Ep. 1115 - Stop Sacrificing Truth On The Altar Of Nice
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, lots of people are very upset because of some things I said on this show about the trans tik tok personality Dylan Mulvaney. Even conservatives are claiming that I need to be nicer and more gentle in dealing with the trans agenda. Today I'll explain why the people making this claim are horrifically stupid and wrong. Also, 200 journalists write a scathing letter to the New York Times, complaining about all of its "anti-trans" coverage. What does it tell us that even the New York Times can be considered anti-trans? Plus, Don Lemon tries to criticize Nikki Haley but does it in a way that even manages to upset his leftist co-hosts. In our Daily Cancellation, a left wing magazine has taken a crack at answering the question of our time. We'll see how they did.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 40% off DailyWire+ annual memberships and gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more, including brand new episodes of “PragerU Master’s Program” with Dennis Prager: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
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/
Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.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, lots of people are very upset because of some things I said on this show about the trans TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney.
Even conservatives are claiming that I need to be nicer and more gentle in dealing with the trans agenda.
Today I'll explain why the people making this claim are horrifically stupid and wrong.
Also, 200 journalists write a scathing letter to the New York Times complaining about all of its anti-trans coverage.
What does it tell us that even the New York Times can be considered anti-trans now?
Plus, Don Lemon tries to criticize Nikki Haley, but does it in a way that even manages to upset his leftist co-hosts.
In our Daily Cancellation, a left-wing magazine has taken a crack at answering the great question of our time.
We'll see how they did.
All that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Whether you're a first-time parent, early in your career, or a recent empty nester, you need to make sure that you have a plan in place for when you meet your demise.
A will is not just about your stuff, and it's not just for the elderly.
When you leave a will behind, you leave behind a legacy as well.
You ensure that your wishes are honored when you're unable to see them through.
You ensure that your loved ones are taken care of even after you're gone.
My partners at Epic Will will help you decide today how the future will look if you die tomorrow.
Did you know that 50% of Americans don't have a will?
Don't be another statistic for just $119 in as little as five minutes.
Epic Will can help you create your last will and testament, your living will, and even healthcare power of attorney.
Their step-by-step online form makes it incredibly easy.
All you gotta do is fill in the blanks.
So go to epicwill.com, use promo code WALSH to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
That's epicwill.com, promo code WALSH.
There's been a lot of discussion this week about the latest CDC report showing, as the New York Times headline put it, record levels of sadness among teenage girls in this country.
From the Times, it reports nearly three in five teenage girls felt persistent sadness in 2021, double the rate of boys, and one in three girls seriously considered attempting suicide.
The findings, based on surveys given to teenagers across the country, also showed high levels of violence, depression, and suicidal thoughts among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth More than one in five of these students reported attempting suicide in the year before the survey.
According to the agency, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey was given to 17,000 adolescents at high schools across the United States in the fall of 2021.
The survey is conducted every two years, and the rates of mental health problems have gone up with every report since 2011.
Now, this is self-reported data, which always has its limitations.
As it turns out, people are not always the best judges of their own mental states and experiences.
A point that is probably doubly true for teenagers.
But even with those limitations in mind, there is no question That young people, especially adolescents, are in crisis.
There's an epidemic of despair that has seized hold of our society, and this mental and spiritual plague has infected children most of all.
It is not normal, or it should not be normal, and hasn't been normal historically, for millions of kids in a generation to be chronically depressed, much less suicidal.
It's become our normal, but it shouldn't be.
The big question, of course, is why this is all happening.
I mean, what lies at the root of a generation of teenagers who are basically ready to give up on life after having experienced so little of it?
And this is the part, the diagnostic process, where most of our institutional authorities, like the CDC and the corporate media, become totally useless.
You know, they can identify some of the elements of the problem.
Everyone seems now to agree, for instance, that shutting down schools, locking kids in their homes for a year or two years was a very bad idea, which had and is still having a disastrous effect on their mental health and their physical health and their health in all senses of the term.
Now, many of us said that at the time.
At the time, we said that this would happen, but we were shouted down and we were silenced.
And now many of the people who did the shouting are echoing the very points that they shouted down.
But the lockdowns don't tell the full story.
After all, these were all trends that were present before COVID.
It was a fire already burning before our government's COVID response poured gasoline onto it.
So what else then?
Well, you know, there's the fact that kids spend 10 hours a day staring at their phones.
That they have been robbed of the true joys of childhood.
That their lives have been consumed by these little glowing screens they carry around.
This is a major factor to go along with the breakdown of the family, the decline of faith in our country, the general purposelessness and listlessness that defines modern American culture.
All of these are ingredients and all of that goes along with the one major factor that the CDC and the corporate media and the medical establishment will never mention.
In fact, they're more likely to present this as a cure rather than a cause.
And that is, of course, the gender insanity that has gripped hold of the youngest generations.
It is absolutely not a coincidence that suicidal tendencies and sadness and depression and anxiety are skyrocketing among adolescent children, especially girls, at the same moment that trans and quote-unquote non-binary self-identification is also skyrocketing among children, especially girls.
These kids get sucked into this world.
They contract the trans mental virus from their peers and from TikTok and from other social media platforms.
And from Hollywood and the school system, and they see it as a solution to their problems.
You know, because they're unhappy, they're confused, they feel self-loathing, they feel resentment that they don't quite understand.
And in transgenderism and gender fluidity, they think they've found a way out, a new beginning, a sort of rebirth.
But instead, they tumble directly into an identity crisis and the loss of whatever remnants of meaning and purpose they had in their life before.
They think they found the antidote, because they've been told that it's the antidote, but the antidote is poison.
They're trying to escape whatever parts of themselves they don't like, but the escape hatch is a door that leads to a world of confusion and despair and regret far worse than what they were already experiencing.
That's what's happening.
And when we're taking into account all of the many horrific consequences of the trans agenda and the stranglehold that it has on our culture, this needs to be at the top of that very long list.
That it is sending children spiraling into anguish, despondency, self-destruction.
Millions of children, and counting.
And that is also why, on a personal note, I don't pull any punches when I talk about this subject.
It's why I long ago decided to be direct, plain-spoken, honest in my opposition to the trans agenda, even if it means being harsh, even brutal.
We don't have the luxury of soft-pedaling this.
There isn't room, there isn't time to dance around the subject, as so many others have been doing for so many years.
Which brings me to the reason that I'm trending on social media today.
Lots of people are very upset about a segment from my show a few days ago where I addressed Dylan Mulvaney.
Mulvaney is, of course, the male TikTok guy who announced on TikTok several months ago that he's going to start identifying as a woman.
And every day since then, he has published one gross and degrading video after another, making a sick mockery of womanhood, all in an effort to enrich himself.
Which he has done with wild success, thanks to various corporate sponsorships and the like.
And along with promoting himself this way, he's also seeking to promote the concept of transgenderism.
In his latest video, he shows off his plastic surgery, declares that he's the hottest he's ever looked, and that he's so attractive that women need to watch out because he might, quote, steal their husbands.
Now I issued a brief response, which was succinct and to the point, I thought, which has now ushered in another round of trans activists wishing for my death, while even many of my fellow, quote, conservatives Are joining them in denouncing me for being mean and hateful and all the rest of it.
So I have something I want to say about all this, but in order to put it in proper context, we should probably play that clip from the show.
If you were watching a few days ago, you already saw this, but for those who missed it, here's the clip that has everyone so upset.
Here it is.
Dylan, if that is the most attractive you will ever look, then I don't even want to imagine what you'll look like when you're at your ugliest.
You do not pass as an attractive woman or as a woman at all.
Even with 50 pounds of makeup and plastic surgery and clever lighting tricks, even then you still cannot escape what you really are and what you will always be.
You have successfully shed whatever parts of you were masculine, perhaps, at least on the surface.
Nobody would ever describe you as masculine or manly, so you've got that going.
But your femininity quotient has not increased.
At a rate commensurate with the loss of your masculinity.
You may not be masculine, but you also aren't feminine.
Instead, you are weird and artificial.
You are manufactured and lifeless.
You are unearthly and eerie.
You are like some kind of human deepfake.
That's what you are.
You are a man deprived of all the best qualities of men, but without any of the best qualities of women.
Even your personality is contrived.
Everything about you is fake.
Nothing about you rings true.
Nobody buys the act.
You'll never be accepted as a woman by anyone.
Never by anyone.
Even the people who pretend to accept you as a woman are only pretending because they're afraid of being lectured if they don't.
Or because they want to use you as a platform to virtue signal.
But everyone who looks at you will see something pitiable and bizarre, something utterly unfeminine in every way.
You will never be able to actually have the identity that you're trying to appropriate, nor will you ever be able to fully escape the identity that you're fleeing.
The best you can hope for is some kind of limbo, the worst of all worlds.
And yet, even in that limbo state, you will still be a man.
Just not one that any of us can respect or take seriously.
But other than that, champ, you're doing great.
Well, there it is.
I gotta stop beating around the bush, I think.
Just to give you an idea of how people are receiving this, I'll read a few of the angry responses.
Keep in mind that, again, not all of these are coming from self-described leftists.
Some of them are coming from the right, allegedly.
So here's a sample.
Quote, this is one of the ugliest videos I've come across in my lifetime thus far.
Matt Walsh deserves no respect for dehumanizing Dylan Mulvaney for being transgender.
She's an effing human being for crying out loud.
Another one says, when people like Matt Walsh make videos like this, it reinforces the idea that right-wingers are cruel, close-minded, and unlikable.
It makes the rest of their ideas seem toxic.
It gives a hard-on to this tiny 2% online movement, and Matt thinks it's a huge W, but it's not.
Another says, Oh, but they are.
This has been noted over and over, the cruelty is the point.
Anytime conservative reactionaries seem like they're gaining momentum culturally, they
can't hold back the gleeful vitriol.
It's not surprising his insults are the exact things he's insecure about.
Beards aren't magic.
Oh, but they are.
Another one says, I disdain everything about Dylan Mulvaney and what he stands for.
This is one of those from one of the so-called conservatives.
But this is why I don't follow Walsh anymore.
I know he thinks he's a hero saying the truth that every conservative is thinking, but if
you listen to his voice, it's just deep, pure hate.
He's no longer rational nor Christian.
And if you think he doesn't feel this way about regular gay people, you're fooling yourself.
The other one says, I hope Matt Walsh's God actually does exist so he'll burn in hell for eternity for being a soulless, heartless cretin who spreads only hatred and fear.
He makes the world a worse place with every single breath he takes.
I could go on, but you get the point.
And if I went to my emails and DMs, that's where you'd really hear how people feel, and it's not always pretty.
So, allow me to address these complaints.
So begin with, needless to say, I don't apologize at all, nor do I wish to amend what I said or soften my language.
I said exactly what I meant to say, exactly as I meant to say it, and I stand by every single word without the slightest bit of equivocation.
I will also note that I did not insult Dylan Mulvaney in that clip.
I merely described him as directly and honestly as I could.
If honesty sounds insulting, well, that only tells us something about the nature of what is being described.
Doesn't mean that we should stop being honest about it.
Indeed, we need a lot more honesty.
Direct to the point.
Brutal at times.
Why is honesty and the truth brutal?
Well, because the reality of what we're dealing with is brutal.
It is a brutal, horrific thing.
And so there is no honest way of describing it without sounding brutal yourself.
We have gotten to this point where depraved lies and destructive lunacy are destroying our country and consuming entire generations of children, largely because people have been too afraid to speak honestly and to say out loud what they know to be true.
We have prioritized politeness and tolerance over truth, and look where it's gotten us.
Look what it has achieved.
So if you, whoever you are, watching this, And if you saw that clip of me addressing Dylan Mulvaney, and you thought to yourself, oh, that's mean.
He shouldn't have said all that.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's mean.
Well, if that's your reaction, then all that tells me, and what it ought to tell you about yourself, is that you are among the legions who have sacrificed truth on the altar of Nice, and the destruction that has followed from that decision is your fault.
Okay, this is not a, your cowardice is not a victimless crime.
These kids who have been abandoned to lies and despair and who are killing themselves because of it, that's on you.
And everyone like you.
Now, you can't undo the damage that your cowardice has done, but you can at least get on the right side and start fighting for the truth now.
You can stop cooperating with the harm and thereby causing harm.
Get on the right side of the issue.
And you need to.
Because we are way, way past the point of being able to worry about nice.
I mean, that point never existed.
It certainly doesn't exist now.
Now is a time for truth.
And nothing else.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Critical antibiotics are in extremely short supply.
We all had a good laugh when there were toilet paper shortages at the start of the pandemic.
Then, when there was a baby formula shortage, things were not so funny anymore.
What about when there's a shortage of emergency medications like ibuprofen?
That's when things really get serious.
So you need to be prepared for anything, and our partners at Jace Medical are here to help with that.
A great way to start preparing is with the Jace Case, which is a pack of five different courses of antibiotics that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses, including UTIs and other illnesses as well.
All you've got to do is fill out a simple online form.
Your information will be reviewed by a board-certified physician, and your medication will be dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost.
The Jace case gives me peace of mind knowing that my family will have what we need if the worst happens.
You gotta go to jacemedical.com, enter code WALSH at checkout for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com, promo code WALSH.
Well, we'll start with this.
Speaking of the need for direct and honest truth, I think this helps to underscore that point.
Fox News reports nearly 200 liberal New York Times contributors signed an open letter bashing their own news outlet for its recent coverage of trans issues.
The letter claimed that the paper's coverage of the propriety of medical care for trans children, quote-unquote, has featured an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic charged language.
Just to be clear, they're accusing those who oppose the trans agenda, who oppose trans and kids, they're accusing us.
In particular, those who have written in the New York Times, which I haven't.
But they're accusing us, our side, of using pseudoscience and euphemistic language.
We're the ones doing that.
So they're castrating and mutilating kids and calling it gender affirmation care, but we're the ones using euphemisms.
They are trying to turn males into females with drugs and surgery, but the pseudoscience is on our end.
I mean, they cannot define any of the terms they use.
But we're the ones engaging in pseudoscience.
Right.
Back to Fox, it says, those who signed the letter allege that the outlet has followed the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy.
As Fox News Digital reported last November, the Times-Forced faced blowback for one of its recent reports delving into the potential consequences of puberty blockers.
The blowback has now materialized in the February 15th letter signed by prominent lefty journalists and authors, including Ed Young, Lucy Santay, Roxane Gay, and Rebecca Solnit.
Personally addressed to the Times Associate Managing Editors for Standards, Philip B. Corbett, the letter alerted him to serious concerns about editorial bias in the newspapers reporting on transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people.
The aggrieved liberal authors noted that, though plenty of reporters at the Times cover trans issues fairly, they are eclipsed, however, by what one journalist has calculated as over 15,000 words of front-page Times coverage debating the propriety of medical care for transgender children in the last eight months alone.
Okay.
This just, like, perfectly proves my point, doesn't it?
Almost, you couldn't have planned it any better.
And it's really a profound statement, okay?
That the New York Times, we're being told, is biased against trans people, according to these journalists.
Okay?
Which shows you the level of absolute, unquestioned, unthinking loyalty to their agenda that the left demands.
Anything outside of 100% conformity to everything they say, especially on the trans issue, but really on every other issue too, particularly on this issue, there is no amount of leeway granted.
You have to go along with everything they say, and if you do anything outside of that, I mean, if you venture even one inch off the path that they have cut for you, Then you are a radical extremist and you're going to get trans people killed.
What they're taking issue with here, and they even say it outright, that these are articles which, okay, 15,000 words, debating the propriety of medical care for trans children.
And that's what the articles actually do, that's correct.
Now, the New York Times has not published anything on the trans issue that any rational person could describe as right-wing or extreme or anything like that, okay?
They've not come close to it.
The most they've done is just acknowledging that there is a debate to be had about whether or not we should be mutilating and castrating children.
But really, there is no debate to be had about that.
There's no debate.
It just shouldn't be happening.
These horrific Frankenstein medical experimentations on children should not be happening.
There's no rational debate to be had about it.
But that's the point.
That all they're doing is saying, gee, you know guys, I know we're doing this to all these kids, but maybe we should talk about it.
Should we take a second and just talk about it?
Maybe there are people on the other side of this who might object and perhaps we should listen to their objections, maybe.
In all the articles, we've read many of them on the show when they come up.
And they couch, and anytime there's this one in particular they're upset about where they talk about the puberty blockers, and even the writers of that article, they never say categorically that we should never give these drugs to children.
Though of course, that's correct, we should never give them to children.
That's not what they say.
They're not calling for shutting it all down.
They're just saying, well, maybe we should slow it up a little bit, and we should, you know, obviously they say there are times when this is the right thing, and clearly there are kids with gender dysphoria, and sometimes medical intervention is necessary.
Clearly that's the case, but maybe there are times when kids are getting these drugs and they shouldn't, and we should talk about it.
That's the only thing they say in the articles.
And even that.
Like, that kind of criticism that is couched, that is, you know, that is made to, is presented in as soft a way as it possibly can be, tiptoeing around the issue like they're dancing over broken glass as they're talking about it, walking on eggshells, whatever, even that is too far.
Even that is an assault on the very lives of trans people and will get trans people killed.
So what does that tell you?
It tells you again that on the left, this is the kind of conformity that they demand.
There is no room for debate, no room for discussion.
And so they can come along out of the blue with some absurd, unheard of claim Historically unprecedented, such as the claim that, hey, you know, sometimes girls are actually boys, and we should chop their breasts off at the age of 14.
Like, something like that.
To call that extreme and radical would be severely understating it.
But then come along with a statement like that, and you're not even allowed to question it.
There cannot even be a moment of discussion about it.
So that's what it tells you about the left, which we already know.
But what does it tell you about what our response should be and what our approach should be.
You can couch your language all you want.
You can be as polite and nice about it as you want and it won't matter.
Okay?
They are still going to shout it down and scream at you.
They're not going to be willing to hear it.
So you might as well be direct and to the point and just say what is true and put it out there and leave it there.
Like, you might as well just put the cards on the table.
Because any attempt that you make to be nice about it, it won't matter anyway.
All right, this has gone viral.
Another awkward exchange between Don Lemon and his female co-hosts.
And this one starts when Lemon tries to criticize Nikki Haley and manages to do it in a way that offends even his leftist co-hosts.
Let's watch how that goes.
This whole talk about age makes me uncomfortable.
I think that, I think it's the wrong road to go down.
She says people, you know, politicians or something are not in their prime.
Nikki Haley isn't in her prime.
Sorry.
When a woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s and maybe 40s.
What are you talking about?
Wait.
That's not according to me.
Prime for what?
It depends.
I mean, it's just like Prime.
If you look it up, if you Google, when is a woman in her prime, it'll say 20s, 30s, and 40s.
I don't necessarily... 40s!
Oh, I got it another day.
I'm not saying I agree with that.
So I think she has to be careful about saying that, you know, politicians aren't in their prime.
We need to qualify.
Are you talking about prime for, like, child-rearing?
Don't shoot the message where I'm just saying what the facts are.
Google it, everybody at home.
When is a woman in her prime?
It says 20s, 30s, and 40s.
And I'm just saying Nikki Haley should be careful about saying that politicians are not in their prime and they need to be in their prime when they serve because she wouldn't be in her prime according to Google or whatever it is.
You realize, you can see the look on his face that he realized he stepped in it, and it's pretty great.
As he tries desperately to wiggle his way out of it, look it up on Google!
Just Google it!
I mean, Google knows about the prime.
It tells us what the prime is, okay?
These are the facts.
There are facts about being in the prime, and women are not in the prime, okay, after 40.
It said, just look at Google.
Google said it.
What are you talking about?
Of course, conservatives are jumping on this one, and they're doing the whole, see, Democrats are the real sexist routine, and also the whole, well, imagine if the scenario was reversed routine.
Yeah, I mean, of course, if the scenario is reversed.
If Don Lemon had said this about a Democrat woman, then there would be a lot more outrage, and we know that.
I mean, like, Kamala Harris, how old is Kamala Harris?
She's definitely above, she's past her 40s, that we can say.
I think she's approaching 60 at least.
But Don Lemon is not saying that she's past her prime.
I can guarantee you that Don Lemon voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, who was in her late 60s at the time.
So, yeah, there's a double standard.
But it's always, you know, I always cringe when I hear, oh, see, they're sexist.
Like, accusing, it doesn't work anyway.
It's not going to have the effect that you want.
But using the left's language, trying to use it against them, hey, he's being a sexist.
Is Don Lemon a sexist?
Like, does he hate women?
Or is it that he's just an idiot, and he was looking to criticize Nikki Haley because Nikki Haley's a Republican, and so he just stumbled his way into this?
I think it's more that.
It's also true, by the way, that there is a prime for politicians.
Like, everyone has a prime, but it depends on the context we're talking about.
You know, so it's not like there's one human, well this is the prime for a person.
It depends on in what context, what are we talking about?
Are we talking about a physical prime?
Are we talking about, you know, what's the prime for an NFL running back?
All these things are going to change.
But there is a prime for politicians.
And is it, it's definitely not 20 or 30, it's not 40.
But one thing we can say for sure, and Nikki Haley is not past her prime.
I mean, I don't think she's impressive in her prime.
But there is a prime, and the one thing that we can say, and we should say, is that your late 70s is past it.
Whatever that period is, you're not in your prime in your late 70s.
You're not going to be in your prime in really any context or any respect when you get into your late 70s.
And that's no disrespect to people in their late 70s, no disrespect to elderly people.
It's just a reality of aging.
We're all going to be there one day, unless we die before that.
That's the reality.
Either you die before you really get past your physical and mental prime, or you get past your physical and mental prime and then you die.
That's what it means to be a mortal creature walking the earth.
And once you get into your late 70s, you are past your physical prime, you're past your mental prime.
That's just it.
And so Nikki Haley has nothing to do, there are other reasons to criticize Nikki Haley's candidacy.
Reasons that you're never going to hear from a Democrat.
But we should absolutely be talking about the fact that Once you get into your late 70s, it's just absurd.
As I've been saying for so long, it's absurd that we allow people in their late 70s to run for office.
We've seen how this plays out.
It's played out with Joe Biden exactly as it was always destined to play out.
And as you get into your late 70s and your early 80s, the physical and mental decline only accelerates.
And it accelerates if you're retired and you spend your days sitting on your porch in a rocking chair, as everyone in their 80s should be.
Like, you've earned that.
That's how you should be spending your days.
That's how I want to spend my days, if I make it to my 80s.
But if you add on the mental and physical stresses of the presidency, Which is one of the most high pressure jobs in existence, and you add that on to what is already going to be a period of mental and physical decline, it just, you end up with Joe Biden.
And it is, there is no, I have not heard one good argument.
For allowing people past 75 to run for the presidency.
35 to 75, I think that's a good cutoff.
I mean, you could argue for cutting it off sooner than that, but I think 35 to 70 is pretty, gives you a nice round number.
40, 40 years?
You have 40 years to become president, you can't do it in that time frame, then, well, it just wasn't meant for you.
And that's okay, because, you know, the vast majority of humans who have ever existed in America are not gonna be president, so you're just gonna be one of us.
Alright, this is good stuff from a magazine called In These Times, which is like a commie magazine from the 60s or something that's still around now as a website.
And they ran an article calling out the transphobes, and it's titled, Transphobic Violence Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum.
And you're not going to believe this, but they do criticize me in the article as a transphobe.
No, transphobe of the year, it's to be expected.
Mostly boilerplate stuff, calling out transphobes, etc.
Well, this one just takes up a notch because they throw the Sweet Baby Gang into it.
We don't often see that included, but it does seem like they're finally discovering the Sweet Baby Gang cult and they're not happy about it.
This is some of the articles.
Notoriously anti-trans Daily Wire host Matt Walsh speaks frequently to his audience of millions about the horrors of drag and gender ideology, including right after the Club Q massacre.
At Walsh's rally to end child mutilation in Nashville last October, attendees not dressed in Proud Boy or other militia-branded clothing were wearing gear referencing the quote, sweet baby gang, a name some of Walsh's followers used to refer to themselves.
Walsh the demagogue has his constituency clad in his image.
Vilification creates an enemy and a scapegoat.
Now that a constituency is formed, the demagogue may proceed to heighten the rhetoric and disinformation, creating and vilifying an enemy.
Quote, the hated target is first denigrated, writes Burlett, then, uh, who's, I don't know, some author, then vilified, then demonized, and finally dehumanized.
A constituency created through the weaponization of shared rhetoric, like the avid fan base that listens to Matt Walsh every day, is primed to hear that an already targeted group is the cause of their ills.
For Christian nationalists, the targeted scapegoat is often said to harbor or outright be the Antichrist.
Well, yeah, they are the Antichrist.
The point is that if you're in the Sweet Baby Gang, then you are under my control.
You have played right into my hands.
You're being manipulated for my dastardly purposes.
That's what they're claiming.
And every member of the SBG is listening to that and thinking, well yeah, that's the whole idea.
Although I do like the term constituency.
So I'm sort of thinking about Sweet Baby Gang, should it be the Sweet Baby Constituency?
Got kind of a mafia-esque ring to it.
We'll stick with the gang, I think.
I also have this video that I've had for a couple of days.
Maybe you've seen it circulating.
I just think it's pretty extraordinary, and it's a great lesson for all of us.
This is a self-described quote-unquote non-binary TikToker who came out as non-binary to her family and yet has found that her grandmother is not going along with it.
So granny ain't having it, basically.
The TikToker then reads a letter that her grandma wrote to her, which we're supposed to see the letter is like horrible and bigoted, but it's actually one of the best examples of real maternal love that I've heard in quite some time.
So I want to go ahead and play that for you.
Here it is.
Hi, so recently I texted my parents because I'm gonna go home for Christmas and I said, hey Do you mind calling me Mike when I come back for Christmas?
And then when I got home today, I got this letter from my grandma and it is addressed to miss old name Not actually it's but you know, I don't want to say my real name on the internet dearest Dead name.
On this, our blessed mother's feast day, I am writing to tell you that I will not address you as Mike.
My decision is probably not a surprise to you.
Others may comply with your request.
My anguish in your chosen name and what that means has to do with your eternal soul.
Know that I love you more than words could ever possibly convey to you.
No matter how you decide to identify yourself does not change my deep love for you, honey.
Because of my concerns for your soul and your mental health, I am spending more time with Jesus in adoration.
The- my cousins' last names are doing the same for you.
Um, then she lists my 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cousins that are below the age of 10.
Who are apparently, um, offering up special personal sacrifices for me.
Who I didn't tell, um, that I wanted to go by Mike.
I didn't want to.
I haven't talked with your godmother and her family, but I'm sure they would do the same for you.
Do you know how much you are cherished and loved?
It would be a joy to see you and be with you during the coming Christmas.
Um, a celebration of our Lord's birth.
Uh, that is what love sounds like.
That is true maternal and Christian love.
That's exactly what it sounds like from the grandmother.
And this fits right into the theme of the show today, I guess, about being direct to the point and being honest and truthful.
And that's exactly what this grandmother is doing for her granddaughter.
Something that, from the sound of it, seems like most people in her life are not willing to do.
And this young lady is going to be very upset.
Because she wants to engage in something self-destructive and she wants people to cooperate with her delusion.
And right now she is guarding that delusion jealously because she sees it as, she sees it, she wants it to be her identity.
And she sees it as her salvation, you know, whatever she's trying to escape, she sees this as the way to escape it.
And so anyone who doesn't go along with it, she's going to lash out and be very angry and sad about it.
But what we can hope and pray is that I think that there's a good chance of this, that as this young lady grows up, eventually she's going, and this might happen when the grandmother is dead.
This might be years later after the grandmother has gone on to her reward, but there will come a time, I believe and hope, when she will look back and realize that her grandmother was perhaps the only person in her life who really loved her.
And that's what this love does.
It's like this grandmother obviously wants a relationship with her grandchild, obviously loves her, obviously wants to get along with her, wants to see her, and wants everything to be happy and fine.
But she's willing to sacrifice that for the time being for the sake of her grandchild's mental, physical, and spiritual well-being in the long run.
And she's even willing Because this grandmother obviously knows what's going on, is a very intelligent person, and so she knows that there's a possibility that this could sever the relationship for the rest of the grandmother's life.
And so, if the time ever comes when that love really sinks in and the girl has an awakening, the grandmother might not even be around to see it.
But this is the legacy that she's leaving behind.
She is sacrificing something in the moment for the sake of The girl's ultimate betterment and for her salvation.
That's what love is.
That's what it sounds like.
It's no different than if you're on a ship at sea with someone and let's say the grandmother,
maybe the grandmother and the grandchild are on a cruise together and the girl says that
she identifies suddenly as a dolphin and so she's going to jump into the ocean.
She's going to jump into the middle of the sea and swim like a dolphin.
The most loving response, obviously.
No matter how much the girl believes that about herself, no matter how much she wants to be seen as a sea creature, no matter how much she wants to be seen that way, it's not true.
And so if the grandmother goes along with it, all she's doing is condemning this child to drown in the depths of the ocean as she jumps in and drowns.
So, is that love?
To condemn someone to sink into the dark depths of the ocean and die?
Is that what love is?
But that is exactly what many people are doing to kids in the name of so-called love.
Condemning them to sink into the darkness and despair and drown and die.
If you really love someone and you really care, you're going to be willing to tell them the truth.
Alright.
A little bit of a lighter note before we get to the comment section.
Sam Smith is back on TV again, and I'm loathe to play any more clips involving this freaking guy, but I have to play this.
As an angler myself, it just irked me, and so I can't help but play it.
Here it is.
You're a big fan of fishing.
I do love fishing, yes, I do.
What?
Yeah, yeah, I'd love to be a fisherman.
What, like a fly fisherman?
I'd be any type of fisherman.
I think I would like to, one day, I'd just like to end my days fishing.
We can sort that out, isn't it?
Do you like fishing?
I do it on the sea and I do it in the lakes.
I've never done it alone.
That's so cool.
Someone's always taught me.
Fantastic.
Yeah.
Fisher them.
That's the kind of thing, like, if I found out that Sam Smith is an angler, considers himself one, I would say that as, that's a joke that I would come up with to make fun of him.
I'd call, oh yeah, Fisher then.
But he's embraced it.
This is, as these people just continue to get to a point where it's just beyond, there's no way to even satirize or mock them anymore effectively.
Because it's beyond parody and mockery.
So he's not saying it as a joke.
He can't be saying it as a joke because then what would the punchline be?
The punchline would be, you know, the non-binary craze.
And obviously that's not the punchline.
So this is how he actually wants to be referred to.
FisherThem.
And I'm sorry, I don't buy Sam Smith as a fisherman or FisherThem.
I don't buy it at all.
This guy's not going out fishing.
I know he's not.
Maybe he's been out a couple of times, okay?
I've heard this from people before.
Oh, I love fishing!
And then you go out fishing with them, and for them, fishing is just a...
A spin cast reel, throwing it out into the middle of the lake with a bobber on there.
That's the kind of thing that he's doing.
Actual fishing, I'll tell you why I know he's not a fisherman.
It's because what makes fishing enjoyable is that It makes many hobbies enjoyable.
It's one of the fundamental joys of it is that you're not thinking about yourself.
You are focusing and concentrating on something other than yourself.
You know, it's the craft and the skill of fishing.
That's what makes it fun.
That's what makes it enjoyable.
But we know that a narcissist like that could never find joy in that because everything has to come back to him.
Everything has to be about his own self-obsessions.
So anything that takes him out of that is going to be very disturbing.
We already know that.
So I do not accept him in the Angler community.
I'm sorry.
We're a welcoming community for the most part, but we do draw the line somewhere.
We draw it at Fisher Thems.
Let's get to the comment section.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
My god, that sounds horrific.
About five minutes in, I had realized I was watching one of the saddest and most miserable people I'd ever seen.
At six minutes, I had succumbed to Handler poisoning and had to go stand in the sunlight to halt the reaction.
Yeah, well, that's a red flag.
First of all, your girlfriend likes Chelsea Handler.
I mean, that's a conversation.
I'm not saying you should break up with her on the spot because of that.
There are worse reasons to break up with someone, but I'm not necessarily recommending it, but I would have a conversation.
I would really have a serious conversation.
So I would go to her today and say, listen, we need to talk about this Chelsea Handler stuff.
Like, what is it about her that you find?
How could you sit and watch?
Is it bad enough to watch her give an unfunny monologue, but you want to watch her live her daily life?
That's the one thing.
Yeah, as we've reviewed, she's sad and pathetic and trying to convince everyone that she's happy, but it's also just the life that she's living, it's so uninteresting.
It's not an interesting life.
So, at the very least, if you are, you say, you're going to be childless, you're not going to get married, you're not going to do any of that.
Okay, well, go out and do something interesting.
The most interesting thing you can think to do with this quote-unquote freedom that you have, because there's no one in your life that you care about and love, and there's no one who loves and cares about you.
I mean, you call that freedom, I don't, but okay, let's call it freedom for a minute.
The most interesting thing you can think to do with it is to go to tourist spots.
Go explore some unexplored part of the Amazon or something.
Do something like that.
Something really interesting.
That's a reality show that I would watch, actually.
Drop Chelsea Handler off in the Amazon.
I don't think it's a show that would last very long, but for as long as it lasts, I think I might actually watch that.
Dolan says, I completely agree with Matt.
My stepdad is a mountaineer who's done four of the seven summits and many other high mountains, and he still does it, even with work, even with kids, even with gymnastics competitions that my sister has or mountain bike races my brother and I have.
He's still actively there for us and prioritizes that over other things.
But he also plans time to do the things he loves.
Yeah, all of that, it's perfectly possible, it's perfectly plausible.
You don't need to give up.
Again, I mean, if there are things that you like to do that are unhealthy and not good and you shouldn't be doing, then like binge drinking, for example.
That is something that you should give up when you have, I mean, you should give it up before you have kids, but certainly if you have kids you should give it up.
But if there's real, like, wholesome, fruitful hobbies and things that you like to do, there's just no reason why you actually have to give up any of that when you have kids.
You have to put it, you have to be more intentional with your time, you have to plan things out more than you normally would, but that's also not a bad thing.
It's just a matter of, like, reprioritizing.
But there's no reason, especially if there's two of you.
This is one of the many advantages of having children with someone and getting married and staying married, because now there's two of you, and that's also going to, and if you're on the same page, and you're on the same team, and you're looking out for each other, and you both realize, both spouses realize that the other needs breaks sometimes, and needs to be able to get out and do their own thing on occasion.
And so if you have that, then there's no reason why you can't do all of those things.
And that also gives you things that as your kids get older, you can incorporate them into
those things as well.
William says about Chelsea Handler, "Like Norman O'Donnell said, women aren't good comedians."
Yeah, well I think it's, I mean it is a fact that male comedians tend to be funnier.
You know, this is one of those many, one of the many controversial statements that people act as though it's controversial even though everyone knows that it's true and agrees.
Like if you were to make a list of the 20 funniest comedians of all time, everybody's list, everyone's list would be a little bit different, but everyone's list would be dominated by men.
That's the case for anybody.
And if we weren't such a sensitive society, we might be able to have a conversation about
why that's the case, because it is an interesting phenomenon.
You know, Christopher Hitchens back years ago wrote an article about this, about how
women aren't funny, and people were very upset about that.
His argument was kind of, and this is not a surprise coming from Christopher Hitchens, he saw it as kind of an evolutionary adaptation, that men tend to be funnier because they need to be in order to attract a mate, whereas for women it's not like that, because men aren't typically ranking funniness high on the list of qualities that they need in a woman.
Now, a good sense of humor.
Men want that.
They want a good sense of humor.
You certainly don't want to be with, like, a woman who's shrill and has no sense of humor and is getting offended all the time.
You don't want to be, like, a feminist, for example.
But a good sense of humor doesn't necessarily mean that you yourself are funny.
Really, it means that you're going to laugh at our jokes.
That's the first thing we're worried about.
So, I don't know.
There might be something to that.
I think also, female comedians First of all, they tend, not always, but they tend to structure their comedy around being masculine and man-like.
So it's a lot of jokes that basically boil down to, hey, look how vulgar I am.
Listen to how frankly I talk about sex.
This is what men usually do, but I'm doing it.
Isn't that funny?
So it's a lot of that kind of thing, and it gets kind of pathetic.
And then also, I think self-deprecation is an essential ingredient in being funny.
Really funny comedians are extremely self-deprecating.
They're willing to make themselves the butt of the joke.
But in particular, these feminist comedians, they really struggle in that regard.
And so it's just not funny.
You heard in the Chelsea Handler clip yesterday, one of the first, I don't know, jokes that she makes is how she looks in the mirror and admires herself for being such a dynamic woman.
And that's not supposed to be ironic.
It's supposed to be a kind of girl power empowerment thing.
It's supposed to elicit clapping, applause, more than laughter, and it's just, it's not funny.
Like, self-confidence, especially pretend self-confidence, isn't funny.
There's nothing funny about that.
And if you can't laugh at yourself and see yourself as absurd, then you're not gonna be funny.
And I think that's one of the many problems that Chelsea Handler has.
Finally, Captain Everyman says, Dude, please, there is no utter disgrace in playing lift every voice and sing.
You continue the tradition of conservatives being race baiters and undercover totalitarians.
The star-spangled banner is not appropriate for everyone.
It's a song written by a slave owner in 1812 that declared the U.S.
the land of the free while my ancestors were held in bondage as chattel slaves.
So let's get a new anthem we can all embrace.
The words of our national anthem speak to what the U.S.
should not be.
What?
Lift every voice and sing speaks to what the U.S.
should be.
I'm sorry, what part of the National Anthem speaks to what the U.S.
should not be?
Should it not be land of the free, home of the brave?
Now, is your criticism that those words were written when it wasn't true?
Or is your criticism that the words shouldn't be true?
Because your criticism can't be both of those things.
It sounds like it's both and that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, I'm wondering, by the way, this standard that you've applied to the National Anthem Where it was written and it was aspirational, talks about freedom and all these things.
But these aspirational principles were not consistently applied to everyone.
And so you say that means we need to throw out the national anthem.
Do you apply that to every country or is it just our own?
Like, if I go and find other countries in the world that have their own national anthems that were written at a time when there was slavery and segregation, all that kind of stuff, are you going to say that those countries should also throw out their national anthems and get new ones?
Or is it just us?
Because I think probably you would tell us it's just us.
So you're again holding the United States to a standard that you don't hold any other country in the world, and certainly African countries you don't hold to that standard.
And the utter disgrace is in giving racially segregated national anthems.
National anthems are supposed to be about the nation, about unity.
And having a black national anthem is meant to be, it's an attack on that very concept of national unity.
So that's why it's a disgrace, just to be clear.
Well, it seems that almost everywhere you turn, the world wants 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, which will 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.
And he's done it with content like PragerU's five-minute videos and so many other things.
The master's program takes 40 years worth of wisdom and experience from one of the most influential conservative thinkers in America today and distills it all down in a way that is relevant and accessible.
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.
The series also covers the consequences of secularism, which by the way are so dire it needed two episodes to explore.
A brand new episode of PragerU's Master's program is available to stream right now, but only on Daily Wire+.
Head to dailywireplus.com to become a member and watch PragerU's Master's program and more.
That's dailywireplus.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel the website Kovator, which is, according to its About Us section, is a multi-faceted lifestyle brand that brings you insider access to the people shaping today's cultural conversation.
Our goal is to reimagine luxury and take you behind the scenes with those in the know.
We celebrate independent expression in all its varied forms, and we help pave the way for what's new and next.
Well, that all, of course, means nothing.
All you really need to know is that Kovator is yet another leftist rag, and it's another one that has decided to take a crack at answering the question of our time, the great question, the ultimate question.
They've had months to think about it, lots of time to reflect, to organize their thoughts, to plan what they're going to say, and this week they unleashed their answer in an article written by Harley Preston entitled, What is a Woman?
Not to spoil the ending, but you should know that Preston never really promises an answer exactly.
Instead, the subtitle promises, quote, an exploration of how transness can expand our understanding of gender.
So we're not off to a great start, but Preston begins, quote, as trans women like me struggle to be seen and respected as women, the most frustrating conversation to witness has been the one that probes at a trans woman's realness.
There's a question that is so seemingly simple yet insidious at its core as violence towards trans women continues.
What is a woman?
This question brings divisiveness into the fold as people connect semantics with biology.
Linguistics and definitions become a hurdle for someone like me to overcome.
There is a silent threat in those four simple words that aims to dismantle the logic that trans women are, in fact, women.
Well yes, that's exactly the idea.
We are dismantling the logic of transgenderism and we're doing it with one single question.
An introspective person might here begin to wonder whether his logic is fatally flawed if it can be dismantled by a question.
Because just think about that for a moment.
Preston has described a question.
As insidious and threatening, and compared it to physical violence.
A question.
Now, I have never in my life described a question that way.
Any question.
Or thought of any question that way.
In fact, I quite welcome any question that anyone might ask about my ideas or my worldview, because the question only gives me the opportunity to say more about my ideas and my worldview.
Even if the question is asked in bad faith by someone not really interested in the answer, still, by asking it, they have given me the floor to speak.
So, when the trans activist declares that he is threatened by a question, he's really saying that he is threatened by whatever might come out of his mouth in response to the question.
He is threatened by the opportunity to speak.
And he's right.
His worldview is so depraved and indefensible that it can only sound dumber and more depraved the more that he speaks.
And he knows that.
Back to the article.
As it is, common definitions of woman are often associated with an adult human female.
In other words, of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs.
Now, let's face the facts here.
I can't do either of those things.
I lack the ability to bear offspring, to produce eggs, or to menstruate, and some people will use that very definition of woman as a weapon to attack the notion that I am deserving of womanhood.
And to complement that, this logic insinuates that I and women like me are nothing more than men with a mental illness.
To be a woman is much more nuanced and complicated than a mere biological function.
This rhetoric continued on into June, Pride Month no less, as Matt Walsh, a right-wing political commentator, released his problematic documentary, What is a Woman?
In this film, Matt Walsh asked various people, from politicians to medical professionals, what is a woman?
He intended to poke holes into the trans movement with mindless prejudices under the guise of common sense.
It was portrayed that no one was able to give a universal definition of woman.
The common response was that a woman is someone who identifies as a woman.
And while this makes sense to me, Walsh makes a point to show that this violates the rule that you cannot define a word by using the same word or the definition and ultimately puts into question the legitimacy that trans women are women.
Yes, now you're getting it.
That's exactly correct.
You cannot define a word by using the word you're supposed to be defining.
So, is this the part where Preston has his come to Jesus moment?
Do the mental clouds open up, allowing the sun to peek through?
He starts to finally get it.
Not exactly.
He goes on, quote, This question began to feel cruel.
As you can imagine, witnessing these conversations made me viscerally frustrated as I, too, struggled with finding an answer.
My womanhood was being perceived as having no logic or basis because the English language failed to support or encompass my experience as a woman.
It was the obsession of some to debunk my womanly existence with the exclusion of trans women from a definition in the dictionary or because of biological limitations.
As politicians continue to argue my realness as well as assess my threat to society, I grew obsessed with wanting to define woman through a transgender lens and questioned whether that was even possible.
I wondered if I was asked such a question, what would I say?
There was a desire to go toe-to-toe with Walsh's pseudo-logic that trans women need to fit into a singular definition or otherwise we are not women.
As I struggled to form an answer to Walsh's question, I couldn't help but feel like this was a clear indication that the English language sometimes does not appropriately grasp the nuances of gender.
Ah, well, there you go.
It's not his logic that's the problem, it's the English language.
So if he's struggling to use the language to defend and communicate his point, it must be because the language itself is deficient.
This reminds me of the argument that I made to my math teacher in middle school when I failed all my algebra tests, basically.
I tried to explain that if I fail the test, that it must mean that there's something wrong with algebra.
Algebra isn't working right.
Algebra is broken.
Or maybe it's numbers.
You know, numbers are broken.
There's a problem with the numbers.
Can't you see that?
Whatever it is, it certainly can't be that I'm just bad at math.
Just as with Preston, whatever is the source of his inability to articulate his own point of view, the problem simply cannot be his point of view.
That can't be it.
Of that much he is sure.
And though the English language is woefully insufficient in conveying whatever the hell he's trying to convey, he does make the best of the situation at the end of the article, and he finally provides his own answer to the great question.
And remember, he admits he's been thinking about this for a long time, gearing up for this, and this is what he comes up with.
Quote, I am a woman because I know myself to be a woman.
I may not have what some women have, I might not act how other women act, but that cannot and should not dictate my life or my experience with life.
The definition of woman is found within me and within every person who identifies as a woman.
And the meaning that I place upon that word is what I decide it to be.
Suddenly, the word woman, something that was once aspirational but restrictive, now feels limitless because I no longer need to fit into someone else's understanding of gender simply because they lack the language to even begin to comprehend me.
I, and every other single woman, is a walking, changing, growing definition of what it means to be a woman, and no two will ever be the same.
Okay, so this is a good time for what I call the toaster oven test.
And the toaster oven test goes like this.
If I can take the definition of woman that you have just offered, and I can swap out woman with toaster oven, and it makes just as much sense, then your definition is not good.
So let's try it.
I am a toaster oven because I know myself to be a toaster oven.
I may not have what some toaster ovens have.
I might not act how other toaster ovens act.
But that cannot and should not dictate my life or my experience with life.
The definition of toaster oven is often found within me and within every person who identifies as a toaster oven.
And the meaning that I place upon that word is what I decide it to be.
Suddenly, the word toaster oven, something that was once aspirational but restrictive, now feels limitless because I no longer need to fit into someone else's understanding of kitchen appliances simply because they lack the language to even begin to comprehend me.
I, and every single other toaster oven, is a walking, changing, growing definition of what it means to be a toaster oven, and no two will ever be the same.
Well, there you have it.
Either I have proven that I am a toaster oven, or there is something wrong with the way you're defining your terms.
And I feel pretty confident that the latter is the case.
I am a woman because I know myself to be a woman is not a valid definition, nor does the claim make any logical sense.
You can only know yourself to be something if you are that thing.
You are, therefore, trying to prove you are a woman by offering evidence that can only be convincing to us if we accept the very premise that we are challenging.
This is called begging the question.
It's also circular reasoning.
You cannot know that your inner experience is that of a woman unless you are a woman and have access to a woman's inner experience.
This is where we start going around in a circle.
How do you know you're a woman?
Well, because you feel like one.
How do you know that you feel like one?
Well, because you are one.
But how do you know that you are one?
Well, because you feel like one.
Around and around we go, logically, and on the logically incoherent carousel.
And at any rate, you certainly cannot know that you are something if you can't define it.
How can you possibly come to the conclusion that you are something if you don't know what that thing is?
I'm a woman.
What's that?
I have no idea.
You see the problem here?
Apparently not.
And that itself is the problem.
That's also why this writer and this magazine are all today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
Let's move over to the Members Block.
If you're not a member yet, become a member and use code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
