Ep. 1126 - Cry All You Want, Trans Activists. You Started This Fight.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, trans activists have been panicking this week about an imaginary genocide against them. There is no genocide, of course, but we are waging war against their poisonous ideology. And no matter how much they kick and scream, what they have to remember is that they started this fight. Also, Tucker Carlson releases the footage from January 6th that the media and DC don't want us to see. Some of it is truly shocking. And Walmart will be closing all of its stores in Portland after retail theft drives them out of the city. Plus, Pete Buttigieg claims that you're not a real working class man unless you're a fan of TJ Maxx. In our Daily Cancellation, a self-proclaimed fat sex therapist says that we need to build a sex positive culture that is welcoming to men with rape fetishes.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Policy Genius - Compare Life Insurance quotes in minutes at
www.PolicyGenius.com.
PragerU - Have your tax-deductible donation DOUBLED today!
Visit http://www.PragerU.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, trans activists have been panicking this week about an imaginary genocide against them.
There is no genocide, of course, but we are waging war against their poisonous ideology.
And no matter how much they kick and scream, what they have to remember is that they started this fight.
Also, Tucker Carlson releases the footage from January 6th that the media in D.C.
don't want us to see.
Some of it is truly shocking.
We'll play some of it for you today.
And Walmart will be closing all of its stores in Portland after retail theft drives the entire branch and the entire corporation out of the city.
Plus, Pete Buttigieg claims that you're not a real working class man unless you're a fan of TJ Maxx.
In our daily cancellation, a self-proclaimed fat sex therapist says that we need to build a sex-positive culture that is welcoming to men with rape fetishes.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walt Show.
Here's the deal.
You know, the Feds, they keep raising rates because it's the only tool they have to keep inflation under control.
It's not working.
You can't spend your way out of inflation.
You've seen the impact on the stock market.
You've seen the impact on your savings as well.
Hedge inflation by owning gold, birch gold.
Buy gold and get a free safe to store it in as well.
That's right.
On qualifying purchases from birch gold, now through March 31st, they'll ship a free safe directly to your door.
You're not getting a better deal than that anywhere.
Whether you have physical gold and silver in your safe or you have it through an IRA in precious metals where you can hold real gold and silver in a tax shelter retirement account, Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
All you got to do is text Walsh to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold and to
claim your free safe as well.
With your retirement at stake, you want to be confident in the financial service companies
that you work with, including who you choose for purchasing physical precious metals.
Text Walsh to 989898 and protect your savings with gold today.
I take comfort in the fact that if on any given day I am not personally being accused
of launching a genocidal campaign against marginalized people, then someone else at
the daily wire certainly is.
So on Saturday it was, of course, Michael Knowles, who stepped up to the plate delivering a speech at CPAC that landed him in hot water with the media.
But as far as the media is concerned, of course, he didn't give a speech at all.
He only uttered one single phrase and all the rest of the context, everything else he said, was irrelevant noise.
As they breathlessly and hysterically reported, Knowles called for the eradication of Transgenderism.
Actually, that's not what they reported.
They reported that he called for the eradication of transgender people.
According to the headlines in various outlets and the panicked social media posts of countless trans activists and other leftists, he had explicitly advocated for the mass execution of the transgender community itself.
It was a mask-off moment, they declared.
The right was finally revealing its true intentions.
They're setting up camps as we speak.
The extermination is about to begin.
And they got all of that from this statement.
There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism.
It is all or nothing.
If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages.
If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody too.
And if it's false, then we should not indulge it.
Especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people.
If it is false, then for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
The whole preposterous ideology at every level.
Ah, so they lied.
It's no surprise that they lied.
The media quite often lies, and as I've warned you many times, trans activists in particular lie about literally everything all the time.
They lie to themselves, and about themselves, and about everything else.
So they will certainly lie and say that Michael Knowles pushed for a holocaust of trans people, when in fact he called for the defeat of an ideology, an idea.
If he was saying that he wanted to work for the eradication of malaria, that would not mean that he was murdering people with malaria.
In fact, the only reason that you would want to eradicate malaria is because you feel compassion towards the people with malaria.
If you didn't care about those people, then you say, well, let's let them die of malaria.
In the same way, a person who truly loves those who've fallen into transgenderism should want to eradicate the ism for their sake, and for the sake of society at large.
But is a term like eradicate over the top?
Does it have a needlessly militant tone?
No, definitely not.
The tone may be militant, but not needlessly so.
We are, after all, in a war, and lives are at stake.
We are in a war against the most deranged ideology ever invented by the human race.
Plain and simple.
We are fighting to eradicate the ideological equivalent of a parasitic infestation.
And the parasite, gender ideology, seeks to not only brainwash a generation of children, not only degrade and appropriate womanhood, but also, and manhood by the way, but also, and most fundamentally, it seeks to eat away at truth itself.
Or, if it cannot devour the truth, then at least it will destroy our ability to recognize the truth for what it is.
Eradication of gender ideology, total defeat, is the only option because there's no compromise with it.
There's no living side by side with it.
There's no finding common ground.
The gender ideologue wants to destroy your culture and your children.
You will either rise up against it or lose everything to it.
I mean, how do you compromise with someone who wants to sterilize and castrate children?
Do you agree to only sexually mutilate half of the kids?
Is that the compromise?
How do you compromise with someone who wants to rewrite biology textbooks to teach students that men can get pregnant?
What is the compromise position between men can get pregnant and men cannot get pregnant?
When it comes to what we're going to tell people, what we are going to teach kids in school, what idea is going to be promoted by society, between those two options, what's the middle ground?
There isn't one.
That's why this is a zero-sum contest.
Either we destroy gender ideology, eradicate it from public life, utterly defeat it, burn it to the ground and dance around its ashes, or it does the same to us and to our children.
That's the point.
But there's another point, too, and this is something that I want to say specifically to the trans activists.
Who are now crying and panicking and hysterically ranting about imaginary genocides.
I say they're doing that now.
They just start doing it now.
They've been doing it all along.
This is all they ever do.
But I want you, if you're in that group, I want you to listen to this part very closely.
Please always remember this.
You started it.
You started it.
So, I see you on social media and on the news and out marching the street, crying your crocodile tears and claiming that you're being set upon by fascist right-wingers who won't let you just live your lives in peace.
What do we ever do to you?
You cry.
Why are you so angry at us?
Well, let me answer that question.
You see, the rest of us were living our lives.
We were minding our own business.
When you came along and demanded that we abandon everything we know about fundamental physical reality for your sake.
That's what you did.
You claimed the right to walk into whatever bathroom you want, whatever locker room, whatever sports team.
Nobody else has ever had that right.
Nobody else has ever had that right to just do whatever they want, go anywhere they want.
But you wanted it.
You came after our children, seeking to suck them into your suicide cult just to make yourselves feel better.
You tried to restructure human society to make it affirming to you personally.
You wanted to force the whole world to bend to your narcissism.
You tried to put words in our mouths.
You tried to control how we speak even when you're not in the room.
Your ego is so out of control that you even tried to take possession of parts of the English language like you can own them as a pet.
You waved that hideous, ridiculous flag in our face and wouldn't stop waving it.
You demanded not just tolerance, but celebration.
You did all of that.
That was you.
And now you cry victim because some of us have simply answered no?
You made demands.
Many people surrendered to those demands immediately, but some of us, a few of us, are refusing.
And that makes you what?
A victim?
You bullied most people into submission right away, but now you want to compare yourselves to Jews in the Holocaust because a few of us can't be controlled so easily?
Well, that is just a testament to your boundless narcissism.
It didn't have to be this way.
If you were really interested in privacy, if you really simply wanted the ability to live your life as you wished, then you could have had that.
You could have had that.
If you had just said, well, I'm going to live as though I'm the opposite sex, and I'm going to tell everyone that I'm the opposite sex, and I'm going to change my name and how I dress, and I'm going to do all of this because it's what I want to do, and it's how I want to live.
Well, if you just said that, you could have done that.
I personally still would not have agreed with your lifestyle, and I personally would not have gone along with the charade, and I would not have affirmed the lie.
I would not have.
But society, generally, would have left you alone, as you claim you want.
And I know that, because that was already the experience of the very small minority of trans-identified people in this country up until the last decade or so.
Prior to this past decade, this tiny group of people basically lived the lifestyle they wanted to live, and there wasn't much attempt to stop them from doing so.
We didn't really talk about it.
It wasn't discussed.
It was very much on the fringes.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
In your vanity, you couldn't be satisfied merely with the ability to live how you want.
You demanded the celebration.
You needed not just the ability to practice your lifestyle, but you needed a parade following behind you and cheering you on the whole time.
And you needed affirmation.
My God, your obsessive, unquenchable need for affirmation.
Have you noticed that nobody else walks around every day demanding that the entire world affirm them every second?
No one ever did that.
No one has lived their life that way.
Walking around looking for affirmation.
None of the rest of us even think about that.
The idea that you're going to walk out your door and you need to be affirmed by people?
Affirmed?
How is that anyone's job to affirm you?
You decided to do that.
You couldn't just believe whatever you believed about yourself.
Nobody can stop you from having a belief about yourself.
You wanted the rest of us to believe it, too.
You wanted to force us to believe it.
You wanted society to be restructured around your self-perceptions, and you wanted our children.
You wanted to induct countless children into your confusion, baptize them into it, so that the confusion you foster in them might affirm the confusion you harbor in your own minds.
You pretended that you wanted freedom, but you had that.
You wanted more.
There were no laws.
There were no laws saying that if you're a man and you want to put on a dress and walk around, no one was going to put you in jail for that.
No, you had the freedom.
But you wanted a lot more than that.
You wanted to reshape our entire culture in your image.
You didn't just want your own lifestyle.
You wanted us to participate in it with you.
That's what this comes down to.
You are demanding our participation, and what we are saying to you, some of us, is no.
Can you get that through your heads?
We are allowed to say no.
We are not going to participate.
You are the mouse who wanted a cookie, and you were given the cookie, and you ate it, but then you wanted to eat everything else in the house too.
Some people object, finally object, and you break down in tears like a child who has to leave the playground.
You push too far, way too far.
And now this is the pushback.
In summary, you wanted this fight.
You asked for it.
You demanded it.
And now you have it.
Now you have it.
Whether you like it or not.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, we all hope that we'll never need life insurance, but mortgage payments, childcare,
other expenses, they don't disappear when you're gone.
If you have a family like I do, then you already have plenty of things to worry about, just like I do.
In a worst-case scenario, you wouldn't want them to have to worry about money.
You want to give them peace of mind and also security if anything ever happens to you.
A good life insurance plan can give you peace of mind that if something happens to you, your family will have a safety net so that they can get back on their feet and focus on what's most important.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find your lowest price.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $39 per month for $2,000,000 of coverage.
That's just $39 for $2,000,000 of coverage.
Some options offer coverage in as little as a week, and they avoid unnecessary medical exams as well.
Your loved ones deserve a financial safety net.
You deserve a smarter way to find and buy it.
And so you all need PolicyGenius.
Head to PolicyGenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's PolicyGenius.com today.
All right.
So very happy to be here, by the way, to be alive, actually.
On Friday, I'd have to tell you, I had one of those airplane experiences where people clap when the plane lands.
And that's I don't think I think that's the first time I've had that.
And That's how you know it was bad.
Because they're applauding that we're not all dead in a fiery inferno.
That's what they're actually applauding, which is kind of dark when you think about it.
We were flying into Nashville in the middle of a big windstorm and 60 mile per hour winds and power lines are being knocked down all over the place.
We lost power in my house for a day.
It almost killed the fish in my fish tank because we lost the air pump and filter.
That was my main concern.
I was very concerned about that.
That's a different story.
tell you different time. Anyway, you know, big wind gusts and we were going to land and then the pilot
says, "Well, we can't land. We got to circle around because it's not safe right now." And then he comes
on and about 20 minutes later and says, and these are his words, he says, "Okay, folks, we're going
to try to land. Try. Try to land." And so I'm thinking, "You're going to try? What do you mean?"
This is not, no, this is not a try situation.
I don't want to hear try, okay?
It's not the effort that counts when it comes to landing the plane.
I want to hear, oh, okay folks, we're going to land the plane now.
Instead it's, well, we're going to give it a shot.
We're going to give it our best shot.
And we did get it on the ground and the plane was shaking all over the place and there was someone behind us throwing up and everything.
It was terrible.
And then we land, people applaud, and we pull up to the gate and the pilot walks out of the cockpit and he looks frazzled.
Like this is not how a pilot is supposed to look after a flight.
And he actually says, and I'm quoting him directly, as he's going into the bathroom, he goes, that was dicey.
Dicey?
It was dicey.
At least he didn't say that over the intercom.
Okay folks, it's gonna get a little dicey, but we're gonna try it.
Alright.
We'll start with this.
Daily Wire reports Fox News host Tucker Carlson released new surveillance footage from the January 6th riot that appears to show two Capitol Police officers escorting Jacob Chansley, known as the QAnon Shaman, throughout the building.
Carlson released the footage after being given exclusive access by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to 40,000 hours of video from that day.
Virtually every moment of his time inside the Capitol was caught on tape.
Carlson said during the segment, the tape show, the Capitol Police never stopped Jacob Chansley.
They helped him.
They acted as tour guides.
Actually, we have this video, this clip, so we'll play that for you.
And this again is, this is the QAnon shaman, the guy with the buffalo helmet.
And what you have to keep in mind as you watch this video is that he got, I think it was three and a half years in prison.
He got over three years in prison for what you're about to see in this clip.
But let's take a look.
Jacob Chansley became the face of January 6th, a dangerous conspiracy theorist dressed in outlandish costume who led the violent insurrection to overthrow American democracy.
For these crimes, Chansley was sentenced to nearly four years in prison, far more time than many violent criminals now receive.
What did Jacob Chansley do to receive this punishment?
To this day, there is dispute over how Chansley got into the Capitol building.
But according to our review of the internal surveillance video, it is very clear what happened once he got inside.
Virtually every moment of his time inside the Capitol was caught on tape.
The tapes show that Capitol Police never stopped Jacob Chansley.
They helped him.
They acted as his tour guides.
Here's video of Chansley in the Senate chamber.
Capitol Police officers take him to multiple entrances and even try to open locked doors for him.
We counted at least nine officers who are within touching distance of unarmed Jacob Chansley.
Not one of them even tried to slow him down.
Chansley understood that Capitol Police were his allies.
Video shows him giving thanks for them in a prayer on the floor of the Senate.
Watch.
Thank you, Heavenly Father, for paying the inspiration needed to these police officers
to allow us into this building.
Okay, so when you look at the footage, and if you're listening to the audio podcast and
you haven't seen the footage, you have to go and find it online and you can see it,
because the descriptions don't even do it justice.
I mean, it looks like, if you had no context at all, I'm not sure what you would think if you had no context and you saw a shirtless man in a Buffalo helmet being escorted through the Capitol building by not just one officer, but a whole squad of them.
I don't know what, without any context, what in the world you would think was happening.
But I guess I would imagine that it was a very weird private tour that he was being given of the Capitol, and that's basically what it was.
They gave this guy a tour of the Capitol, and they let him in, and they let him walk around, and then they turned around and said, oh, by the way, that thing that we let you do, and we didn't just let you do it, we facilitated it.
Yeah, we're going to put you in jail for three and a half years for that.
This is entrapment.
This is cruel and unusual punishment for one thing.
It's not as though, okay, it'd be one thing if there was footage of Chansley running in there violently, maybe he's got a weapon and he's, you know, shooting and everything, and the police officers back down to protect their own safety, and then because of that he's able to go ahead and do what he wants to do.
Well, in that case, yeah, you arrest him, you throw the book at him.
But that's not what happened.
There was no struggle here.
They could have easily stopped him from doing it.
In the footage you see there, it's like 10 against 1.
And he doesn't show any propensity for violence at all.
And so they let him walk around.
Now, should he have known?
That this is a very strange thing, I shouldn't be here, the fact that they're letting me do this is really weird, I need to get out of here.
Should he have known that?
Yeah.
Like, obviously on his part, this was very stupid.
And that's been the case all along with January 6th.
I mean, the whole thing, on the part of the people going into the Capitol, you're walking right directly into a trap.
And you're all over security cameras, and it was inevitable from the beginning that they're going to come after you and try to destroy your life.
So it's a very stupid thing to do.
Does that make it the darkest day in the history of our democracy?
No.
Does that make it an insurrection?
No.
Does that mean that our democracy was hanging in the balance?
No, not even close.
That right there.
All of the rhetoric that you hear about how it's almost the end of our democracy, they were trying to overthrow our government.
You look at that video and tell me that's what an overthrow of the government looks like?
It looks like a guy just casually sauntering through the Capitol building, accompanied by, you know, a whole squadron of armed police officers that have no problem with him being there.
They showed him where everything is!
I can't even... One thing we don't have is, what was the conversation like between... What were they saying?
They were obviously talking.
And it didn't appear that they were saying anything like, get the hell out of here, you're not supposed to be here.
We're just strolling around, having a conversation.
So this was, what was Jacob Chansley and many of these other January Sixers, what are they guilty of?
Well, trespassing.
That's what, the big insurrection was in fact a, it was a, it was an episode of trespassing.
That's what it was.
And it should have been treated with the same severity that they treated all of the many trespassers during the BLM riots.
Which, of course, was with no severity whatsoever.
Well, I should amend that, actually, because the BLM riots, the people trespassing there, that was a lot worse.
You know what the BLM rioters did?
And I know we hear this comparison all the time, but it's an important point that we shouldn't lose sight of.
The BLM rioters, they, for example, broke into a police station in the middle of Minneapolis and burned it to the ground.
Okay?
They ran, they went in there, here's the difference.
They went into the police station, the police officers fled for fear of their lives, and then it was, the building was torched and burned to the ground.
Compare that to this, where they're walking them through the building.
The police officers are walking them through, giving them a tour.
But we throw the book at the guy.
Three and a half years for the guy that was given what turns out to be an unsanctioned, illegal tour.
Well, what about those police officers?
Is there going to be any consequence for them?
Apparently not.
Going back, there's a little bit more from the Daily Wire report.
Carlson has access to 40,000 hours of footage, so there's a lot more that we're going to find out.
He also released footage of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick that he claims was taken after he was supposedly murdered by the mob outside.
The New York Times initially claimed in a report that Sicknick was killed when he was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher by rioters.
The newspaper later retracted the report after an autopsy found that he died from a stroke the following day.
So there's also footage that you can see where Sicknick is, this is after He was allegedly assaulted and killed is what we were originally told by media reports.
While he's walking around, appears to be perfectly fine, perfectly good health.
And then he dies a day later.
And there was never any evidence from the autopsy that his death was in any way caused by any riot or assaulting.
He suffered blunt force trauma to his head, and then he went to the hospital and died a day later.
If that happened, then clearly he was killed.
But that's not what happened.
He died of a stroke.
He died of natural causes the next day.
Any attempt to link it to January 6th is tenuous and speculative at best, which is why no one's ever been arrested for murdering Brian Sickney, because nobody did.
If they were able to tie his death directly to somebody, then they would do it.
One thing we know is they're not looking to go easy on these people, to put it mildly.
But they can't.
So, the footage, a lot more footage I think still to come, but it tells an important story, a very different story from what we're told by the media, as always.
Yahoo!
reports, Walmart announced its plan to close its final two locations in Portland, Oregon at the end of March following underwhelming financial results.
Quote, we have nearly 5,000 stores across the U.S.
and unfortunately, some do not meet our financial expectations.
While our underlying business is strong, these specific stores haven't performed as well as we hoped.
The closures, which will result in nearly 600 employees being laid off, come after a statement by Walmart CEO Doug McMillan in December 2022, noting that record-breaking retail theft had undercut the company's economic performance of late.
McMillan told CNBC, theft is an issue.
It's higher than it has historically been.
Prices will be higher and or stores will close because of the theft.
And now, just as predicted by the CEO of Walmart, they are in fact closing all of the stores in Portland.
Now, think about how much of a hellhole of a city you have to be if you can't even keep your Walmarts open.
This is quite a statement.
I knew Portland was bad.
I don't think I've ever been there.
I have no interest in going.
This is even worse than I thought.
You can't even keep your Walmart open?
Any of them?
You're Walmart.
Okay, the Walmart in your town.
Should stay open no matter what happens.
Like flooding, storm, hurricane, tornadoes.
Walmart stays open.
There could be an asteroid strike and Walmart will stay open.
There could be a nuclear holocaust and the only two things left alive are cockroaches and the Walmarts they live in.
And that's usually the way it goes.
Like nothing can bring down a Walmart.
The Walmart will be there forever.
And yet Portland finds a way to kill them.
All of them.
In the whole city.
This is really a perfect story in many ways because I think it shows a few things.
And first, first is that this is social justice on the left.
You know, the term woke, the woke mob or woke people seems to have supplanted SJW, social justice warrior.
But I kind of preferred social justice warrior because it shows and emphasizes, illustrates how to them,
this is what they considered, this is their, when they talk about justice, this is what they mean.
So social justice, justice to them is letting, for example, random crooks and thieves and social parasites steal.
That's social justice.
We've heard everyone at the highest levels.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez infamously has justified mass looting by saying, oh, they're just looking for bread because they're hungry.
Even though, as always, like the one thing, anytime there's mass looting or mass shoplifting, the one aisle they don't hit is the bread aisle.
We've seen so many videos in recent years, especially recent months, of people walking into these kinds of stores with grocery bags and just throwing things into them and walking right out, strolling right out.
But they're never in the bread aisle.
Have you noticed that?
They're never throwing potato bread and whole wheat into the bag.
Maybe grabbing some peanut butter and jelly on the way.
They don't do that.
What they're always taking is consumer goods, electronics, alcohol, makeup, things like that.
That's what they're always taking.
But that's social justice.
Let them do what they want.
Let them steal.
And the cost is that it destroys the local economy, it puts thousands of people out of work, and it plunges your community further into poverty.
That's the cost of this justice.
That's how the scales, justice is all about, that's why we, it's, you know, the personification of justice with the scales, you know, justice is all about.
So it's always about weighing two things, one thing against another.
It is always a process of weighing.
And in this case, what they're saying is that the desire of random hoodlums to steal outweighs the needs of the community to have a job,
to have a place where they can buy goods that they need for their family,
to have economic prosperity.
So the need of the hoodlums to just steal whatever they want,
that outweighs, that is a greater concern, they're saying.
And it also shows too that as much as they wanna hide behind,
whether it's shoplifting or the looting or what happens during BLM riots,
they always wanna pretend that, well, this is happening to corporations
and they have insurance.
And so, yeah, they're burning down or cleaning out a CVS or Walgreens or Walmart.
But these are big corporations.
They're run by the wealthy fat cats who fly private jets around.
And so who cares about them?
And it's true that I don't sit around every day worrying about the financial solvency of the CEO of Walmart.
I don't wake up in the morning wondering how Doug McMillan of Walmart's doing, but the problem is that You're not just going after the corporation.
The corporation is not the victim of mass shoplifting.
It's all the people who have jobs there and now they don't anymore because you robbed the place so much that it can't stay open anymore.
Those are the victims.
And also, yes, there's a reason why Walmarts thrive.
It's because they're very convenient, they have everything that you need, and they're just cheaper than anything else in town.
And that's the reality.
And so if you're a low-income American, then that's why Walmart is very important to you.
Because you can get what you need, get it all in one place, and you can get it for a much more affordable price than anywhere else.
And so you're also victimizing those people who don't have that option anymore.
What do you think?
Do you think, after this story was posted by Yahoo, and I saw people reacting to it, one thing that I heard a lot is that, well, it's okay, so we get rid of Walmart, and mom and pop stores will go in their place.
So this is good, this is a good thing.
Now we're getting back to the mom and pop stores.
It'll be just like the old days.
That's not gonna, if Walmart cannot Absorb the losses of all the stealing and theft and the way that the community treats it.
You think a mom-and-pop store can?
You think mom-and-pop stores are gonna say, well, Walmart couldn't survive here, so let me set up shop.
No, the shoplifters will take out a mom-and-pop store in like 30 minutes.
It took a few years to take Walmart out.
They'll do it to a mom-and-pop store in less than a day.
Oh, that's right.
No, because the shoplifters, these are ethical shoplifters, and they would never target a small business.
They were only going, right, yeah, this is a Robin Hood situation, sure.
No, these people don't care about anything.
They care about nothing and nobody but themselves.
And any small businesses that try to fill the void, they'll be taken out too.
In a heartbeat.
Jill Biden, PhD, was asked about whether her husband would undergo any cognitive tests before running for office again, and here's how she responded.
Nikki Haley, one of the Republican candidates, is calling for mental competency tests for those politicians over the age of 75.
What do you think about that?
It's ridiculous.
Would your husband ever take one of those?
I mean, we haven't even discussed, we would never even discuss something like that.
Isn't that ridiculous?
Yeah, it's ridiculous that anybody would want to know whether the President of the United States is cognitively there.
We want to know whether he has a mind at all.
We want to know whether he's a vegetable.
We know he's a vegetable.
To what extent is he even aware of his surroundings?
And if you want to know that, it's actually ridiculous.
It's a ridiculous thing to want to know.
She was also asked, I think we have this clip, but she was asked more sort of generally about his age and, you know, how the voters should interpret that and whether they should be concerned about the fact that he's so old.
And here's what she said about that.
Now, your husband is 80 years old.
If he wins a second term, he would be 82 at inauguration.
What do you say to those people who say maybe he's too old to be president?
Are those fair questions and conversations to be having?
I say, look at what he's done.
You know, look at what he's doing, look at how physically he's got the good bill of health from the doctors to his physicals.
But how many 30-year-olds could travel to Poland, get on the train, go nine more hours, go to Ukraine, meet with President Zelensky, His energy level, his level of passion.
So, look at the man.
Look what he's doing.
We are.
That's the problem, Jill, PhD.
We are looking at the man and what he's doing and what he's not able to do, such as speak in full sentences anymore.
We're looking at all of that, and that's what we're concerned about.
It's so sad that she's doing her best to prove that he's still spry and energetic and with it, and so the best she could do is say, what 30-year-old could fly to Poland and get on a train?
How patronizing that is.
Look, he got on a train all by himself!
He rode the choo-choo all by himself!
What 30-year-old could do that?
I don't know, any?
Any 30-year-old could do that?
Who could go to Ukraine and meet with President Zelensky?
I don't know, like, half of the country apparently has been to Ukraine and met with Zelensky?
Every left-wing celebrity and Democrat?
They just said Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary, was touring Ukraine and talking to the president.
Everyone goes.
Why is Janet Yellen?
Well, we know why she's there.
In fact, it makes a lot of sense for her to be there because they have so much of our money that now, she's like the financial advisor now to Zelensky.
But everyone goes to Ukraine, and so who could do that?
Anybody.
This is the best she could do.
It's not like she's caught off guard by the question.
We get these questions all the time.
So the best she could do to prove that she came in prepared, like, I'm gonna prove that my husband, he needs another four years and he can work till he's 86 and it won't be a problem.
And the best she could do is, but look at him, he got on a train.
He can walk down steps without falling sometimes.
His fall rate on steps is only 17%.
All right, finally from CNN, there is just one line in this report that I enjoyed.
This says, Pete Buttigieg admits he got it wrong on the Ohio train derailment response.
But while the criticism is fair, he says the critics are mostly not.
It's really rich to see some of these folks, the former president, these Foxos, who are literally lifelong card-carrying members of the East Coast elite, whose top economic policy priority has always been tax cut for the wealthy, and who wouldn't know their way around a TJ Maxx if their life depended on it, to be presenting themselves as if they genuinely care about the forgotten middle of the country.
The Treasury Secretary said, you think Tucker Carlson knows the difference between a TJ Maxx and a Kohl's?
So, that's how you determine whether someone is in touch with the common man?
If they can tell the difference between a TJ Maxx and a Kohl's?
Well then I guess, I guess no man is in touch with the common man because none of us get to, there is no difference.
This is a trick question.
TJ Maxx, Kohl's, Marshalls, they're all exactly the same and they're always in the same shopping centers together and nobody knows the difference.
Like you go to these places and I used to live where there was a TJ Maxx and a Kohl's right there and it was always bewildering whenever my wife forced me to go into these places and already if I'm going into a retail outlet with her, My sense of time and place has already been warped, and I don't know exactly what's going on, but I could never tell which store I was in at any given moment.
They're exactly the same.
They both have clearance racks full of quadruple XL jean shorts.
They both have random items strewn all over the place.
They both have these big bins of, like, socks that look like they've already been worn somehow, and they're there.
And they both fill me with the same feeling of despair when I'm in any of these places.
And this is the illustration that Buttigieg comes up with?
I must say, it is the gayest litmus test I've ever heard.
You couldn't come up with a gayer one.
And it's unfair because it's not really testing whether Tucker Carlson is middle class or not, which we know he's not, but it's testing whether he is straight or not, which apparently he is if he can't tell the difference between the two.
No straight man of any income bracket can speak with authority about the fine distinctions between TJ Maxx and Kohl's.
We enter those places with our wives.
We walk around bored and depressed and despondent.
Our wives hold up these, you know, off-brand button downs and say, this would look nice on you.
And we say, yeah, sure.
Can we go?
I'm hungry.
There's the Chili's right down the street.
It's already lunchtime.
It's going to be busy.
Can we go there?
That's the kind of relationship that straight men have with places like that.
But Pete Buttigieg cannot relate to our lived experience.
That's his problem.
I'm just wondering, what is he gonna come up with next?
You know, it'll be like, these elitist white men, you know, they don't understand normal Americans.
Have these men ever even had a pedicure?
They don't know what it's like.
I rest my case.
Pete Buttigieg.
A once-in-a-generation political talent, though, is what we're told.
You know, he's gonna really play.
This guy's gonna really play in the Rust Belt, they tell us.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
Do you know that name?
Many Americans have lost faith in the government, media, schools.
The good news is that there's something you can do to help get the country back on track.
PragerU is an educational nonprofit that's fighting to save the future of America.
And we've been working with PragerU for a long time.
Great work.
And I've been a consumer of their content and a student of theirs for many years.
And I'm not the only one.
Their content is watched 5 million times a day.
PragerU video spread messages of liberty, economic freedom, and Judeo-Christian values to the next generation.
There truly is hope for America, but only if we reach more young people, and PragerU needs your help to do that.
So go to PragerU.com and make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give right now will be matched, and it will have twice the impact.
So you can donate $10, it doubles to $20.
You give $50, it becomes $100.
This is the kind of math problem I can do.
I can't do much more than that.
You get the idea.
Go to PragerU.com to make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give will be doubled, so go there now.
Mal says, the counter to the bystander effect is the first penguin effect.
Penguins will stand on the cliff staring at the water till one dives in.
When they all start going at that point, the more people see people willing to take action, the more action will be taken.
I don't think that's the counter to the bystander effect so much as it's like the inverse of the bystander effect, but it's the same psychological principle at play.
That people, and you're right though, that if you want to look at that as the, I'm not going to call it the positive side of it, but Yeah, if people look around and they see that no one's doing anything about something, then they're less likely to do it.
But if someone stands up and says, okay, I'll do it, then more people will join in.
Which yes, that does encourage us to be, you know, be the, I don't know if I like this slogan exactly, but penguins are not, they don't have quite the tough militant sort of reputation that I want for this.
But if you want the slogan to be, be the first penguin, then I could see that, that someone has to stand up and be the first and then other people will follow.
The other thing too, this is another way of saying, call it the bystander effect.
I think we might be better off calling it the follower effect.
And most people are inclined to be followers.
Not everybody.
It's relatively rare.
Someone with real leadership traits, who is eager and willing to stand up and be the first to do someone, to be the first in line, to be out on the front lines of any given fight.
To go out on a limb, to say, you know, I don't know if people are going to follow me down this path, but I'm going to go.
And if you follow me, then great.
Not very many people typically are willing to do that.
Most people are, you know, they fall into this follower sort of pattern.
Jake says, if we're affirming everybody my two-year-old keeps asking to have my beer.
I asked if he's old enough and he said yes.
Confused on how to handle this.
He also wants to drive.
Help.
Yeah, this is why I always make the point with all these, whether it's driving, or alcohol, or tobacco, or tattoos, or purchasing firearms, like all these things, almost everyone agrees that there should be certainly an age limit, and most people agree that the age limit should be 18, should be adult, or if not higher than that.
The alcohol example in particular is, I think, especially devastating to the, you know, the people that trans kids, the gender ideologue proponents, the alcohol example is especially devastating because we don't need, it's, it's at least, and this might be different in other, in other parts of the world and other countries like in Europe, but here, even when you become an adult, you still have to wait three more years before we as society are willing to, uh, Give you legal access to a beer with 5% alcohol.
Now, obviously, a great many young people access that alcohol anyway, even though they're not legally able to, but that's what the law says.
So even when you become a legal adult, you are still three years away from us trusting you to legally purchase a Miller Lite.
And yet we have the radical, life-altering, body-altering, body-destroying surgeries that we do to kids much younger than 18.
Let's see, what else do we got here?
Becky says, keep saying it, Matt.
White men have done amazing things throughout history.
Well, they have.
We went over some of that last week on the show.
One thing I wanted to say about that is The response is always that, well, white men have always been celebrated and who hasn't heard about all these people and pioneers and inventors and founding fathers and all the rest of them and they were white men and we've all heard about them and they've been celebrated.
And so that's why we don't need a celebration of white men in particular.
We don't need a white history month or a male history month.
That's the response.
But the answer to that is, first of all, These days, yeah, we hear about these various founders and pioneers and everything, but we hear about how problematic they were and how, well, you think that these were great men, but actually, here's the truth, and they were all scumbags.
That's what we hear.
And we see that their statues are being torn down and all the rest of it.
So it's not even true that they're celebrated.
They aren't anymore.
But also, if they are celebrated, it's never, you know, no one ever says, Look at this great thing that the white male Benjamin Franklin did.
The white male Thomas Edison did.
So the fact that they're white male, that is not pointed out.
Whereas, with anyone else in any other group, they're going to be celebrated not just for their individual achievements, but it's also going to be pointed out that, hey, look at what this black American did.
Look at what this woman did.
So the identity group is Identify it and point it out.
And then the celebration is not just of the individual, but the entire group.
And yet, with this one particular group, you're not allowed to do that.
And that's what doesn't make any sense.
And then finally, The Rich Meister says, Matt, the only time you should be concerned about a young pilot is if his name is Sum Ting Wong, or We Too Low, Holy Fook, or Bang Ding Au.
That is so stupid and I shouldn't be laughing at that because it is so dumb but also funny.
And you're right.
That's why I said I may have some ageism when it comes to pilots.
I may have some sexism but it's not a race or ethnicity thing so I would be perfectly happy with an Asian pilot as you point out as well.
As long as they're men between the ages of 40 and 65, that's all.
Back in 2021, during a five-hour hearing before Congress, Mark Zuckerberg admitted that he didn't let his own kids use Facebook.
That should have been enough to make you think twice about letting your kids use any social media, but especially TikTok.
Well, there's a new book out published by DW Books written by Bethany Mandel.
When I read this passage, I wanted to basically delete every social media app I have and throw my phone away.
compelling fashion. It's called "Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating
a Generation." When I read this passage, I wanted to basically delete every social media app I have
and throw my phone away. Listen to this. This is what they write. "TikTok was the center of a 2021
Wall Street Journal investigation which uncovered how the app targets users with content revolving
around sex, drugs, eating disorders, and more, calling it an addiction machine."
Investigators created 31 accounts, registered to young teens, and turned them loose to browse TikTok's 4U feed.
Which is the highly personalized, never-ending feed curated by the algorithm.
The article explained, quote, An analysis of the videos served to these accounts found that through its powerful algorithms, TikTok can quickly drive minors, among the biggest users of the app, into endless spools of content about sex and drugs.
TikTok served one account registered as a 13-year-old at least 569 videos about drug use, references to cocaine and meth addiction, and promotional videos for online sales of drug products and paraphernalia.
Hundreds of similar videos appeared in the feeds of the journal's other minor accounts.
Well, that's all in the book.
There's a lot more you can find out.
Remember, this is by design.
Radicals want your children sick and corrupted.
It's as simple as that.
But the good news is you can fight back if you know how.
And you got to get the book, Stolen Youth, How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation, which comes out today.
Order your copy on Amazon or wherever you get books, but make sure you do it right now.
And now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Last year, Showtime produced and aired a four-part documentary called We Need to Talk About Cosby.
And I haven't seen it.
I don't plan to see it.
And if this clip, which went viral this week after the series aired on the BBC, is any indication, then there's no reason for me to change that policy.
I will not be watching it.
In the clip, we're treated to some insight from Sona Lee Rachetoir, who is a non-binary sex therapist who goes by they-he pronouns, which means that she's a female.
So her personal pronouns are All of the pronouns, except the right ones.
She'll take any of them, as long as it's not right.
And if those credentials don't impress you, though, I should also mention that she is very fat.
She's a very fat person.
And I can say that because that's how she identifies herself.
She calls herself, on her website, the fat sex therapist.
And the website, speaking of, also contains this description of her work.
It says this.
Sona Lee Rashatwar is an award-winning clinical social worker, sex therapist, adjunct lecturer, and grassroots organizer.
Based in Philly, they are a super queer, bisexual, non-binary therapist and co-owner of Radical Therapy Center, specializing in treating sexual trauma, diet trauma, racial or immigrant trauma, and South Asian family abuse.
Okay, so if you suffered from North Asian family abuse, I guess you're out of luck, I guess.
Now, most of this sounds like nonsense to me, but she does deserve credit, at least, for her efforts to fight diet trauma.
I mean, as we can see, she has clearly been extremely successful in staving off trauma related to dieting.
So if you're worried about being traumatized by dieting, she's definitely the person you want to talk to about that.
But that isn't really the point we need to focus on.
Especially because her website is absolutely filled with this kind of gibberish.
Here's just one more sampling.
Here's what it says.
Sexuality is morphed by the pressures of compounding oppressions, which is why I offer solution-focused workshops that affirm the colonized experience and contribute to the radical imagination of our decolonial sexual futures.
We must unlearn the ways that we have been forced to exist within what is considered normal and begin to imagine the ways that we can flourish outside of those pressurized systems.
By aggregating individual forms of sexual resistance, I am able to weave together workshops explaining broader ideas of collective sexual liberation.
Centering conversations around pleasure and body liberation, we can better imagine how joy will lead us to revolution.
Now that all reads as if it was written by some kind of random, woke word generator.
Leftist buzzwords are combined with academic-sounding jargon and weird psychobabble, with little attempt made to form them into actual coherent sentences.
Which is how you end up with gems like the phrase, aggregating individual forms of sexual resistance.
Whatever sexual resistance is supposed to be, I'm not quite sure how it can be aggregated.
This is what happens when a person with an IQ of 95 uses a thesaurus to try and make her writing sound more intelligent.
It's a common pitfall of a certain type of dumb person, where they are given to believe that in order to sound intelligent, you must be unintelligible.
which is like the opposite of how it's supposed to work.
But this is perhaps more information that you needed to know about this person,
but it does help to put the clip into context.
Though the context won't make it any less horrifying than it is.
Listen.
If we actually grappled with the fact that sex negativity is what causes
this type of behavior, then we could create a world where in a sex,
Oh, there you see.
Bill Cosby, he wasn't a serial rapist, as she explains.
He wasn't that.
Or if he was, it wasn't his fault.
get my kink out, my fetish on having sex with unconscious people. There's a consensual way to do that.
Oh, there you see. Bill Cosby, he wasn't a serial rapist, as she explains. He wasn't that.
Or if he was, it wasn't his fault. He was the victim of a world that isn't sex positive enough.
If only he had had an outlet to, as she says, get his kink out, then he wouldn't have been forced to
drug and rape so many women.
Now, this is, of course, disgusting and depraved.
It's no wonder that a woman with no concept of physical health would also have such deluded ideas about what is sexually and morally healthy as well.
But she does help us to see, I think, two important points.
First, first point is this, that we need to get back to kink shaming.
We're told we're not supposed to kink shame.
You don't shame anyone's kink or their fetish.
I don't shame it.
No, actually we should.
There should be a lot of shame being heaped on many of these kinks and fetishes that are celebrated these days.
In our culture, we have this notion that a person's kinks, their sexual habits and desires, are automatically above criticism.
The worst thing we could ever do is critique or interrogate someone else's sexual proclivities.
Sonali is simply standing at the logical endpoint of that idea.
If we mustn't kink shame, if we must pretend that all sex is good or at least morally neutral, so long as it's allegedly consensual, then even rape becomes its own, as she says, kink that just needs a healthy outlet.
But this is not true.
The premise is fatally flawed.
Sex is not a morally neutral playing field.
How could it be?
Okay, sex is an interaction with another human being.
There's no interaction to begin with that's morally neutral.
But in this case, it's the most intimate sort of interaction.
It involves the most intimate sort of physical contact.
You are engaging with someone who is in their most vulnerable state, both physically and emotionally and spiritually and in every other way.
Sex is an act laid in with consequence.
Potentially serious consequences.
Of course there are proper ways to go about it and improper ways.
It's not just a forum to get your kinks out.
The problem with many kinks that we are supposed to accept or even celebrate these days, including the one that the fat sex therapist is talking about, though certainly not just that one, is that they don't respect the dignity and God-given value of the other person involved.
So often these are things that are degraded and disgusting and perverse.
There are proper ways and improper ways of interacting with someone in even a casual environment.
But sex is not casual, no matter how much we try to pretend otherwise.
And so if there's a right and wrong way for even casual interactions between humans to go, then how much more must that be the case for sexual interactions?
There are right and wrong ways.
A kink may be performed consensually, but it can still be deeply disordered and degrading.
And therefore, we should criticize it.
Even more, we should ask why.
If you have a weird, gross sexual fetish, you should be asking yourself why you have it.
What is it about this depraved activity that you find so appealing?
You see, we live in a society that is obsessed with desire.
All we care about is what someone desires, what they want.
So we're obsessed with desire, and yet we're so incredibly incurious about it at the same time.
We never ask why a person has a certain desire.
All we know is that they desire what they desire, and so they should go off and try to attain whatever they desire.
But there are some desires that should not be pursued.
In fact, there are many such desires.
And those desires are warning signs.
In the case of a desire to have sex with unconscious people, as this woman is talking about, the warning sign is more like an alarm bell blaring at 100 decibels.
Indicating that something is deeply wrong in the person's mind and soul.
We should be investigating what is wrong rather than telling people to ignore it in the mindless pursuit of satisfying whatever disgusting urge enters into their head.
Second point.
All of this begins to make sense as soon as we realize that consent-based morality, morality that is merely consent-based, is not just wrong, but catastrophic to any culture that tries to adopt it.
Case in point, our culture.
There has to be more to morality, especially sexual morality, than mere consent.
Obviously, all sexual activity must be consensual.
Obviously, it's a horrible evil to force yourself on someone, violating their consent.
But the problem is that that is where our culture wants to end the conversation.
But it shouldn't be the ending, it's just the beginning of the conversation about what entails a healthy, good sex life.
But what our culture says is that if the sex is consensual, then that's all there is to say about it.
There is nothing else to say about it.
All sex is good so long as both people, or however many people, verbally agree to participate in it.
The flaw in this idea is that it emphasizes It's not that it emphasizes consent, but that it only cares about consent.
Consent is the beginning and the end.
And that's how you wind up with people like Sona Lee trying to find a consensual way for men like Bill Cosby to sexually violate unconscious women.
That's indeed how you end up with lots of disordered, harmful, damaging sexual behavior that is nonetheless accepted because it's consensual.
What we need to finally understand is that consent is not the one and only consideration.
While all non-consensual sex is automatically evil, it doesn't follow that all consensual sex is automatically good.
Because sex can still be degrading, demeaning, dehumanizing, even when the participants are engaged in the act by choice.
We see that consent, on its own, is a flimsy and insufficient framework for sexual morality.
This is also why people very often these days will engage in consensual sex with some random person that they met on Tinder or whatever, and then they'll wake up the next day feeling regret.
This happens all the time.
They agreed, they consented, and yet now they regret it.
In fact, a person engaged in consensual sex Not only regret it, but could wake up feeling used and exploited.
Because they were used and exploited.
They consented to being used and exploited, but they were still used and exploited.
And they used and exploited their partner in equal measure.
That's what a lot of consensual sex, casual sex, that's what it is.
It is the mutual agreement for two people to use and exploit each other and then discard them.
So you've got consent, there's no question about it.
But does that mean we can't say anything else to criticize that you're treating each other this way?
Like, maybe it's not good for you?
Maybe it's not good for the other person?
Maybe this is not a path to fulfillment and happiness in life?
The thing is, in a situation like that, neither person was raped, but they did indulge in something shallow, loveless, and degrading.
In having casual sex, they allowed a stranger to use them as a glorified masturbatory aid.
They feel embarrassed and vulnerable now.
They feel hollow.
They feel despair.
They feel regret.
These feelings are inevitable when you divorce sex from love and from devotion and from fidelity and from concepts like dignity.
And that should be the framework.
Rather than merely asking whether the sex is consensual, we should ask whether it is loving, whether it respects the dignity of the other person.
And the great thing is that this framework will obviously include consent, but then it goes, Much farther beyond that, as it needs to.
This is something that's obvious to me and obvious to many people.
But of course, to someone like Sona Lee, who makes it her whole life and her whole business to talk about sex, she can't see this insight at all.
