There's no reason why drug traffickers should get a more lenient sentence.
Indeed, there's no reason why the death penalty should be reserved only for those who directly kill people.
Sometimes the most heinous kinds of predators have other ways of preying upon their fellow human beings.
Child rapists would be another example.
With our ridiculous laws as they stand in most states, you can't execute a child rapist unless they're also guilty of murder.
As if the crime of child rape itself doesn't warrant it.
I mean, they deserve to die for their crimes, whether they directly kill their victims or not.
This is the case I made, and I explain my logic, I think, in extensive detail.
Still, it has proven to be not surprisingly controversial.
People on both sides of the political divide are deeply scandalized by my argument.
Twitter has been basically unusable for me over the past few days.
Well, it's always basically unusable, but especially over the past few days because my entire feed is just people screaming at me for wanting to punish criminals.
Now look, it's okay if you disagree with me.
I will give you permission, until my theocratic fascist regime officially begins anyway.
For now, you do have permission to disagree with me.
You're wrong, but that's okay.
You can be wrong.
My problem is not that people simply disagree with my proposal, but that they treat the mere notion of harsher penalties for criminals as somehow Absurd on its face.
They recoil at the suggestion that those who traffic substances that kill thousands every year should be given the same punishment that we already give to other kinds of murderers.
They scream out in horror at the very idea that perhaps we should sentence robbers and thieves to corporal punishment rather than letting them hang out in prison for a few months and then releasing them right back into the community with no additional penalties.
You know, this is the issue.
You're not a stupid person for listening to my argument, finding it unpersuasive, and making a counter-argument.
That's fine.
But you are, frankly, pretty damn stupid if my argument is so shocking to you that you can barely articulate a response, or if you think it's so unthinkably extreme that it isn't necessary to articulate a response.
That kind of reaction to a perfectly reasonable suggestion, one with a massive amount of historical precedent, shows a lack of thought on your part, and an inability to even entertain any challenge to modern orthodoxies.
Because that's really the problem, right?
Is that what I'm saying flies in the face of our kind of generally accepted notions of how to deal with criminals.
And for that reason alone, many people are upset by it.
And they can't explain really why.
It just doesn't comport with what they've always been told and sort of the general atmosphere that they live in.
Speaking of people who can barely articulate a response, that brings us to YouTuber Kyle Kolinsky, who's the owner of the Secular Talk channel on YouTube.
And like most YouTubers on the left, every so often Kyle likes to use my name to drive engagement, and every so often I will respond because, well, I can't help but take the bait.
So yesterday, Kyle put out a video titled, Matt Walsh's Fascist Mask Slips on Twitter.
And he's part of the mob, terribly upset about my comments, though he, like the rest of them, can't quite explain why.
Now, most of Kyle's video consists of him calling me stupid and authoritarian while making incredulous facial expressions.
Not really a counter-argument, not much to respond to.
But I did want to address one part of it, and it's this part.
Listen.
Singapore is able to have nice things in part because they execute drug dealers by hanging And arrest even petty vandals and thieves and beat them with a cane until they bleed.
We don't have nice things because we aren't willing to do what is required to maintain them.
Then he goes on to say, There are some accusing me of advocating similar laws in this country, and I just want to clarify that yes, absolutely I want those laws in this country.
Okay.
Matt Walsh is an authoritarian.
And it's hilarious, because The Daily Wire, Matt Walsh, and others like to go after the left and say, oh, the left are authoritarians and they hate freedom, bro.
They hate liberty, bro.
You hate freedom.
You hate liberty.
Part of freedom is being able to put in your body whatever you want to put in your body as long as you're not hurting anybody else.
Being able to sell said substances.
In the same way, I don't think we should be hauling away the CEO of Budweiser in handcuffs.
I don't think you should haul away the weed dealer.
He's saying, execute drug dealers.
Alright, dawg.
You wanna start?
Go find the CEO of Pfizer.
And Moderna.
Go find the guys who make Xanax.
Okay, sounds good to me.
I mean, we'd have to give the big pharma executives a fair trial, of course, convict them in a court of law.
But once that's been done, I absolutely would want them to face the same penalty that should be imposed on any other drug trafficker.
See, Kyle, you're not going to trip me up by demanding that I take my arguments to their logical conclusions, because I will always do that.
I'm not afraid of doing that.
That's the advantage to being logically consistent.
Okay, so when you say, well, if that's how you feel, then that would lead to this.
Sure, sounds good to me.
Let's do that too.
It's an advantage of being logically consistent that you yourself do not enjoy because you have already made a number of statements that I'm quite sure you would not want to apply with total consistency.
So you say that part of freedom is not only being able to put whatever you want into your body, but also being able to sell anything that someone else might want to put in their body.
Now, here's the problem.
This argument already assumes that freedom is itself the highest good, and therefore literally anything that falls under the banner of freedom is automatically good and should be permissible.
But that's a case you need to make.
You can't merely assume that.
You haven't made it here or, as far as I know, anywhere else.
See, I don't believe that freedom is the highest good.
I don't think that the ideal society is one where people are simply able to do whatever they want all the time.
I don't really think that you think that either, actually.
I'm quite sure that there are things that you would say people should not be free to do.
I'm quite sure of that.
And yet your whole argument rests on simply labeling drug trafficking part of freedom.
So already we have a number of logical inconsistencies and sort of half-baked ideas.
Well, let's talk about drug traffickers for a moment.
Now, you keep making this... You want to make this about weed, first of all.
And I've noticed that with all the people that are arguing with me.
Talk about drug traffickers.
All they want to do is talk about weed.
They bring it right to weed.
I didn't specifically say that.
I said drug traffickers.
Okay?
And you do that because you know you'd sound ridiculous defending fentanyl dealers on the basis of freedom.
So you go for the easiest form of the argument you can find.
And you want to make this about marijuana.
But I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
So let's focus on fentanyl dealers for a moment.
They traffic and profit off of poison.
Just straight up poison that destroys the lives of thousands of people and kills thousands more.
And you say this is okay because the people who use it want to.
You know, they want to use it, so that makes it okay.
Well, why does their desire to use the drug automatically make it okay to sell it?
Is that the standard?
Anything that somebody might want to use is automatically okay to sell?
Is that really?
Is that really how you think the law should work?
And again, your argument rests on an assumption that you haven't actually defended or explained.
Which is that freedom is the highest good, it's a good in and of itself, and anything that can be labeled freedom automatically should be allowed to happen.
Besides, even if the fentanyl user has consented, the entire rest of the community, plagued by the filth and crime and violence the drug causes, have not consented.
Okay, the dealer might consent, the user might consent, we'll get to that in a second, but the people forced to live in communities utterly ravaged by this poison do not consent to it.
The people who are hopped up on these drugs and then they run on to, you know, run to a subway platform and throw an old lady in front of the train?
She didn't consent to that.
She didn't consent to being part of this.
She didn't consent to living in a city that's the walking dead with drug zombies walking around.
Oh, and also, by the way, the user doesn't consent either.
They're addicts.
They're not making clear choices.
They are acting out of desperation and compulsion and addiction.
The dealers and traffickers exploit that for financial gain.
There's no freedom here.
Freedom has nothing to do with drug addiction.
Who the hell could look at a heroin addict or a fentanyl addict or a crackhead and say, well, that's freedom.
That is the opposite of freedom.
So to review, freedom is not a self-explanatory defense of drug trafficking.
It's also not a relevant defense because one of the things that makes drug trafficking so evil is that the end user does not actually have total freedom because they are enslaved by the drug.
But let's take addiction out of it.
Let's take drugs out of it.
Okay?
Let's make this even easier for you.
You just said that people should be free to sell whatever anyone else wants to put in their bodies.
That's what you said.
Now, I think that this is an utterly ridiculous argument when it comes to hard drugs, but it's also ridiculous when it comes to things that are not drugs.
That's how thoroughly ridiculous your argument is.
So here's a thought experiment.
Just a thought experiment.
Tide pods.
You may remember a few years ago when there was much consternation over the Tide Pod challenge, where idiots on TikTok or YouTube or whatever would eat the laundry detergent capsules and then get very sick, and in a few cases would die.
Now, here's the question.
What if the Tide detergent company decided that it wanted to lean into this phenomenon, and so it began selling its product as both a laundry detergent and a snack?
What if they put on their packaging, Tide Pods, great for laundry, great for snacking?
And what if they even, let's just say that they're being a little bit more responsible, they include an FDA warning that though it can physically be eaten, it might be damaging to your health.
But still, even with that warning, they're marketing it.
They are marketing it as a consumable product.
Remember, you said that people should be free to put whatever they want into their bodies, and sellers should be free to sell whatever anyone wants to put into their bodies.
Some people wanted to put Tide Pods in their bodies.
Why couldn't the Tide Company therefore sell Tide Pods specifically to that demographic, put it in a snack aisle next to the potato chips, explicitly for the purpose of consuming?
Why couldn't they, in other words, intentionally poison their customers directly?
What would be wrong with them sitting around in a marketing room and saying, you know what?
Some of our customers want to be poisoned and killed by this.
Let's think of some ways to sell it to them.
Let's think of some ways to market it.
Not just market it to people who already want to consume Tide Pods, but let's try to convince people that they should eat this stuff and then sell it to them.
The argument you made in defense of fentanyl dealers would cover this Tide Company hypothetical absolutely.
Now maybe you escaped this bind by plunging forward and saying, yeah, sure, Tide should be able to legally market their product to those who want to eat it.
Now that would make you consistent at least, but it would make you consistently insane.
Because you would be defending the freedom of corporations to intentionally and directly poison their customers.
Which would only go to show that freedom, in and of itself, is not a valid defense.
And of course you never did explain in that clip or in any other clip part of your diatribe what is so wrong with non-lethal physical punishments of criminals.
Especially when even simply putting someone in prison is a physical punishment involving physical coercion and force.
Should we abolish prisons too while we're at it?
And if we shouldn't abolish prisons, meaning that physical force can validly be used to punish criminals, then why should we automatically rule out corporal punishment, which is but one form of physical force?
Well, we'll take it one step at a time.
I suppose Kyle still needs to figure out whether laundry detergent companies can sell their products as a snack.
I don't want to overwhelm him with things, so we will let him think about that.
But for the time being, we will also say that he is 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.
