Ep. 1136 - You're A 'Fascist' If You Want To Know What Your Child Is Being Taught In School
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Republicans pass a bill intended to give parents the right to know what's going on in their child's school. Democrats respond by claiming that government accountability and transparency is, yes, "fascist." Also, the TikTok executives are grilled during a congressional hearing. And a violent criminal robs, assaults, and paralyzes a woman. The judge responded by cutting his bond in half. In our Daily Cancellation, a radio host in Boston provoked the fake outrage machine by accidentally saying a word that was once used as a racial slur 80 years ago.
- - -
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:
Express VPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh
Policygenius - Compare Life Insurance quotes in minutes at
www.PolicyGenius.com.
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
- - -
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, Republicans pass a bill intended to give parents the right to know what's going on in their child's school.
Democrats respond by claiming that government accountability and transparency is, yes, somehow fascist.
In our Daily Cancellation, a radio host in Boston provoked the fake outrage machine by accidentally saying a word that was once used as a racial slur 80 years ago.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Inflation has consequences.
As the Fed raises interest rates to combat out-of-control government spending, long-term bonds have diminished in value, which is crippling the banks.
Depositors are holding their breath and investors are bailing on bank stocks.
Diversification has never been more important.
The recent surge in gold prices is directly tied to an extremely volatile market.
This is why gold has historically been a great hedge against the stock market and against inflation.
The only company I trust to help you diversify into gold is Birch Gold Group.
I've bought gold from Birch Gold because I want a safety net for my family.
And you can do the same by texting WALSH to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold today.
They'll help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in precious metals, physical precious metals, with an A-plus rating, with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews.
Birch Gold is the company that I trust to protect my future and yours.
That's WALSH to 989898 today.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives today passed the Parental Bill of Rights Act.
As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has explained, the bill has five basic pillars or platforms.
Quote, the Parents' Bill of Rights has five pillars to ensure parents have the right to have a voice in their kid's education.
The right to know what's being taught in schools and to see reading material, the right to be heard, the right to see school budget and spending, the right to protect their child's privacy, and the right to be updated on any violent activity at school.
So essentially the bill would codify into law at the federal level your right as a parent to know what's happening while your child spends seven hours a day at school because, you know, your child is not When he goes to school disappearing into the Bermuda Triangle at school.
At least that's not how it's supposed to be.
There shouldn't be any mystery about what he's doing or where he went or what he's being told and taught.
There should be no secrecy.
Public schools are government buildings.
They're funded by the taxpayers.
Transparency should be absolute and unequivocal.
And this shouldn't be remotely controversial.
The actual text of the legislation, of course, goes into greater detail about what exactly a parent has the right to know.
So here's a quick overview directly from the bill that just passed through the House of Representatives, but will almost certainly not even get a vote in the Senate.
Unless Republicans take over in 2024.
So, Parents' Right to Know.
A local educational agency receiving funds under this part shall ensure that each elementary school and secondary school served by such agency posts on a publicly accessible website of the school or, if the school does not operate a website, widely disseminates to the public a summary notice of the right of parents to information about their children's education as required under this Act, which shall be in an understandable format for parents and include At a minimum, the right to review and make copies of, at no cost, the curriculum of their child's school, the right to meet with each teacher of their child not less than twice during each school year, the right to review the budget, including all revenues and expenditures, of their child's school, the right to a list of books and other reading materials available in the library of their child's school and inspect such books or other reading materials, the right to address the school board of the local educational agency.
So obviously, That's what the bill does.
Whoever is opposed to the bill is taking the opposing position on all of those points, or at least some of them.
So to be opposed to this bill is to say that parents should not have the right to review the curriculum, and parents should not have the right to know what books their children are being assigned, and parents should not have the right to meet with the teachers and address the school board where their child goes to school.
Parents should not have the right to know What's going on at school?
Neither should they have the right to speak to anyone at the school or to anyone who runs the school.
This is the position of those opposed to this legislation.
But the bill covers more ground than just that.
It also gives parents the right to know if their child is being bullied at school, or if the child has expressed suicidal thoughts at school, or if the child has been caught with drugs.
And also this, quote, Again, consider the inverse proposition.
if a school employee or contractor acts to change a minor child's gender markers, pronouns,
or preferred name, or allows a child to change the child's sex-based accommodations, including
locker rooms or bathrooms.
Again, consider the inverse proposition.
Consider what the opponents are saying.
Parents do not have the right to know if their child is suicidal or being bullied or using
Parents do not have the right to know if their child is gender dysphoric or has started identifying as the opposite sex.
Parents do not have the right to even know what name their child is using.
They're saying the school employee should have more information about a child's mental health than the parents have.
This is the actual position of the Democrats who took to the House floor yesterday to stridently oppose this bill, using a range of tactics, of course, starting, as always, with the trusty straw man approach.
Listen.
Extreme MAGA Republicans don't want the children of America to learn about the Holocaust.
Don't we want our children to be kind?
Don't we want our children to know that slavery was wrong as I fight against slavery today that still exists?
Don't we want our children to understand the basis of all of our history, the mosaicness of this nation and African American history?
Don't we want teachers to get the salaries that they deserve?
Okay, so this bill apparently would stop schools from teaching about the Holocaust and slavery.
And it would somehow also prevent our children from being kind.
Well, I read the entire legislation, and I didn't find the language banning mentions of the Holocaust and slavery.
I certainly didn't find the anti-kindness provision.
That's because none of that exists.
Nobody is trying to stop schools from teaching about either of those things.
In fact, when it comes to slavery, my personal view, and the view of many of the people that would be labeled far-right extremists by these people, Is that much more should be taught about slavery.
Not only do I not wish to silence all mentions of slavery, but in fact, I want a much more robust and wide-ranging slavery curriculum.
I mean, it is an important fact about world history.
Emphasis on world.
World history.
You know, slavery is an important part of that.
Important part of that story.
The problem with the way that slavery is taught in school today is not that it is taught, or that too much is said on the subject, but rather that the lessons are intentionally narrow so as to give the laughably false impression that slavery was a sin unique to white Westerners.
Kids should be taught the truth that slavery was, you know, a ubiquitous institution across the entire globe for millennia, that Africans kidnapped and sold each other into slavery, that white Europeans were captured and sold into slavery themselves by Arab slave traders for centuries, that Western powers abolished slavery and the slave trade long before much of the rest of the world did, etc.
All of this should be taught.
But leftists are the ones who don't want any of that mentioned.
They are the ones trying to censor the slavery conversation in schools.
As usual, they are guilty of the sin that they are accusing others of committing.
Many other Democrats rose to speak up against the bill.
Here's squad benchwarmer Pramila Jayapal expressing her concerns about the bill.
Watch.
We're spending time on a bill that sows doubt about public education and our teachers and also targets our very vulnerable trans kids who are absolutely no threat to anyone in this body.
Please understand that the provisions in this bill That out trans kids are cruel and dangerous.
I say that as a mom of a trans kid.
And I was very embracing to my daughter when she came out.
But not every family is.
The reality is 75% of trans kids experience discrimination and harassment.
So why do Republicans want schools to require outing LGBTQ students?
That does not make them better students.
Well of course she has a trans kid.
She may not dress very well but a trans kid is one fashion accessory that she certainly does have.
She says that the bill outs trans kids and outing a trans kid which is of course impossible to begin with because trans kids don't exist because no child is actually trans.
But outing in this context means not keeping a secret from the parents.
It means that the parent We'll know what everyone in the school already knows.
Okay?
Jayapal believes that there should be facts about a child, extremely important facts, having to do with their mental health, that a child's peers should know, all the friends know, all the kids know, and all of the adults in the school know, but the parents don't know.
She wants to protect the rights of government employees, adults, to conspire with children to keep secrets from parents.
She wants the government and government employees to know more about the child than the child's parents do.
And this is especially insidious when you consider the, as they are so quick to always tell us about, which is true, the sky-high rates of suicide.
And self-destructive behavior among trans-identified people.
Okay, being trans-identified is a major suicide risk, among many other things.
And you think the parents shouldn't know that?
Their child is at a high risk of suicidal thoughts and suicidal actions, and you think they shouldn't know?
Well, this is the very essence of grooming.
Trying to adults, trying to keep secrets from parents.
You know, very essence of grooming.
This is what we mean when we call them groomers.
And speaking of groomers, here's AOC.
They are asking the Republican Party to keep culture wars out of classrooms.
Our children need urgent and aggressive educational solutions.
The American Library Association coming out against this Republican proposal.
When we talk about progressive values, I can say what my progressive value is, and that is freedom over fascism.
Thank you very much.
Now, we already know that these mental midgets will call anything they don't like fascism.
They demand that we come up with a precise definition of the word woke, while they drunkenly throw around the term fascism with reckless abandon, right?
Everything is fascist.
If you step on their toe accidentally, you're a fascist.
If you cut them off in traffic, you're a fascist.
Every statement they make is like Mad Libs, but every blank is filled in with the word fascist.
But think about the specific context in this case.
AOC is actually claiming that it's fascism for private citizens to be informed about what the government is doing.
She is a politician accusing citizens of fascism for demanding transparency from government institutions.
It is fascism for you as a parent to be informed about what the government is doing and saying to and with your child.
The non-fascist or anti-fascist approach by AOC's telling is for government institutions to take ownership of your child, educate him in secret, teach whatever the state deems appropriate, without any input from parents and taxpayers.
That is what she wants you to believe.
Because she thinks you're stupid.
Or she wants you to be stupid.
Which, not incidentally, is also the goal of the public school system, and also why, yet another reason why, we need a bill like this.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Using the Internet without ExpressVPN, it's like checking your baggage at the airport without a
lock.
You think your stuff is safe, but how do you know for sure that no one is going to go through your personal items?
When you go online without a VPN, internet service providers, ISPs, you know, they can see every single website you visit.
They can legally sell this information without your consent to ad companies and tech giants who then use it to target you.
When you use ExpressVPN, your identity is anonymized by a secure VPN server, so ISPs cannot see your online activity.
Your data is encrypted for maximum protection as well.
I love ExpressVPN because it's incredibly easy to use.
I just fire up the app.
I click one button.
I don't need to understand how it works.
It just does.
And then my phone, my laptop, even my Wi-Fi router, all are safe.
To keep my data private when I go online, I use ExpressVPN.
If, like me, you believe that your data is your business, secure yourself today with the number one rated VPN on the market.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to get three extra months free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S VPN.com slash Walsh.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to learn more.
Okay, more action in Washington, D.C.
yesterday.
This is from The Hill.
It says, TikTok's chief operating officer blasted the House's hearing on the platform Thursday, saying that it came from a place of xenophobia.
So it was a hearing on TikTok and the possibility of banning TikTok.
And surprising no one, TikTok has pulled out the xenophobia.
Vanessa Pappas, who's the TikTok COO, wrote on Twitter, "We're committed to providing
a safe, secure platform that fosters an inclusive place for our amazing, diverse communities
to call home.
It's a shame today's conversation felt rooted in xenophobia.
Thank you to our employees who work tirelessly to protect our platform and community."
Oh, yes, poor TikTok, that, you know, multibillion-dollar social media conglomerate is now a victim.
victim of xenophobia.
TikTok CEO Xu Zichu testified on Thursday in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce as a bipartisan group of lawmakers grilled him on concerns of censorship and national security regarding the platform.
Representatives of the social media platform accused the hearing of being dominated by political grandstanding in a tweet on Thursday.
Quote, our CEO came prepared to answer questions from Congress, but unfortunately the day was dominated by political grandstanding that failed to acknowledge real solutions already underway through Project Texas or to address industry-wide issues of youth safety.
Also not mentioned today by members of the House Commerce Committee, the livelihoods of the 5 million businesses on TikTok, or the First Amendment implications of banning a platform loved by 150 million Americans.
The hearing comes after the Biden administration demanded the Chinese-owned parent company of TikTok sell its shares or risk getting banned in the United States.
China said on Thursday it would resolutely oppose any forced sale of the app.
So, I'm not even sure what the general feeling about this hearing has been in the public.
I haven't really paid attention.
I read just a few reports about the hearing, and I saw some of the clips, and honestly, I'm not impressed with anyone involved in this thing.
And in fact, some of what we heard there from the TikTok people is a political grandstanding.
They're obviously not entirely wrong about that.
The xenophobia stuff is ridiculous, but yeah, there was a lot of political grandstanding from the clips that I saw.
I mean, there were moments like this.
Watch this.
Do you agree that the Chinese government has persecuted the Uyghur population?
Well, it's really concerning to hear about all accounts of human rights abuse.
My role here is to explain what our platform does.
I think you're being pretty evasive.
It's a pretty easy question.
Do you agree that the Chinese government has persecuted the Uyghur population?
Congressman, I'm here to discard TikTok and what we do as a platform.
And as a platform, we allow our users to freely express their views on this issue and any other issue that matters to them.
Well, you didn't answer the question.
Alright, I mean, yeah, he can't really answer that question because then when he goes back to China, you know, we're never going to see him again.
And that's not really, like, that's not relevant at all to the question of whether or not TikTok should be banned in the United States.
It's got nothing to do with it.
And there were a lot of moments like that.
Politicians looking for their viral moments.
And these hearings, it's always that.
It's like each politician is taking their turn, and they have their little speech, and they're looking for their moment.
And there were a lot of moments of, you know, they would ask a question, and then the guy would start to answer it.
No, yes or no question.
You know, because they don't really want an answer.
What they want is an opportunity to speak themselves.
And so, a lot of stuff like that.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I'm not defending TikTok.
I mean, yes, ban TikTok, okay?
Ban it from the planet.
Shoot it into the sun, as far as I'm concerned.
Sounds good to me.
I'm on board for that.
I guess just call me cynical here.
I don't believe anything will actually happen.
I don't believe that.
Hope I'm proven wrong.
I don't think they're actually going to do anything.
I don't think they're going to ban TikTok.
That's all it is, an opportunity for this kind of showmanship.
And I've seen way too many of these hearings where politicians take turns, Republicans in particular.
I mean, Democrats do it too, but it annoys me more with Republicans because they're pretending that they're going to do something I actually want them to do, and then they don't do it.
Too many of these hearings where politicians take turns, you know, putting their foot down and standing up for the American people, and you got these great moments and they go viral, look at what he said, and then nothing happens.
Nothing happens after that.
And I get the same sense here, but hopefully I'm wrong.
But there's another point too.
Much of the hearing was centered around issues of national security, you know, issues of, there were a lot of questions about does TikTok, you know, how much access does it have to the personal information of its users, how much information is it, you know, does it keep a database of that information, all that kind of stuff.
And some of TikTok's defenders In this country, I pointed out that, yeah, well, I mean, Facebook does that, Twitter does that, all these platforms do that.
You know, they're all like spying on us and saving our information and selling our information and doing God knows what else with it.
And that's true.
It's like every platform does that.
It's a greater issue with TikTok because TikTok is also a spy app, really, for the Chinese government, and that's the problem.
As far as I'm concerned, that is not the primary problem with TikTok.
I mean, the national security concerns are a major concern, but for me, that's not why I want to ban it.
I want to ban it because the app is terrible for kids.
That's what I care about.
Okay?
Even if they were able to hypothetically, like, prove that this isn't being used by the Chinese government to spy on us, and all that stuff is above board and everything's fine there, I mean, they could never prove that.
Hypothetically, if they did, I would still want to ban it.
Because that's not my main issue with it.
My main issue, again, is the effect it has on kids.
You know, TikTok is, putting the spying stuff aside, TikTok is a psyop by the communist Chinese to make our kids stupid and distracted.
You know, we've talked before about, I mean, TikTok in China is very different from TikTok here.
TikTok in China, kids are exposed to educational videos and stuff like that.
In this, here, it's not like that.
It's just nothing but stupidity and filth and, you know, loud noises and all of bright lights to distract them and just make kids dumber and more desperate for stimulation.
TikTok is not, like all social media does that to kids, and all social media is bad for kids.
But TikTok is especially bad, just the way that it's set up.
And it's also, you know, one of the most popular apps for kids.
So it's hurting our kids, you know, and that should be enough of a reason.
Like, there's this idea that we need more of a reason than that.
We need to be able to say more about... Like, it's very bad for kids.
So I can say that, and then the response is, well, what else, though?
I mean, why else should we ban it?
What do you mean, why else?
Why is that not enough?
That should be enough.
Okay?
If there were actual constitutional rights in play here, or at Jeopardy, Then, yeah, it's not always good enough to just say, think of the kids, you know?
But there isn't.
What rights are on the line?
You ban TikTok.
Whose rights are you infringing on?
You're not infringing on the rights of anyone who uses the app.
I mean, there's no constitutional right to use TikTok.
And there are a million other social media apps out there.
So whose rights are being infringed on?
The Chinese company of TikTok, is that who we're infringing on?
The Chinese, whatever it is, ByteDance?
The Chinese parent company we're infringing on, their right?
What right is that?
Do they have a constitutional right to create this app that's used in America by American kids?
So, no.
There are no rights at stake here.
And so then it really becomes a pretty simple... To me, it's not very complicated.
It becomes a really simple question.
Is this hurting kids?
Is it detrimental to the well-being of children?
Yes, is the answer.
And so, yes, let's ban it.
It won't hurt society.
TikTok is banned.
In what way is society harmed by that?
Let's say we ban TikTok tomorrow.
Five years from now, what are the negative consequences of us not having TikTok?
This is from the New York Post.
It says, a Houston teen has been accused of slamming a mother of three into the ground during a jugging robbery that left the victim paralyzed.
And he appeared this week in court where he had his bond slashed in half to $100,000.
Joseph Harrell, 17, was ordered held last week on a $200,000 bond following the harrowing, caught on camera February 13th attack that left Noong Trong unable to walk.
She's the victim.
Prosecutors had asked for the $200,000 bond because he had just been released on a $100 bond on January 26 on an unlawful carrying of a weapon charge.
But his court-appointed attorney argued Wednesday to have his bond reduced to $100,000, saying his family could not afford to spring him.
Well, good.
How is that not the answer?
Oh, his family can't afford to get him out?
Good.
We don't want him out.
Okay, yes, yes, keep him in the cage.
His attorney, Catherine Evans, says it was confirmed that bond conditions are in place that would place Mr. Harrell on 24-hour house arrest and require him to wear a GPS monitor should family members be able to post sufficient bonds at some point in the future.
Surveillance video shows Harrell had trailed Trong from a bank to a shopping center for 24 miles.
He then slammed her into the ground and stole the $4,300 in cash he had just withdrawn.
Prosecutors wrote, while on bond for unlawful carrying a handgun, Harold stole money from and assaulted the victim, causing the victim broken ribs, a fractured spine, and paralysis from below the arms, which is serious bodily injury.
So she's paralyzed now, and they're now saying that she has a 50% chance of ever being able to walk again.
During the incident, Harold and at least one of the suspects allegedly stole a woman's... Hold on a second.
I skipped ahead.
In addition to the counts for aggravated robbery and unlawful carrying of a weapon, Harold is facing a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon stemming from another incident on February 25th.
During that incident, Harrell and at least one other suspect allegedly stole a woman's purse as she was leaving a business in Southeast Houston.
The woman and her husband later tracked the suspects to a home using AirPods that were inside her purse.
After recognizing Harrell outside the home, the woman called 911.
While they were waiting for police, Harrell allegedly drove up to the couple and asked if they needed something.
When they replied that they didn't, he pointed a black handgun at the woman.
He's being held on a combined $130,000 bond for the aggravated robbery on February 13th and the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on February 25th.
So we've got here, what is that, three felonies?
Including violent assault and robbery that left somebody paralyzed.
And the response by the court system is to slash his bond in half to make it easier for him to get back out on the streets.
This is another one that is not complicated.
You know, it's not complex.
There are not a lot of nuances to this.
This is someone who should be thrown in prison for the rest of his life.
I mean, at a minimum.
At a minimum.
Thrown in prison for the rest of his life, he should never see the outside of a prison.
It does not benefit... What benefit is there in letting him ever walk outside of a prison cell ever again?
And like we're always talking about, any discussion of criminal justice reform, because I do believe in criminal justice reform.
I also think that criminal justice reform is desperately needed in this country.
The entire criminal justice system is right now hopelessly broken and needs to be reformed.
But the reforms need to go the opposite direction from what everyone is talking about.
And everyone, that includes Republicans.
That includes the Trump administration.
And the criminal justice reform, you know, that was pushed when Kim Kardashian was being invited to the White House to talk about criminal justice reform.
So this is something that everyone gets wrong, Republicans and Democrats.
The criminal justice reform should be putting more people in prison for longer.
That's the kind of reform that we need.
We need a lot more people in prison, and that means we've got to build more prisons, fill them, and keep the people there for much longer, and lots of them keep them there forever.
And then there should be another portion of people who we are letting out of prison, but they are getting out of prison because they're going to be buried in the ground, because we're going to kill them, we're going to execute them.
So that's the kind of reform we need.
We need reform that puts many more criminals in prison, and many more criminals in the ground.
Because that's justice.
And if you actually care, if you have any compassion in your heart whatsoever, that is what you would be calling for.
As I said, it's really pretty simple.
It's a simple question of, you know, in this case, we have Harold, the criminal, we have Joseph Harold, and then we have the victim who's paralyzed.
Who matters more?
Who should we be more concerned about?
As a society, who should we be more desperate to help and protect?
The violent criminal Joseph Harrell?
Who just keeps on committing crimes because as long as he's out and free, he's going to be committing crimes?
So is it him, or is it the victim who's now paralyzed?
Who do you have more compassion for?
Who do you sympathize more with?
Should be a simple answer.
All right, next we have this from Fox News.
Health providers at US military bases, some of whom are involved in treating
military-connected minors, blasted the idea of waiting
before injecting kids diagnosed with gender dysphoria with puberty blockers and hormones.
The DOD provider said in a March edition of the American Journal of Public Health
that the only pathway for children and military members who present their gender dysphoria symptoms
is to immediately move towards gender-affirming healthcare, such as puberty suppression and affirming hormones.
The doctor said on the basis of human rights, youths have an inherent ability and right to consent
to gender-affirming therapy.
They went so far as to claim that seven-year-olds can make their own medical decisions.
Seven-year-olds.
The authors, David A. Klein, Thomas Baxter, Noel S. Larson, as well as clinical psychologist Natasha Chaveh, demanded the military train all of its providers on their ideas on gender medical interventions for minors, despite acknowledging that 53% of military-affiliated physicians in the Department of Defense health system indicated that they would refuse to prescribe hormones regardless of any training.
So now they're talking about these kinds of quote-unquote Medical interventions for seven-year-olds, which is, you know, totally unfathomable to any sane person.
Like, really, you don't have to be a parent.
You're just a sane person in general.
But if you're a parent who has a seven-year-old or has had kids that were seven, the idea that these kids have any, like, Have any concept at all about what's good for them, what's right for them.
It is just unfathomable.
It truly is.
And indefensible.
But it's all part of the agenda and we can't act like we're surprised where this is heading.
They are saying, this is the Department of Defense, these doctors, so-called doctors, are saying that seven-year-olds have the mental capacity, the psychological capacity and mental formation to consent to life-altering, life-changing medical decisions.
Okay, so this is their notion of consent that they are applying to very young children.
So, when, you know, this slippery slope only heads in one direction, and we can't be surprised when it gets there.
Speaking of which, I want you to listen to this video.
This went viral a few days ago.
It's a video of a girl explaining her complicated gender dynamics.
Listen.
Something that's complicated about my whole gender situation, and I feel like there are other non-binary people who deal with this too, is the fact that the way I understand my gender and the way that I want other people to understand my gender are two wildly different things.
Because I, and certain people that I've talked to about this, understand the nuances and complicated relationships that I have with womanhood, so those are included when We think of me as a woman or say she-her.
Like, those weird relationships are still understood.
But almost everyone else, they don't have that.
So they don't get to call me those things.
To almost everyone else in real life, I am not a woman and I use they-them.
But then because I will call myself a woman or use she-her, understanding the nuances of it all, I feel guilty when I feel bad about getting misgendered by people who should be using they-them and not thinking of me as a woman.
I mean, they're not wrong, except they don't know they're not wrong.
They've been told I'm non-binary and I use they them, so why are they still thinking of me as a woman?
You know, on top of everything you just heard there being totally wrong and deranged, obviously, the other big concern for me with all this stuff, and anytime I see one of these TikTok videos, It's just that it's such a useless thing to be thinking about.
Okay?
That you have these young people, millions of young people, who are utterly obsessed with this useless nonsense.
And so, just think about all of the mental real estate that's being occupied by this kind of thing.
When they're just sitting around constantly pondering the mysteries of their own gender identity.
And I'm this gender in this context, but I want people to see me this way, and I want to be perceived this way, but I feel this way.
All of it is on top of being wrong.
It's just completely useless.
This is what you're spending your time thinking about.
And I can't help but think about all of the Innovations and inventions and artistic ideas and medical cures that we aren't getting because the people who might have thought of them were instead busy thinking about this.
That goes back to, that's why I want TikTok banned, is because of that.
Especially when you're young.
It's like the age range that is particularly susceptible to this kind of stuff.
This is also the age when people are supposed to be the most energetic and creative and
innovative and all of that. But instead, they're just totally lost in kind of the maze of their own
self-obsessions.
And they can't think about anything else because they can't look forward at the rest of the world.
They're not looking out at the world, they're just looking back within themselves all the time.
And not finding any clarity about who they are, but becoming perpetually more confused.
Another good example, here's someone who identifies as a hawk, apparently.
My name is Horace, and I'm a red-tailed hawk.
In our world, I do have the body of a hawk, but while fronting, I consider myself a Therian, because I am in a human body, but my identity is still a hawk.
Not all animal alters will identify this way, and I am, in fact, the only animal alter in our system who does identify this way.
I am doing my best to come to terms with living in a human body.
Um, so this is someone who is, uh, pretending to be trans species and also pretending to have a multiple personality disorder, which we've talked about before on the show, uh, that thanks to TikTok, uh, that is also a big trend these days.
You know, it's very trendy to have mental illnesses in general.
And you got all these kids that are like constantly coming up with new mental illnesses that they
have and they all want to have at least a couple mental illnesses.
They take a lot of pride in being mentally ill.
And they invent, you know, and so it's a one of the trendiest mental illnesses on TikTok
right now is multiple personality disorder, which doesn't even exist.
OK, it doesn't exist.
It's been it was made up.
It's like it's this entirely fictionalized, made up that is from the very beginning.
It's like yet another thing we can thank psychiatrists for.
It's like coming up with this concept of somebody with multiple personalities trapped in their head because they're trying to sublimate, you know, traumas and they create... It's just literally like movie plot lines that have been invented by the psychiatric industry.
And multiple personality disorder was very trendy for a number of years, and then it kind of fell out of fashion.
And that tells you something, by the way, that certain mental illnesses have fashionable periods.
Mental illnesses become like genes.
There are certain styles of genes that are trendy in certain decades, and you can almost define a decade by the kind of genes people wore.
And it's like that now with mental illnesses.
She's pretending to be another species and also pretending to have multiple personalities.
And I guess from this, I'm getting that she has alters.
That's what they call their other personalities.
And I guess all of her other personalities are animals.
I don't know if they're all hawks or if she's got other... I'm not sure.
She's got like a whole zoo inside her head.
She's got all these different animals.
Now, here's what I want you to understand, though, when you see videos like that.
And I think people oftentimes will get this wrong.
And I saw that video being shared.
on Twitter and the reaction from most people, especially on the right, is, well, you know,
we got a serious mental illness problem in this country.
This is mental illness. And these are people that need, you know, severe therapy and maybe need
to be institutionalized. And my point is that, that, that actually no.
This is not even a legitimate mental illness, okay?
This is what you have to understand.
This is not someone.
The girl you just saw there, she is not actually psychotic.
She's not.
Is that what we think?
We think that mysteriously, we've got millions of people all have gone psychotic and they all have these like, what are they, were they all born with the mental illnesses?
How does that work?
No, it's a game.
It's a trend, it's a game, it's a performance.
It is a performance that all of these kids are engaging in.
That's what it is.
But then society takes it seriously.
And then they take it seriously.
And then after a while, they start to forget that it is a performance.
So it's a performance that even they, after a while, take seriously.
And that's almost all this stuff.
the mental illnesses they're inventing for themselves, the split personalities,
the different genders, the non-binary, this and that, it's like it's performance.
But it becomes its performance that becomes a lifestyle.
Because society, rather than saying, okay, stop being ridiculous, okay?
This is what society's response to someone like that.
It shouldn't be, oh, let's sit down and talk about this.
No, it's like, cut the ****.
Be serious, okay?
You're not a hawk, alright?
Stop it.
That should be society's response to that.
Just stop it, alright?
Shut up.
Go get a job.
In a more healthy era, that's how society responds to that.
But instead we take it seriously, and then they take it seriously, and then what should be just kind of a trend and a fad and a phase becomes a lifestyle.
And then after a while, that's when maybe it actually becomes an actual mental illness.
It's almost like a mental illness that they've tricked themselves into, and that we have, as a society, helped to form for them.
In a worst-case scenario, you wouldn't want them to worry about money.
We all hope that we'll never need life insurance, but mortgage payments, child care, and other expenses don't disappear when you're gone.
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 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.
If you already have coverage through worker, employer-sponsored life insurance, it may not offer enough protection for your family's needs, and it won't follow you if you leave your job.
That's what PolicyGenius is here for.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $25 per month for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer coverage in as little as a week, and they avoid unnecessary medical exams.
There are no added fees, and your personal info is private.
Your loved ones deserve a financial safety net.
You deserve a smarter way to find and buy it.
Head to PolicyGenius.com and 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.
Janet says, uh, you would decry anything Anna Kasparian says because she's a woman and your small brain and inflated male ego dictate that a woman can never be smarter than a man.
As for Giselle, American athletes are notorious for their philandering.
How do you know this was not her reason for the divorce?
Oh, but wait, in your Christian view, a woman's duty is to stand by her man no matter how he fails as a husband, right?
My only question to you, Janet, is you watch the show?
You watch this show?
I mean, you watch the entire show, because you talk about something from the beginning and the end.
I mean, I'm glad you watch.
Thanks for watching.
But how?
How do you get through a show?
Is this the first one you ever watched?
If it was the first show you ever watched, why?
Why'd you watch the whole thing?
Again, I'm glad that you do.
Like, you need to be exposed to some common sense in your life.
But it's just, it's always amazing to me when I read comments like this from someone.
It's like, if this is your mentality, if you're the kind of person who would, you know, use a phrase like inflated male ego, and assume, the kind of person who would assume that any criticism of a woman is automatically sexist, if you're that kind of person, how can you even make it through an entire episode of my podcast?
But, again, I'm glad that you're here, and I'll tell you, Janet, what you need in your life is some mansplaining.
You've not had enough mansplaining in your life, and now you're going to get some, so I'm glad that you're here.
Thanks for watching.
Lindsey says, I want a whole hour of SDW talking about the greatness of space.
Well, I wish that Your opinion was shared by everyone, but there are also a lot of comments like this from Sarah says, Oh my God, people stop bringing up aliens to Matt.
It's just like with my grandpa.
There are certain subjects you just don't bring up.
Otherwise you'll be stuck there for five hours sitting on uncomfortable plastic covered brown couches staring at the shag carpet and rethinking all your life choices while he drones on and on and on.
I assume you didn't mean that as a compliment, Sarah, but I sort of take it that way.
We should put that in the tagline.
We need to send that over to marketing.
The experience of watching the Matt Walsh Show, it is much like listening to your grandfather drone on and on while you sit on uncomfortable furniture in a living room with shag carpet.
That's what listening to the Matt Walsh Show is like.
And I'm okay with that.
As I said, I take that as the highest of compliments.
Sweetbaby Soka says, Matt, maybe God made this vast universe so that we could be humbled at how small we are and not get too cocky.
Yeah, I mean, sure.
I think that that's part of the effect of living in a vast universe.
And I wouldn't be, and I am sure in some ways part of the intention behind it, but I also just think, like, that's really, so the entire universe, everything in the universe, including all the galaxies that we can't even, like, see, you know, all of that is only there just to humble us.
It's just to, like, keep us better adjusted and keep our head on our shoulders straight.
I can't help but see that as a rather egotistical view of the universe.
That's the only reason it's all there.
Maybe it's also there because there's other life that's being harbored.
That's not a view that challenges my faith at all.
That's one thing I'm getting from this conversation, of course, is that for a lot of people, they feel that it challenges, and I think that's really what this is about.
I mean, it's clearly what it's about for a lot of people, that they just think that they can't entertain the notion that there might be other life in the universe because it would challenge their faith.
And so, it's like there's no argument that will get through to them because they feel like they can't believe that.
They can't accept it.
They can't.
I don't have that hang-up, and I still don't understand it.
People have tried to explain it to me.
I just don't get it.
Like, I really don't.
I don't understand how the existence of other life in the universe would somehow challenge the notion of God.
Why would that do?
In fact, there was another comment yesterday that I didn't get to, but someone said that, you know, if you believe in other life in the universe, then it's because you don't believe in creation.
You know, you don't believe in creation.
What do you mean?
So if you believe in another life, it means that you don't think God created the universe?
Why?
That's not what I think.
God created that life too.
Why is that challenging?
I just don't get it.
Alright.
Ranger1 says, Matt seems to begin by seeking the most universal and beneficial principles possible, such as truth, clarity, the sanctity of life, etc., and then he builds vast, complex ideas upon the foundations of those principles.
He can discuss any idea openly and doesn't contradict himself in any meaningful way because all of his ideas emerge naturally from the same foundation.
His opponents appear to begin by noticing some personal desires exist and construct whatever principles are necessary to justify pursuing it.
Pursuing interests based upon moral principles that exist only as long as the personal interest that they serve exists is a path to narcissism, suffering, or madness.
Knowing this, anyone who argues with them becomes an enemy to be destroyed.
Well, that's very insightful.
And that also, you know, is a good way of describing the show, although I sort of prefer that I'm just someone's grandfather rambling while they listen, slightly annoyed.
Either way, I think works.
You know, I'll never understand virtue signaling.
Making yourself look important with the least amount of effort is like the reputation equivalent of stolen valor.
And reputation is just one of the things that Jordan Peterson discusses with his roundtable group of scholars and theologians in the latest episode of Exodus.
Check it out.
I don't think.
We've talked in our culture a lot about virtue signaling.
It's not exactly a great phrase because really what you're trying to do when you virtue signal is you're trying to acquire reputation that you haven't earned.
And the reason that people are so motivated to do that is because Once you can abstract an ethic, there's actually nothing that's more valuable than your reputation, right?
It's the thing upon which all the trades that you engage in with everyone else depends, right?
You're as good as your reputation.
And so, if you can get that falsely, it's a real crime, and if you can savage it without cause, it's an equally egregious crime.
And that's why psychopaths do it so often, and so narcissists and Surely that's much worse though, Jordan.
To have an ill-gotten reputation, that's bad.
But to take away someone's actually earned reputation.
I know that they're in a certain sense two sides of the same coin.
It's a battle between devils, that's for sure.
Well, new episodes are coming online every week exclusively for Daily Wire Plus members.
You can join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch Exodus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
One of the perhaps most unexpected aspects of wokeism is that it's constantly teaching us new racial slurs that we never knew existed.
And our racial slur vocabulary increased yet again this week when the woke police became outraged at Chris Curtis for calling Mina Kimes a nip, quote unquote.
Now this immediately raises some questions, like who is Chris Curtis, and who is Mina Kimes, and what the hell is a nip?
I have no idea who any of these people are or what the word is supposed to mean, and I suspect that most of the people outraged or pretending to be outraged were similarly clueless.
But just because they had no idea what was going on or what was said or who said it or who they said it to or about or why, that would not stop them from being deeply traumatized by the situation, whatever the situation is exactly.
So let's try to sort through this.
Earlier this week, A sports talk radio host on WEI in Boston jokingly called Mina Kimes, who is apparently an ESPN sports analyst, he said that she's one of his favorite nips.
Now, the joke was made in the context of a conversation about little miniature bottles of liquor, which are also apparently referred to as nips.
I didn't know that either.
Here's that moment.
Begs the question, top five nips.
Oh yes, that's a great one.
Dr. McGillicuddy's I think is number one or two.
Screwball also up there.
I'd probably go Mina Kimes.
And Fireball.
Fireball.
Like I'm not taking a tequila.
You're right about the McGillicuddy, but do you like the purple or the root beer?
Now, Curtis has since clarified that he meant to make the joke about actress Mila Kunis, but he said Mina Kimes, and he also said that his comment was sophomoric and sexist, which clearly indicates that his intention was to make a boob joke.
Okay, it was a nips pun that was supposed to be a reference to breasts.
And even without this clarification, that already seems pretty obvious from the context.
But unluckily for Curtis, it turns out that nip is also an obscure slur for Japanese people last used, you know, sometime around World War II.
I have never in my life, even one single time, ever heard that term used in reference to Japanese people.
Most of us have never heard it.
Oh, and by the way, Mina Kimes isn't even Japanese.
She's Korean.
So, so we're left with two possibilities here.
Okay, two possibilities.
Either This radio host intentionally decided to commit career suicide by knowingly using an archaic anti-Japanese slur last uttered in 1945 during the Battle of Iwo Jima in reference to a Korean sports reporter, or he was just trying to make a dumb boob joke.
Those are the two potential explanations here.
And it's quite obvious which one is the most plausible, but in these sorts of situations, the most plausible explanation is rarely the most useful to the victimhood narrative.
So the outrage mob got to work pretending to believe that this was an attack on Asian people, pretending to even know that the word was a slur to begin with, pretending to be offended, pretending to have been somehow deeply injured by an off-the-cuff remark made by a radio host that no one's ever heard of about another media personality no one's ever heard of.
There were calls for Curtis to be fired.
There were condemnations being issued.
Denouncements.
ESPN spoke out.
Other sports media personalities chimed in.
The whole circus of offendedness commenced.
The next day, as expected, Curtis issued a groveling apology, begging forgiveness from those who were hurt.
And he was then set off to sit in timeout and think about what he'd done.
This, of course, is not enough for these self-martyring idiots who are pretending to care about this.
As this local media report shows, they still intend to milk this for whatever it's worth.
Watch.
Well, a Boston sports radio host is off the job tonight after using a racial slur to describe an Asian American ESPN reporter.
WEEI's Chris Curtis says he's been suspended for a week.
WBC's Laura Hathley shows us his apology and what made his comment so hurtful.
I just want to pause there for a moment, because I don't mean to spoil this, but I can tell you what made his comments so hurtful, and that is nothing.
Nothing makes them hurtful, because nobody was hurt by them.
See, there are two categories of people when it comes to situations like this.
In the first category, there are normal, well-adjusted human beings with lives to live and more important things to think about and worry about.
And those of us in that category, we don't have the time or energy or inclination to be offended or hurt by some dumb, offhanded joke made by some guy on some radio station somewhere.
In the other category are desperate, maladjusted, pathetic, ridiculous losers who have nothing interesting going on in their lives and have achieved nothing and will never achieve anything, and who live for the opportunity to play the victim, waiting for someone to trip up and, you know, say the wrong things so they can swarm and feast like piranhas devouring a wounded goat waiting across a river.
But the people in that category, they're not hurt either.
Quite the opposite.
They're excited.
They're thrilled.
They're like ravenous with hunger, ready to devour their next victim.
They're incredibly grateful that they've been given another fake grievance.
So nobody is hurt.
Not one person on the planet is hurt.
That is who is hurt.
No one.
Not one person.
Anywhere.
Okay, let's continue.
A ban on miniature liquor bottles was proposed Monday by Boston City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, garnering attention from neighbors and local media outlets, including the Greg Hill Radio Show on WEEI.
The show's hosts were discussing the ban, using the nickname for the airplane-sized bottles, when producer Chris Curtis appeared to refer to an Asian-American ESPN journalist, Mina Kimes, in a racist manner.
It dragged her into a controversy through no fault of her own regarding a slur and her race.
Curtis was suspended by WEEI.
I want to apologize for the stupid, lame attempt at a joke.
Is it ever cleverer to be clever at the expense of somebody's identity?
Professor David Howell teaches Japanese history at Harvard.
So it's really very much a term that was used during World War II to refer to the Japanese when they were the enemy.
It's a classroom or on the air.
Using a term almost, you know, makes it sound like it's okay to use the term.
WBZ reached out to the chair of the Massachusetts AAPI Commission, Dr. Gary Chu.
Let's not go back to the past and perpetuate hate, especially AAPI hate, which has been on the rise, not only in the U.S., but also in Massachusetts and the city of Boston.
Dr. Chu hoping for accountability from the radio host and more representation moving forward.
Anytime we can denounce things like that will help.
We're working to talk about all these issues, providing resources to elevate the messages of what is going on so that everyone understands the diversity of the Asian American and Pacific Islander populations.
We did reach out to ESPN who called the comments hateful and extremely offensive.
We also reached out to Odyssey, the owner of WEEI.
They did not immediately give back to us.
In Brighton, Laura Hafley, WBZ News.
It's not really the point, but just one note is that banning the small bottles of liquor is a really stupid idea to begin with.
Because if you do that, then doesn't that just mean people will buy bigger bottles of liquor?
Like, what do you think?
I get the idea.
People buy those little bottles.
It's like, if you're buying a little bottle of liquor, you're either an alcoholic, a college student, not that those two things are mutually exclusive, or you're on an airplane.
So it's really, it's really, it also, actually, by the way, that also applies to if you're buying any kind of liquor at all or you're consuming any kind of liquor at all before, like, 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
Again, you're either a college student, an alcoholic, or you're on an airplane.
But anyway, you ban the small ones, and so is that going to make all the alcoholics say, well, guess I'm not drinking any more liquor.
No, now they just buy bigger bottles and drink those anyway.
So, but that's not a good idea.
This is why you never apologize to these people.
You never apologize to them because this is who you are apologizing to.
This is who, the people you saw in the video, this is who you're bending the knee to.
These are the people whose feet you are kissing.
These two guys that you just saw right there.
It's always these guys.
And people just like them.
They are representative of who you are groveling to.
You've got an insufferable college professor in an ugly shirt with a smarmy grin on his face looking down his nose at you and telling you which words you're allowed to use and which you aren't allowed to use.
It's not okay to say that.
Well, we don't want people to have the impression that it's okay to say that word.
It's not okay to say that word, because I say so.
And then the other dude, some useless, empty-headed bureaucrat with a doctorate in self-victimization on some pointless commission that does nothing at all, whose entire purpose is to justify its existence by looking for things to complain about.
This is entirely perfunctory, right, for both of them.
Their hearts aren't even in it, you can tell, especially the last guy there.
You know, that guy, he couldn't even pretend to actually think that this matters.
Okay, and he's, well we need diversity, we need to raise awareness of diversity and so people will know about diverse, uh, diversity.
They don't believe what they're saying, they don't care.
They're just petty tyrants looking for an opportunity to impose themselves on other people.
This goes for the two guys in the clip and everybody else in the outrage mob, because that's the thing about the outrage mob, there isn't much actual outrage to be found in it.
It's all for show.
Which is why, as I've been shouting for years, and as I myself have lived by, this is not something I'm telling other people to do that I won't do, but you must never apologize to them.
No matter what.
You must never apologize to them.
Say whatever you want to these people.
Just never say you're sorry.
But Chris Curtis did apologize, so I cannot save him, even if I wanted to.
Instead, I can only say that everybody involved in this situation is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Members Block, you can become a member today by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
