Ep. 1144 - Bud Light, Nike, And Jack Daniels Bow Before The LGBT Altar
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show it has been a wokeness bonanza this week in the corporate world as Bud Light, Nike, Jack Daniels, and Build-a-Bear all come out endorsing drag queens and transgenderism. But why are all of these companies going woke? And what can we realistically do about it? I have a plan and I'll lay it out for you today. Also, the White House refuses to endorse any age limits at all for gender surgeries for children. They say it's up to the child to choose. NPR gets devoured from within by its own left wing employees. And the classic American novel "Gone With The Wind" will now come with a lengthy essay condemning the book for its racism.
- - -
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
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, it's been a wokeness bonanza this week in the corporate world as Bud Light, Nike, Jack Daniels, and Build-A-Bear all come out endorsing drag queens and transgenderism.
But why are all these companies going woke?
Why is it happening?
And what can we realistically do about it?
We have a plan, and I'll lay it out for you today.
Also, the White House refuses to endorse any age limits at all for gender surgeries for children.
They say it's up to the child to choose.
NPR gets devoured from within by its own left-wing employees, which is always fun.
And the classic American novel Gone with the Wind will now come with a lengthy essay condemning the book for its racism.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Tech companies enrich themselves by taking your personal data, they grab your web history, your email metadata, your video searches to create a detailed profile on you, and then they sell that off to the highest bidder.
You have become the product.
To protect your identity and data from these tech giants, I recommend using ExpressVPN every time you go online.
Think about all the websites you visit.
Everything you do, everything you say online is tracked by these giant corporations.
They're using your public IP address, and then they can uniquely match your activity to your location.
ExpressVPN makes you anonymous online by camouflaging your IP address and replacing it with a different, secure IP of your choice.
ExpressVPN also encrypts all of your data so that it's protected from hackers and anybody else that's trying to spy on you.
I love ExpressVPN because it's incredibly easy to use.
Just fire up the app, click one button, plus it works on all of my devices, my phone, my laptop, even my Wi-Fi router.
Secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
You get three extra months for free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to learn more.
This week began with Anheuser-Busch, the makers of an alcoholic goat urine beverage they call Bud Light, signing an endorsement deal with the woman-faced minstrel show performer Dylan Mulvaney.
Now, some conservatives, the ones who still somehow don't realize what time it is, refuse to believe that Bud Light would betray them like this after all those many gallons of the beer-like substance they consumed out of red plastic cups in their younger days.
Mostly before they were of legal drinking age.
How could the company stab them in the back now, after all of that?
It must be some kind of April Fool's prank, they insisted.
It can't be real.
But then Anheuser-Busch confirmed in a statement that it was no joke at all.
Of course it wasn't.
They had indeed partnered with Mulvaney in an effort to, quote, authentically connect with the audiences across various demographics and passion points.
So by teaming up with the trans influencer, they had succeeded in connecting with any men in their customer base whose greatest passion point is dressing up like an adolescent girl and passing out tampons in the women's restroom, as Mulvaney is known to do.
But that was only the beginning of the week.
The Wokeness Parade was only getting started.
On Wednesday, Mulvaney excitedly announced another major brand partnership, and this time it was Nike.
Nike is also sponsoring Mulvaney, and in a series of posts, the male TikTok user modeled Nike leggings and a Nike sports bra.
So, if you're a woman shopping for leggings and sports bras, and you want to know what the product might look like on the female body, you know, like, your body, unfortunately, you're out of luck.
But if, on the other hand, you want to know what they look like on a flat-chested man with the physique of a large, tropical, flightless bird, well then, Nike has you covered.
But so far, we've covered only two days of the week.
Corporate America has seven days to cram as much wokeness in as they can, and as we've seen, they'll give it their best effort every single week.
So also then this week, a Jack Daniels campaign went viral, a campaign which actually was first launched in 2021, called Small Town Big Pride.
The company teamed up with drag queens from the show RuPaul's Drag Race to promote whiskey and drag queens.
And actually, it appears that Jack Daniels produced an entire reality TV series that they released on their YouTube channel about drag queens called Summer Glamp.
It sounds pretty gay, just based on the title and the description, but you have no idea just how gay it actually is.
Here's a clip.
What's going on with this rain?
This is not conducive for a pride party.
We got up in the morning and it just, it was just pouring.
You can't rain on our parade?
We're so glad we're not in drag and heels and wigs right now.
Can you imagine in like the weather being so bad and just makeup and hair?
Oh, that would be, oh, that would stretch inside.
But listen, people, we have a party to plan and we need to go get some decorations and we need to get this going, honey.
We're expecting people.
Let's go to the town square and get some party supplies.
I'm ready.
Oh my gosh, you look so stunning in every single one of these.
I'm dressed to the nines!
This is going to be the fiercest party Lynchburg has ever seen!
Happy Pride!
Happy Pride, sisters!
Let's do a cocktail!
Let's do it!
We should make a Jack 5 cranberry!
Yes, we should!
Oh my gosh!
Come on, I gotta help.
(upbeat music)
Cheers.
(laughing)
Happy Pride.
Happy Pride.
We invited all of Lynchburg, so I wonder who's gonna show up.
Let's see who shows up.
You know, Jack Daniel's Whiskey was founded by a guy named Jasper Newton Daniel, nicknamed Jack, in the 1880s.
And he first learned how to make moonshine whiskey from a local preacher in his town of Lynchburg.
I can only imagine how that old Tennessee moonshiner must feel looking on from the grave and seeing what they've done to his beloved whiskey and his name.
It must feel like dying all over again.
And yet, this was not the only drag queen corporate brand sponsorship to make the news this week.
Build-A-Bear announced also.
Just in time for Easter, a new RuPaul drag bear.
For the low price of $56, you can buy a stuffed bear dolled up in hideous makeup and a ridiculous wig just like a real-life drag queen.
Nike, Jack Daniels, Bud Light, Build-A-Bear.
All in one week.
Brands we can add to the list.
Hershey's is another recent one, of course.
Of companies that have not simply gone woke, It's not just that, but have in fact adopted and promoted the most extreme tenets of left-wing orthodoxy.
We're not talking about companies that simply issue shallow platitudes about diversity and inclusion or whatever.
This is extreme, radical, hiring a man to model your sports bra, putting out a video series with flamboyant homosexual drag queens vomiting rainbow colors all over the screen.
This is not entry-level wokeness.
These companies are not cautiously dipping their toes into the progressive pool.
They are diving headfirst into the deepest end.
And they're doing it in spite of the fact that their customer base is, at best, not interested in this sort of thing.
You know, at the end of that Jack Daniels clip, we see a burly old guy with a straw hat and overalls and a thick Tennessee accent showing up to a bar decorated with rainbow balloons to order whiskey from drag queens.
Okay, that is not, to put it mildly, reflective of reality.
Okay, that guy does look like a Jack Daniels drinker, and probably a Bud Light drinker too, if I had to guess, but I highly doubt that he represents the typical audience for LGBT inclusion propaganda.
Rather, he represents the audience alienated by such propaganda.
So, why are the brands doing this?
What's the point?
What's their game here?
What's the play?
Is there a play?
Is there a strategy at all?
Well, to answer that, we have to understand two things.
And these are both very important, and they're both things that conservatives tend to miss.
So first, the brands are not trying to appeal to their customers with this kind of stuff.
So when we say, this doesn't appeal to the customers, well, it's not meant to.
The goal is to make their customers or remake them.
So if you're a Jack Daniels consumer, you probably have no interest in drag queens and gay pride.
But the point is, is they want to make you interested in those things.
You're not now, but they want you to be.
Whose point is that, though?
Whose agenda is this?
Are the people in Jack Daniels or Bud Light corporate offices, are they really passionate about spreading the LGBT gospel?
Of course not.
This is where you have to understand the second point.
The left has taken away all of the neutral cultural ground.
There is no neutral ground anymore.
It doesn't exist.
This is all by design.
You're not allowed to be neutral, according to the left.
And this is why brands like Bud Light and Nike and Jack Daniels and Bilbao Bear are giving endorsement deals to dudes in dresses and hosting reality TV summer camps for drag queens.
In the past, a beer company or a whiskey company or a shoe manufacturer, they could basically be culturally neutral.
I mean, for all intents and purposes.
If they did any virtue signaling, and companies have always done that, But they would have been signaling universal or what used to be universal values like patriotism and charity and, you know, we're going to wave the American flag and we're celebrating July 4th and, you know, we're, you know, that sort of thing.
But now the left has declared that you're either with them or against them.
This is the silence is violence principle.
And the left has ways of enforcing this principle.
James Lindsay put out an important thread on Twitter explaining one of these ways.
The far-left group called the Human Rights Campaign.
They put out a report every year called the Corporate Equality Index.
And corporations are given a score, which is meant to measure their fidelity to left-wing doctrines.
If these companies do not go out of their way, again, it's not good enough to just, you know, not say anything.
If they don't go out of their way to wave the pride flag and display their wokeness bona fides, they will be judged socially irresponsible, quote-unquote, and they'll have points deducted.
You know, and you don't want, if you're a corporation, you don't want to have a low score with the human rights campaign.
The HRC is just one of many well-funded left-wing advocacy groups whose sole purpose on this earth is to use these extortion techniques to extract ideological concessions from corporate America.
There are many well-organized, well-funded, well-oiled machines that the left has at their disposal to do exactly this.
Which leaves the brands with a choice.
They can be baptized into wokeism and openly worship at the LGBT altar, or they can, by default, align themselves with conservatives, thereby failing the social responsibility test.
Okay?
In other words, they can be left-wing or they can be right-wing.
And again, if your answer is, well, why can't they be neither?
I mean, why not just make the whiskey?
Why do you?
It's not an option.
That option is not being left open to them.
The left says you have to choose.
If you're not with us, you are against us.
If you are not openly left-wing, you are right-wing.
So what are the corporations going to do?
You know?
The left will do everything in their power, and they have a lot of it, to make any corporation pay dearly for disloyalty.
Piss off the right, on the other hand, and you'll have to deal with some angry tweets.
And that's it.
Nothing else will happen.
So it's an easy choice for them.
Go woke, go broke, you know, we like to say.
We like to say that to ourselves.
It's kind of a psychological coping mechanism on the right.
Go woke, go broke.
We repeat it as a mantra in the mirror while we're doing our daily affirmations.
We whisper it while we rock ourselves to sleep at night.
It's a comforting thought.
But like most comforting thoughts, it's not true.
Because companies go woke all the time.
Almost all of them have.
And guess what?
None of them have gone broke because of it.
So go woke, go broke, at least on the corporate level, that's never happened.
Go woke, go broke really means, in practice, go woke and then continue along the same as you did before, suffering no consequences whatsoever.
The consequences are ultimately suffered by us because the corporate wokeness has the desired effect.
It normalizes radical left-wing ideology.
It commercializes it, which is the same thing as normalizing it, and it gradually makes it seem less radical and less left-wing to most people, even many on the right, who ostensibly oppose the wokeness.
This is why they do it, and it works.
See, many of us still will see advertisements as merely reflecting the culture, right?
That's why we're so surprised when we see Jack Daniels turn into Jacqueline Daniela.
This doesn't reflect the Jack Daniels customer base, we shout indignantly.
But it's not meant to reflect.
It's meant to shape.
Again, they don't want to represent your values, they want to make your values.
The brands don't reflect us.
We reflect the brands in consumerist America.
So what can we do about this?
Well, there's a lot we need to do and can do, but let's stay focused on this specific issue of corporate wokeness and one specific thing we can do.
The first is we have to realize and accept that we are right now in the position of insurgence.
The left won the culture a long time ago.
That's already done.
So we are culturally, in effect, guerrilla fighters stationed in a camp out in the forest.
We're not going to win a pitched battle against the entire system all at once.
We're not going to take on all of corporate America and bring it to its knees.
It's already on its knees, but for a different reason and not for us.
So here's what we can do.
Take a page from the Left's old playbook, which is really just the playbook of cultural insurgency, and what we do is we pick one target, one victim, You know, every brand is woke.
Every brand is kicking us in the shins and spitting on our faces.
They all hate us.
So we can throw up our hands and do nothing, which is surrender.
Or we can try to boycott them all at the same time, which is futile and doomed to failure.
Or we can pick one, just one, and target it with a ruthless boycott campaign.
Okay?
You just pick one.
And then you're going to have conservatives say, well, what about this one?
What about that one?
I mean, why are you boycotting this one?
That and that.
They're also woke too.
Well, because we're trying to do something here.
It's called a strategy.
Can you be strategic in your thinking for once in your life?
Target one, refuse to buy their products.
Drag their name, drag the company's name through the mud.
Make them anathema to the tens of millions of conservatives who still live in this country and whose financial support these companies still need in order to survive.
Be smart and strategic in the targets.
Start with companies who have a high percentage of red state conservative customers, so not Nike.
And companies that would be relatively easy to boycott, so not Disney.
And companies who likely have a high percentage of employees who would be on our side and are going to give pressure from the inside.
So probably not, you know, something like Hershey's.
But you also need one that's big enough to send a message.
So actually, Jack Daniels might be the perfect candidate for this.
Whoever it is, you make an example out of someone.
Okay?
You claim a scalp.
Force them to come crawling back to us and apologize.
Just like the corporations have been doing for the left for decades.
They never ever do that for us.
They never denounce anything on our behalf.
They never apologize to us.
It never happens.
Because we never really try to force them to.
But we can.
It can be done.
It is achievable.
We can exert influence on the culture in this way.
We can stand up for ourselves and show that if you insult and disrespect us, we will punch back.
We can move the needle.
We can extract concessions of our own.
The strategy does work.
I know it works because the left has been doing it forever.
Also, I know it works because we've done it.
That's what I did with Vanderbilt.
Pick a hospital in a state where I know we have influence and cultural power, single them out, focus on them, direct attention and scrutiny at them specifically, even though Vanderbilt was far from the only hospital mutilating kids, but make them the special project.
And they collapsed under the pressure.
They shut down their mutilation program.
Then the whole thing was made illegal statewide.
So it works.
And we can scale this up to target brands and corporations.
We just need focus.
And strategic intelligence to do it.
And we need a little bit of ruthlessness.
That's what it takes to win.
To win piece by piece, one skirmish at a time.
We can do it.
Or we can do nothing.
And keep whining impotently about problems we don't have the stomach or attention span to address.
It's up to us to decide.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Hiring used to be really hard.
You'd post your job on multiple sites, hope the right people would see it, and then you'd have to wait for them to apply.
Same goes for finding a job.
You upload your resume to every job posting site, comb through never-ending lists of jobs trying to find the right position for you.
That's the way it used to be, but not anymore because ZipRecruiter Exists, and it's the best place to find the right position, or if you're an employer, the right person to join your team.
Head to zippercruiter.com slash Walsh and try it for free.
ZipperCruiter's matching technology excels at finding the most qualified candidates for a wide range of roles.
If you see a candidate you like, you can easily send them a personal invite so that they are more likely to apply.
It also gives you a competitive edge against other employers who may be interested as well in that candidate.
Their user-friendly dashboard makes it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates all from one place.
Let ZipRecruiter help you find the best people for all of your roles.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Can't beat that.
See it for yourself.
Go to ZipRecruiter.com to try ZipRecruiter for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter.
The smartest way to hire.
All right.
It's somewhat amazing, maybe not amazing at all, actually, that it's taken this long for this question to be directly asked during a White House press briefing.
But it did.
And finally, yesterday, a reporter asked Karen Jean Paer about child gender transition and what age she thinks people should be allowed to undergo these procedures.
Actually, what age does Biden think children should be allowed to undergo these procedures?
And that's when Karen Jean Payer stunned the entire nation by taking a firm, common-sense, moral stand and declaring that obviously nobody under the age of 18 should be having their bodies permanently altered and mutilated in this way.
Just kidding, of course.
That would never happen.
Her answer was as ghastly and horrifying as you would already expect.
Here it is.
Indiana just banned puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and gender transition surgeries for minors.
I'm wondering what the president's reaction is to the Indiana governor signing that bill into law, and does the president have a position on at what age these kinds of therapies and surgeries are appropriate?
That's something for a child and their parents to decide.
It's not something we believe should be decided by legislators.
Something for a child to decide.
Now, she throws the parent into, you know, she says a child and the parent can decide.
Which means the child can choose.
She believes that children can consent.
And she isn't willing to put any age limit on it.
Okay, so she isn't willing to even say, well, hey, obviously we shouldn't be doing sex change surgeries to toddlers.
She won't even say that.
She's not willing to put any age limit on it.
Biden isn't willing to put any age limit on it, because the child can choose.
Now, if this sounds an awful lot like the building blocks for the normalization of pedophilia, well, that's because it certainly is.
Okay?
There is, after all, one reason why we say that a quote-unquote sexual relationship between an adult and a child can't exist.
No such thing as a sexual relationship.
It is rape.
It is always rape, no matter what.
And we say that, we know that, because children lack the mental and emotional development to properly consent to sexual activity.
That's the reason.
Okay?
It's the only reason we need.
Children are also smaller and weaker, and so there are those physical power dynamics which are out of balance.
But we would never say that a relationship between an adult and another adult who's shorter and undersized is rape because of the physical power dynamics.
No, we say that of children.
We correctly say that of children because they cannot consent.
They cannot.
They just, they can't.
It's impossible.
So it does no good for the pedophile caught up in the Chris Hansen, you know, to catch a predator sting.
Have you ever watched, watched, you know, those, those reports?
And they would always say some version of, oh, but the child said they wanted to.
We don't accept that excuse.
We were coil in disgust at that excuse because it is disgusting.
A pedophile that argues that it's okay to have sex with children because the child said they want it.
I mean, that's nauseating.
No, we say to that man, okay, you're going to prison.
In fact, better yet, you should be going to the electric chair.
Okay, well, if a child cannot consent, cannot consent, is incapable, And how is it that he suddenly develops that capacity when it comes to sterilization drugs, castration drugs, surgical mutilation?
I mean, how does he develop it suddenly?
How does he go from an innocent child totally incapable of consent to somebody with the mental clarity and wherewithal to meaningfully consent to having things done to his body that will permanently and irrevocably change him in profound, life-altering, dramatic ways in the future?
How?
How does that work?
Now we should address the common rejoinder here, which is that, well, this is different, because on the one hand we're talking about pedophilia, rape, and on the other hand, they would say, we're talking about a medical procedure.
And so these gender transitions, a medical, it's a valid, it's a life-saving medical procedure, in fact, they would say.
So it's totally different.
The first problem, of course, is that chemical castration and gender transition butchery are not valid medical procedures, so that's all we really need to say about it.
The other problem is that there's a contradiction here, because if these procedures are life-saving, if these are legitimate medical procedures, and in fact are life-saving, as the left claims, then why are you talking about the child's choice at all?
Right, because in that case, in the case of actually saving a child's life, obviously their input and their consent would be irrelevant.
I mean, if the doctor tells me that my son, God forbid, has a brain tumor, and obviously we need to take the brain tumor out or your son's going to die, I'm told.
And then if my son were to tell me, well, he doesn't want to get it removed because he's afraid of the surgery or whatever else.
Well, he's still getting it removed.
I'm not going to respect his wishes.
I'm going to force him to do it because I'm saving his life.
I'm going to save his life whether he likes it or not.
He needs it.
He needs the surgery.
He doesn't know what's best for him.
I do.
He's trying to refuse it.
He doesn't know what that means.
He doesn't understand that he'll die if he doesn't get the surgery.
He doesn't even really understand what death is at his age.
So, I'll force him to do it.
His consent, in the case of an actual life-saving medical procedure, is just not relevant.
What's relevant is what's best for the child, and we're going to save the child's life.
In fact, even in a non-life-saving legitimate medical procedure, when I was 12 years old, and the orthodontist said, you need to get braces, and I told my mom, I'm not getting braces, I don't want them, I don't want to look like a dork with braces, and she said, no, you're getting them because you're not going to have crooked teeth your whole life.
Whether you like it or not, you're getting the braces.
And I did.
So, going back to the gender transition stuff.
The fact that these people always say, and they always say this, that it's a choice between the doctors, the parents, and the child, that means that they are tacitly admitting that these procedures certainly are not life-saving procedures.
Obviously not.
And they're not even valid non-life-saving medical procedures, because if they really believed that these were necessary and life-saving measures, Whenever they're asked about this, the age limit question, they would answer that, well, this will happen, you know, the child's consent is not relevant, and because we're saving the child's life, it's what needs to happen, and that can happen at any age.
You know, just like we would never ask, well, at what age should a child have a tumor removed?
Well, at whatever age he needs it.
What if the child's not old enough to consent?
Well, that's not relevant to this conversation.
We're saving the child's life.
But they won't say that.
They aren't going to say that about this, because if they say that, then they've put themselves in the position of having to prove, having to defend, that these are actually life-saving procedures.
And they can't.
They can't defend it.
You see, they can't defend the merits of the procedures themselves, which means that they'll retreat to this kind of, hey, it's their choice, let them make a choice thing.
They retreat to the kind of arguments that would never come up if these were actually life-saving medical procedures.
So for the purposes of the age discussion, suddenly they talk about the procedures like they are elective and cosmetic.
It's their choice!
Respect their choice!
Okay?
That's only the sort of thing you say when it comes to elective and cosmetic procedures.
It's the only way the child's preferences could possibly be relevant.
But if you're claiming that children can consent to elective and cosmetic procedures, now we're back into the realm of normalizing pedophilia.
Because being able to consent to an elective and cosmetic and body-altering procedure, significantly body-altering and life-changing, we're not talking about piercing your ear or something.
Being able to consent to that, the ability to consent to that, means that you have the ability to consent, period, in general.
I mean, that shows a profound and total ability to consent.
Anyone that can consent to that, to life-changing, body-altering, cosmetic and elective procedures, this is somebody who has the maturity to consent.
It really is logically impossible to argue that a person is mature enough to consent to an elective, cosmetic, life-altering, profoundly body-altering procedure, and yet not mature enough to consent to sexual activity.
That argument doesn't make any sense.
Which is why rational, decent people take all of that and push that all into adulthood.
So you shouldn't be doing any of that into adulthood.
When it comes to gender transition, you shouldn't be doing it at all, even in adulthood.
Because you're destroying your body.
So, their entire argument makes no sense.
But what we need to notice here is not only the slippery slope and what they're setting up in the future, but also in the way that they talk about this issue when it comes to age.
Again, they are tacitly admitting that this is elective cosmetic procedure, that it is not life-saving, you know, a life-saving medical procedure.
All right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene upset some people with some comments that she made on Tucker last night.
Let's listen to those.
Really quick, since you were just there, but Mayor Adams described New York as, quote, his home.
How did his home look?
Pretty neat and tidy?
No, his home is disgusting.
I compared it to what I called Gotham City.
The streets are filthy, they're covered with people, basically dying on drugs.
They can't even stand up, they're falling over.
There's so much crime in the city, I can't comprehend how people live there.
It was repulsive, it smells bad, and I just, I think it's a terrible place.
How dare she insult New York like that?
New York is the greatest garbage heap that the world has ever seen.
And of course, the left, they were very upset about this.
Lots of people were complaining about it.
There were lots of arguments like this one that AOC made.
She said, if anybody went on TV and talked about a rural area like this, it'd be gloves off, and deservedly so.
This is no different.
If she doesn't like the greatest city in the United States, that's her problem.
I heart NY.
And so there was a lot of this sort of thing.
People on the left.
Saying, you know, if there was a Democrat politician who went out into the country and came back and made these kinds of comments about the folks living out in the country, that they would, that the right would be attacking them and everything else.
Well, yeah, but you know the difference?
Is that if Marjorie Taylor Greene had gone out to the country, And then come back and said, well, it's filthy, it's disgusting, it smells terrible, it's overcrowded, there's drug addicts hobbling around all over the street, it's crime ridden.
If she had said all that after taking a drive through the country, it wouldn't be true.
And so that's what would make it an outrageous statement.
It wouldn't be true.
That's just not true of the country.
It's true of this city.
Of really almost every city in America, every large city, but especially New York.
So that's the difference.
If somebody said that about after visiting the countryside, a rural town, it wouldn't offend me.
I would just think this person's mentally ill.
But to go out to the country and then come back and be repulsed by it, to use a word like disgusting?
You got all this open space and green and trees and, you know, there are farms and everything.
To be disgusted by that wouldn't make any sense.
That would just show that you have some kind of mental illness.
Whereas being disgusted by what you see in the city, that makes a lot of sense.
A lot of people have that reaction.
It's like a natural human reaction.
Much of what you see, in fact, last time I've been to New York many times, including several times recently, and every time I've gone, While we're there, we spend like the whole time talking about this.
It's just, it's gross here.
It's disgusting.
It's actually disgusting.
There are many things that would disgust any normal person.
Trash all over the place.
It does smell gross.
You know, rodents, human waste on the, like, of course that's gross.
You go down into the subway system, it's gross, it's grimy, grungy, you know.
Again, there's that smell to it.
If you're not disgusted by that, if you're not grossed out, it's just because you've become numb to it.
It's like a Stockholm Syndrome thing.
But anybody who's accustomed to being out in space and having fresh air and having, you know, and seeing trees and grass and where you don't have to worry about getting carjacked at every stop sign or stoplight, anyone who's used to that and they go into the city, yes, it's going to be repulsive to them.
They haven't built up the kind of psychological immunity to this stuff that you have.
All right, what else we got here?
This is an interesting story from The Daily Wire, and a funny one.
National Public Radio NPR employees accused the network's CEO of racism during a virtual all-staff presentation last week, detailing financial metrics and diversity-level updates following the organization slashing approximately 10% of its workforce.
NPR officials laid off 84 employees last week and halted production on four seasonal podcasts, including Invisibilia, Louder Than a Riot, and Rough Translation.
Nobody's heard of any of those, which is probably why they got cut.
The Wall Street Journal reported the network officially would cut another 13 employees from the digital team.
Following the exodus from ex-staffers, Lansing and other executives reportedly tuned into a Zoom meeting to address the news department and the programming team, taking questions from employees that included how many employees of different races and identities were laid off compared to those who retained their job.
Lansing said, We're here today to take your questions and see if we can move together through this.
At one point during the meeting, the Wall Street Journal reported a laid-off black employee grilled Lansing about why some podcasts lacked marketing support, called out by name the executives for repeating statements they made in the past concerning more accountability, and questioned how the network would make diversity essential.
Lansing pointed to the network's mission statement and told the group to turn down the rhetoric and refrain from naming the executives.
He said, you know, I would never do that to you.
He said, we're all in this together.
Despite Lansing's remarks about making such decisions, a group of employees reportedly accused him of tone policing, causing them to feel offended and uncomfortable with the conversation, which he said should be more civil.
And then they accused him of being racist.
So that's basically the story.
And you have to enjoy this, right?
This is not go woke, go broke.
I wish it was, but NPR will be fine.
It has institutional support.
The left wants it around, and so it's going to stay around.
But at least we can enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing individual people within the organization get eaten alive by the monster they helped to create.
So we can enjoy that at least.
That part is enjoyable, and we should really enjoy it.
I think it would be rude and ungrateful to not enjoy it.
And these are the rules now.
You know, if you're a white leftist in a position of power within any organization, you help to establish these rules which clearly say that you can't do anything that a black person doesn't like without being racist.
And you certainly can't fire them.
You can't fire a black person as a white person without being automatically racist.
And if they shout and scream at you, you can't object or you are tone policing.
And the left has a euphemism for everything, especially they have euphemisms to excuse their own crappy behavior, we know.
So suddenly expecting somebody on the left to display a modicum of respect and maturity, that is now tone policing.
Which is one of the many euphemisms that I sort of wish had existed when I was a kid, when I was younger.
Maybe I could have tried that on, I don't know, I could have tried that on my dad or something.
If he told me to do something, I responded with a sarcastic remark.
And he said, watch your tone, young man.
I said, hey dad, you know what, it feels like you're tone policing right now.
Feels a little fascist, to be honest with you.
Maybe I'm glad the euphemisms didn't exist, because I don't think that would have gone well.
Daily Wire also has this report.
Tennessee Republicans have moved to expel three Democratic state representatives from the House who joined protesters during their storming of the Capitol building last week, leading chants with a bullhorn and disrupting the floor session.
Expulsion resolutions have been filed against Representative Gloria Johnson, Representative Justin Jones, and Representative Justin Pearson over their actions last Thursday after about 400 people rushed into the Tennessee State Capitol building in Nashville.
And a final vote on whether to remove the Democrats will take place on Thursday.
I certainly hope that they go through with it.
The fact that they're trying to pass these resolutions in the first place is a really good sign.
And this is, I gotta tell you, the Tennessee GOP has been really impressing me lately.
And they're impressing me because they are using the power that's been entrusted to them by the voters.
That's what's impressive.
They are operating on the mandate that the voters have given them by electing them to use the power that the law gives them To enact the agenda that the people of this state want and support.
That's what they're doing.
I'm highly impressed by that.
I shouldn't be so impressed, right?
I should be just sort of pleased.
When we see this from Republicans, we shouldn't be super impressed.
We should be pleased, kind of tip our cap and say, well done, and that should be it.
But we shouldn't be blown away impressed by it, because we should be accustomed to Republicans simply using the power at their disposal to enact the agenda that they ran on.
That's what they're supposed to do.
That should be kind of a default position.
But we're not used to that because Republicans don't usually do that.
So, yes, kick their asses out.
That's what they deserve.
That is 100% what they would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
We know that.
And in spite of what they would do, aside from that, it's the right thing to do.
No.
By their own standards, they participated in an insurrection right here in Nashville.
And they should go to jail for it.
Not going to happen.
At the very least, they could be expelled.
All right.
One other thing.
CNN has this report.
Here's the headline.
Silent Screams.
New Research Finds Plants Cry When Stressed.
And they put out a, it's actually a lengthy report.
It's like six minutes long.
We're not going to watch the whole thing, but let's just watch a little bit of this, about the traumatized tomato plants.
Let's watch.
Now, your houseplants might be crying out for help, if only you could hear them.
Researchers at Tel Aviv University found that plants make popping sounds undetectable to the human ear and they get noisier if they need water or if their stems have been cut.
The audio of the sounds made by a dry tomato plant have been sped up and edited so it can be heard.
Have a listen to this.
Fascinating stuff.
For more on this, I'm joined by Yossi Yovel.
He's a senior lecturer at the Department of Zoology at Tel Aviv University and a co-author of the study.
Professor, this blew us away in the newsroom.
We found it all fascinating.
What made you even think to listen to plants, to try to listen?
OK, good morning, Michael.
So actually, the idea was of my colleagues originally, of my colleague Lilach Adani, who's a plant scientist working on evolution.
And we know that plants can communicate with each other using chemicals, volatiles.
We know they communicate with animals.
He's giving a long answer.
Pause it.
He's giving a long answer there.
I mean, the real answer, when he's asked, what made you think to try to listen to the sounds plants make when you cut into them, the real answer should have been, well, I have a mental illness, and that's what made me think to do that.
But this is, listen, this is a point that I've made to vegans.
Plants are living things, too.
And I think this is the problem you run into if you're a vegan.
When you start making the moral argument against eating meat, You end up having to defend your position based on this kind of like species chauvinism.
Now, I don't have a problem with species chauvinism.
I am a speciesist and proudly, I proudly engage in that sort of discrimination myself.
I absolutely believe that human beings are the superior species on planet Earth.
We have dominion over the other species.
And while we should respect them as living creatures, as God's creatures, we do also have the moral right to utilize them for legitimate ends.
And legitimate ends means food, labor, protection, even entertainment.
Like animals, people always feel sorry for the animals at the zoo.
I don't feel sorry for them.
They are fulfilling arguably the highest vocation that any animal can possibly fulfill because they're bringing joy to human beings and especially to children.
That's a wonderful life for an animal.
So, I believe that, but if you're a vegan, you would reject everything that I just said, and you would reject this kind of hierarchical view of life on the planet.
You would say, well, who are we to think that we can use other living creatures?
But the problem is you're only kicking the can down the road, right?
You're not getting rid of the species hierarchy, you're adjusting it, because plants are living things too.
And you might say, well, plants don't have feelings, they aren't self-aware, they aren't conscious.
To which I respond, first of all, the chicken that they killed to make the chicken wings I ate last night also doesn't have feelings or self-awareness.
But then I would say, secondarily, and maybe slightly contradicting myself, but whatever, How do you know that the plants don't have feelings and consciousness?
How do you know that?
Have you ever been a tomato?
How can you say what the experience of a tomato is like?
I mean, for all we know, tomatoes have a rich inner life.
We don't, you know, for all we know, they have feelings and dreams and desires.
Maybe tomatoes are in the garden singing to each other and reciting poetry.
We don't know that.
Actually, we do know.
Apparently, they are crying out In pain.
That didn't sound like cries to me.
It sounded more like Morse code.
They're tapping out a message to us saying, please stop eating us.
They scream out in agony as you, the vegan, viciously slice into them and eat their flesh while they're still alive, watching as pieces of them are consumed.
And the other members of the vegetable community, you know, the lettuce and the cucumber and the carrot and Joe Biden and all of them, they sit in your salad, watching in horror as their comrades are devoured And you people have the gumption and the gall to judge the rest of us for doing exactly what you're doing while you engage in this plant-based genocide.
It's outrageous.
So can't we all agree that we should be able to eat whatever non-human life forms we want?
I think that's the rule that I would set.
I think that's the most simple thing because if we can't agree on that, Then we end up with this kind of self-contradictory mess, this arbitrary hierarchy.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Or you could take a more consistent position and just say, well, we should all starve to death and not eat anything.
But if we're not going to do that, then I think we're only left with eat whatever you want, eat any living thing you want, as long as it's not a human being.
That's where I would... I think that's where you have to lay the marker down.
Good.
So we've settled that.
Veganism is no more.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Locutus says, if Dylan Mulvaney is indeed what he says he is, an adolescent girl,
then Bud Light should be indicted for providing an underage girl with alcohol.
That would be holding them to their own standards, as Matt says.
Very excellent point.
Now, when you're dealing with this subject, the contradictions, the inherent self-contradictions are so rampant and rife that, you know, you can really choose your pick of the litter, but there's one.
Basti says, Walsh, I remember a few years back asking you to leave a sinking ship.
I was so wrong.
Your voice alone has taken The Daily Wire in the right direction.
Watching your take from the car in the driveway was so relatable.
I wasn't in my driveway, first of all.
I was usually in like a parking lot, oftentimes a Walmart parking lot, sometimes a parking garage if the sun was shining too brightly.
So that's the first thing.
And also, it's definitely not just my voice here at The Daily Wire at all, but thank you.
Let's see, Barry says, I don't understand.
Trump had sex with someone, then said to them, here's some money, don't tell anybody.
I'm not American, so there's obviously some nuances to the word felony that I don't get.
No, you get it.
You absolutely get it.
You get it more than the DA of Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, does.
It's not a crime.
It's not moral.
It's not morally defensible.
Having an affair with a prostitute is immoral.
Um, paying her to keep silent is immoral.
It's also, well, the immorality was having the affair in the first place.
Paying her for her silence was really stupid.
It was a stupid thing to do.
And it was stupid on multiple levels.
And like, the first level being really, you know, the main reason is that, um, Trump should have realized that You know, in modern America, it's not actually going to hurt you politically for it to come out that you had an affair with a prostitute.
So, there's no reason to even pay for her silence in the first place.
And even if you do, you obviously can't trust her to actually stay silent, so you're just wasting your money.
So, immoral and stupid, definitely.
Not illegal.
I mean, how can it be?
How could that possibly be illegal?
Unless we're making extramarital affairs illegal.
Is that what we're pushing towards?
Is that what Allen Bragg wants in Manhattan?
Let's have a law where it's illegal to have an extramarital affair in the first place?
If that's what you're advocating for, I'm listening.
But I don't think that is what they're advocating for.
And if that was against the law in Manhattan, then the entire city would be in a labor camp by now.
Which is just yet another reason why I would eagerly listen to such a proposal.
But that law, again, is not on the books.
Grand Marshal Steve says, Matt is delusional if he thinks DeSantis would do better than Trump.
Look, DeSantis did win a purple state by 20 points.
He flipped cities that were blue, red, so we know that he can do that.
Yeah, it's on a state level, not a national level.
But the main thing with DeSantis for me is that he is an unknown entity on a national level.
He's basically, people know who he is, but how he would fare in a national election, that is unknown, because he hasn't done it before.
Which means that there's the potential for a high ceiling.
The issue with Trump, Okay, it's just we have to face reality.
The issue is that we kind of know where the ceiling is, because we know that there's so much baked in, and there's no one left to convince.
So there's really no mystery.
You can kind of look right now around the country, and you can see, okay, well, how many people are there who would potentially vote for Donald Trump?
It's not going to change.
Whatever it is right now, it's not going to change in 2024.
And my worry is that the ceiling is almost high enough to get over the edge and win the election.
I'm not sure that it's high enough, though.
It's a numbers game.
For DeSantis, it would be a real challenge, too.
But there I see, you know, it's like the dumb and dumber thing.
At least there's a chance.
So you're saying there's a chance.
I see a chance there with Trump.
I just don't know.
St.
Pete Runner says, so your argument is you think Trump should be above the law because other rich and powerful people are, lol.
No, I don't think anyone should be above the law.
I don't think Trump should be above the law.
But they're treating him like he's beneath the law.
Okay, they're treating him like they can make up laws to put him in jail.
Okay, they're treating him unequal in the other direction, and I'm not okay with that either.
He didn't commit a crime.
They haven't even officially accused him of an actual crime, and yet they're prosecuting him anyway.
And then Dudley Buchanan says it's very evident that your company is throwing their support behind DeSantis, which is fine.
I can only speak for myself, but you were obviously alienating me or you were close to alienating me by pushing us constantly to be as rhino as you obviously are.
We get it you don't like Trump and you're working on making sure that DeSantis is pushed forward.
You're making a terrible mistake because you're gonna lose a lot of us.
Okay, first of all, The company isn't supporting anyone.
The company doesn't tell me who to support or not support.
It always makes me laugh when I hear this from people.
Oh, you're doing this.
This is the company lying in their feet.
My entire time here, I've never had one conversation with anyone about, we need you to take this position on this issue.
It never happened.
It's laughable.
And if it ever did happen, I would walk right out the door.
And not only that, I would tell everyone it happened.
Because that would be such a betrayal.
But it never has and it never would.
Just never would.
But look, if you think I'm a rhino, by which I assume you mean fake conservative, You know, establishment squish or whatever.
If you can listen to everything I say on this show every day, and you can see the things that I do to actually fight in real and tangible ways in the culture, and in ways that, you know, very few people on our side are willing to do, if you can look at that and come away with the conclusion That I'm like a fake conservative because I don't praise Trump enough by your standards, then you're... I'm sorry, but your mind has been totally claimed.
It's been possessed by a personality cult, and there's not a lot I can say to you.
Like, if Trump is still your litmus test for true conservatism, if that's the one thing you base it on, is what a person says about Trump, about one guy, about a politician, then there's not a lot for us to talk about.
It's just not it.
And one guy, one politician will never be the litmus test.
Yeah, it's no secret.
I like DeSantis.
I like his policies.
That's why I like him.
But I'm not sitting here saying, if you don't support DeSantis, you're not a true conservative.
What an idiotic thing to say.
He's a politician.
You can say whatever you want about him.
Okay?
You're not ever going to offend me for insulting a politician, even the ones that I like.
He's not my best friend.
He's not my dad.
He's not like a family member who I feel this intense loyalty to or a blood tie with.
He's a politician.
I like him conditionally because he supports, he enacts policies that I support.
I'm ready to withdraw that support at any time if he You know, stops fulfilling his promises, if he sells out, if he goes, you know, I withdraw that support in a heartbeat.
I wouldn't even have to think about it.
So that should not be your litmus test.
You know, if you want to know who the true conservatives are, yeah, listen to what they say, listen to the stances they take, and then watch what they actually do.
And I will say that, you know, I've put quite a lot on the line for this movement, and we've achieved real victories.
And so, yeah, I'm going to exercise my right to support or not support whoever the hell I want when it comes to politics.
We're coming up on nine months since I released the groundbreaking documentary, What Is A Woman, exposing radical gender ideology for what it is.
And you'd think that this would be ample enough time for people to come up with an actual answer to the question, but you'd be wrong.
As I discovered at the Young America Foundation Q&A in New Mexico just two nights ago, their answers are still just as confusing and nonsensical as they ever were.
After my speech, Multiple critics of mine and critics of reality evidently stepped up to the mic in an attempt to challenge me.
They cited the usual gender as a social construct type of stuff, other long-winded nonsense.
When talking to one self-identified trans woman, quote-unquote, so a biological male, I asked a simple, very predictable question that you'd think they'd have an answer for by now.
What is a woman?
You know, they've heard it enough.
You'd think they'd have an answer.
Here's what the person said.
said, "A woman is someone who is included and respected and seen and participates in
society recognized by other women." Which means that the definition is not only circular,
but it also is dependent on other people's validation. If you haven't seen "What is
a woman?" yet or if you're on the left and you still somehow find yourself confused about
basic biology, I've got some good news for you.
You can now get 30% off your Daily Wire Plus membership when you use the code WOMAN.
If you've already seen the film, thank you.
If you haven't, if you know someone who hasn't, tell them to watch it.
You need to start recruiting more people back to the side of truth and basic reality.
To watch What Is Woman, join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use the code WOMAN to save 30% off your membership.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
If you listen to this show, then you know all about the recent epidemic to hit the publishing industry.
It's a parasitic infestation known as sensitivity readers.
These are the woke hall monitors hired to read over and apply their sensitivities to both new and old works of literature.
And following the guidance of the sensitivity readers, books are rewritten, languages change, characters, descriptions are edited or removed, so the story can more closely conform to the sensibilities of Zoomers on TikTok.
Now, as we know, they've already subjected the works of Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming to this humiliation.
Many other authors living and dead have fallen victim to it as well.
So, when you hear that they have released a new edition of the 1936 novel Gone with the Wind, you'll probably assume that this book was also vigorously harassed and assaulted by the sensitivity readers.
But that is not the direction that the publisher, Pan MacMillan, decided to go.
Because apparently this classic novel, set in the South during the Civil War era, is so thoroughly objectionable, so deeply shocking and problematic, that it's beyond the powers of the sensitivity readers to fix.
From what I understand, a group of sensitivity readers actually tried to make revisions, but after reading just two pages of the book, they all spontaneously combusted, leaving behind nothing but a rainbow-colored cloud and tufts of blue hair floating around.
I mean, it was a tragedy.
So the publisher has decided to, instead of doing that, they can't lose any more sensitivity readers, they're going to adopt a new strategy.
Rather than changing the book, They'll release it in its original form, prefaced with a lengthy essay apologizing for the book's existence.
So they're still going to publish Margaret Mitchell's classic work, and they're going to profit off of it, but they will scold her sternly for her bigotry in the process.
The Postmillennial has this report.
Pan Macmillan, the publisher of Margaret Mitchell's classic 1936 American novel Gone with the Wind, has added a trigger warning in the preface of the book's most recent publication, telling readers that the text is harmful and problematic because of its white supremacist qualities.
Telegraph reports that the publisher specifically hired a white writer, Philippa Gregory, to pen an essay to accompany the trigger warning.
And details the book's white supremacist elements to avoid hiring a black writer and to avoid hiring a black writer and giving them the emotional labor of such a task.
Now, I'm going to take a brief sidebar here.
So they wanted, they hired a white writer to write this apology, not a black writer because they don't want to give the black writer the emotional labor.
And I want to say this invention of this concept of emotional labor Is perhaps the best evidence that we have that human beings, by our nature, need some hardship in life, right?
We need work, we need suffering, we need pain.
A life devoid of any sort of resistance becomes boring and meaningless.
It's like playing ping pong against a blind guy with no arms.
You'll win every match, which is nice, but it's not gonna be very fun because it isn't challenging.
So after a while, you'll start to wonder, why even bother?
Modern existence is sort of like this.
There are drugs to numb every pain, screens to keep us distracted from every uncomfortable thought or emotion, and drugs to numb those as well, machines to do most of our work for us, shortcuts to get around every difficulty.
We can have anything we want, any product, any meal delivered to our doorstep.
A life of relative ease and low resistance unfurls before us.
And many people, to ensure that no inconveniences intrude into this picture, elect also not to have children.
Because even with all these modern luxuries and workarounds, parenting is the one way to introduce real, high-stakes challenges into your life.
And many shy away from it for that exact reason.
But...
They're stuck with human nature regardless.
They let their laziness and weakness govern their lives, yet they still desire, at least, the illusion of hardship.
And this, I believe, is the real source of left-wing victim mentality.
It's why they come up with ideas like emotional labor.
They don't want to do anything that requires real labor, so instead they just tell themselves that by existing in their identity group, they are constantly engaged in this kind of invisible, emotional labor.
These people love to talk about how exhausted they are, how stressed, how overwhelmed, but they fetishize all of those emotions because they've never authentically experienced them.
That's what this is about.
Like I said, that was a sidebar, but worth noting.
So back to the article.
Gone with the Wind is set before and during the American Civil War and tracks protagonist Scarlett O'Hara, the daughter of a southern plantation owner, as she navigates the tumult of her times.
The story begins with O'Hara living in relative comfort and excess as she considers a variety of men to be her suitors, but her lifestyle radically changes through the course of the war.
The book's publisher now warns readers that they could find the way Mitchell depicted the South as racist and hurtful or indeed harmful, and that the reader will encounter shocking elements.
The warning reads, "Gone with the Wind is a novel which includes problematic elements,
including the romanticism of a shocking era in our history and the horrors of slavery.
This novel includes the representation of unacceptable practices,
racist and stereotypical depictions, and troubling themes, characterization,
language, and imagery." The warning continues. The publisher notes that "the book remains true
to the original in every way and is reflective of the language and period in which it was originally
written, and they believe changing the text to reflect today's world would undermine the
the authenticity of the original, so they've chosen instead to leave the text in its entirety.
This does not, however, constitute an endorsement of the characterization, content, or language used.
The publisher adds.
And that's just the trigger warning.
It's only after the trigger warning that we get the essay from Philippa Gregory condemning the author of the book for endorsing the quote, lost cause and quote, defending racism and quote, glamorizing and preaching white supremacy.
So really there are two prefaces and apologies.
The first is a trigger warning from the publisher.
The second is a lecture condemning the very book that the reader has presumably purchased with the intent of reading.
Now, Let me make one point about this.
I am extremely sick and tired of this pompous, self-inflated attitude which retroactively condemns people from other eras for failing to have adopted the beliefs and presuppositions of people in our era.
So, will you find, quote-unquote, racism in the words and writings and actions of lots of people who lived 90 years ago, or 150 years ago, or at any other point in history before that?
Yes, you will.
Okay?
By our standards today, you'll find a ton of racism.
You'll find it all over the place, everywhere.
That's because, by our standards today, virtually everybody in the world of every race was racist for almost the entirety of human history.
The idea of full racial equality is extremely new, extremely modern, and extremely Western.
Still today, it is a conviction and value system not shared by most people outside of the Western world.
And even within the Western world, it doesn't take long to discover that the people who call themselves anti-racist are, in fact, deeply racist.
It's just that they are racist against whites.
So, still, in theory, in theory, we are a culture which believes in racial equality.
And that is something that, in theory, distinguishes us from all other cultures on the planet and throughout time.
So it becomes totally absurd, then, to waste time condemning the quote-unquote white supremacy, the alleged white supremacy of a woman like Margaret Mitchell, who was born before the invention of human flight.
And here's the other point.
Okay, and this is the most important thing.
All of the people Who are issuing these condemnations.
All of the people who spend time apologizing for or virtue signaling based on the quote racism of people who've been dead for many decades.
All these people, the sensitivity readers, the people putting these disclaimers on books.
All of these people, all of them, would hold all of those same kinds of beliefs if they lived during that time.
All of them would.
Now, as I said, most of them do today, just it's directed at a different race of people.
But putting that aside, all of these people would be guilty of these historical sins if they happened to have been born slightly earlier on the timeline.
I know this because these people have completely and unquestionably adopted all of the prevailing mainstream attitudes and beliefs of our day.
They have shown a willingness to say whatever the culture says they should say, and believe whatever the culture says they should believe.
The culture tells them that whites are inherently racist.
They believe that whites are inherently racist.
The culture tells them that women have penises.
They believe that women have penises.
The culture tells them to wave a rainbow flag.
They wave a rainbow flag.
The culture tells them to wave a Ukrainian flag.
They wave a Ukrainian flag.
The culture tells them to wear a mask.
They wear a mask.
They are disciples of the current thing, and these are our current things.
If they happened to live in 1920, the current things would be very different.
But they'd be current.
And so, these people would accept and believe all of those things.
See, it requires moral courage and independent thought and finely tuned critical thinking skills to fundamentally question the most ubiquitous beliefs and practices of the age you live in.
These people have none of those qualities.
They would not have stood a chance In fact, like we talked about yesterday, very few people prior to the 18th and 19th centuries wanted to see slavery totally abolished.
And even the people who did during that time, most of them, the ones that were abolitionists, would still be considered wildly racist by our modern standards.
You don't have to go back much farther than the 18th and 19th century to get to a point in the world where literally nobody was opposed to slavery or racism.
Where abolitionism and racial equality didn't exist as concepts.
And these were not stupid people.
In fact, some of the most brilliant human beings in human history lived during this time of many millennia.
But they had no problem with racism.
They had no problem with slavery.
Why?
Well, because abolitionism, racial equality, these were movements, our movements, Resting upon an ideological and intellectual and spiritual framework that had to be built slowly over the centuries.
Someone living in the year 300 couldn't have opposed slavery, certainly couldn't have opposed it for the reasons that we do today at any rate, because they didn't have the language or foundation to formulate and express that opposition.
Not because they were dumb, but just because it didn't exist.
The point here is that we live at the end of that process, okay?
The work has been done for us.
We happen to be born into a culture where slavery is universally condemned and racism, again in theory, is abhorred.
Okay, it's not by any virtue of ours that we were born during this time.
We just were.
So who the hell are we to condemn or lecture or censor or edit or add trigger warnings to people who didn't enjoy that same benefit?
Who are you, the woke skull, to think that you have any moral high ground to stand on at all?
You mindless zombies.
You conformist drones.
You hive mind insects.
You have absolutely no capacity to think outside the contemporary box.
Every era has its unique sins.
You are guilty of promoting and celebrating all of ours.
And so, you would have promoted and celebrated all of theirs.
And that is why you are, today, finally cancelled.
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.
