Ep. 1159 - The Left Demands That We Surrender Our Families And Communities To Violent Criminals
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, activists call for the end of armed security after a black trans person was shot and killed while trying to rob a Walgreens. Just as we saw with the Jordan Neely case, Leftists believe that defending yourself and your property is the greatest sin. Also, a famous musician comes out against child gender transitions. Guess how long it took him to back down and apologize. And a number of Trump supporters on social media are now arguing that we should stop focusing on the culture war. I'll explain why they're horrifically wrong. In our Daily Cancellation, the woke "homeless" is no longer woke enough. A new term has been invented to take its place.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE
- - -
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, activists call for the end of armed security after a black trans person was shot and killed while trying to rob a Walgreens, just as we saw with the Jordan Neely case.
Leftists believe that defending yourself, and especially your property, is the greatest sin of all.
Also, a famous musician comes out against child gender transitions, but guess how long it took him to back down and apologize.
A number of Trump supporters on social media are now arguing that we should stop focusing so much on the culture war.
I'll explain why they're extremely wrong about that.
In our daily cancellation, the word homeless is no longer woke enough, apparently.
A new term has been invented to take its place.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S.
dollar—inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt.
The fact is there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars and political and economic upheaval
dating back to biblical times, and that is gold.
I've bought gold from Birch Gold in preparation for uncertain economic times,
and you can trust them too.
You should do the same.
You can own gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
That's right, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
The best part is you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven.
How much more time does the dollar have?
Protect your savings with gold.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.
You can find out why by texting WALSH to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold.
Again, text WALSH to 989898 today.
There have been many great speeches in American history.
George Washington's first inaugural address, Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Ronald Reagan in Berlin, Theodore Roosevelt's Man in the Arena.
These were all triumphant, stirring, profound.
They moved the hearts of men.
They spurred citizens to action.
They shaped history.
And yet, of all those speeches, they all pale in comparison to this.
Imagine that.
I HATE THIS!
I HATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO US!
I HATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO US!
I HATE YOU, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS!
I HATE YOU, LONDON BREED!
I hate you, Jenkins.
[SOUND]
Call DA Jenkins accountable.
Call him a [BLEEP
[BLEEP
Cowards.
He needs to suffer solitary confinement with that security guard.
Y'all have these armed guards, she's walking free.
She makes a good point, you have to admit.
On second thought, I may have slightly overstated the case.
At least I'll say that was more coherent than a Joe Biden speech.
We can say that much, if nothing else.
Now that clip went viral yesterday without any real context.
Millions of people saw this woman screeching incoherently and had no clue what she was screeching about or why.
And usually I would say it's probably better that way.
These people are always screaming about something, the precise details really aren't relevant.
But in this case, it might be worth taking some of the background into account.
That was an activist named Leah McGeever.
She was addressing the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
If we can refer to that as addressing the board, that's how she was addressing it.
McGeever was joined by a number of other LGBT activists who descended upon the meeting to protest The death of somebody named Benko Brown.
Last week, Benko Brown, who is a trans-identified female, allegedly tried to shoplift from a Walgreens in the city.
She was confronted by an armed security guard.
Now, the San Francisco DA, Brooke Jenkins, says that the shoplifting at this point, when the security guard confronted her, Quote, escalated into a robbery, which means that Brown used force or the threat of force because that's what a robbery is, legally speaking.
The security guard responded by firing one shot at Brown, which killed her.
The security guard was then taken into custody.
The incident was investigated.
And authorities ultimately decided not to press charges, concluding that it was self-defense.
Now, given that this is San Francisco, okay?
This is San Francisco, and the person who was killed was a black trans female.
Given all of that, we can be certain that they really would have liked to charge the security guard, and they would have charged him if they could find the slightest pretense.
Okay, we can assume that they were sifting through this thing looking for anything, looking for the smallest little hook to hang charges on, and they couldn't find it.
The fact that even the San Francisco DA would call this self-defense is a pretty strong indication that it was likely not only self-defense, but an extremely clear-cut case of self-defense.
As we know, the official legal bar for self-defense is set at a certain height, but the unofficial bar for self-defense against someone who belongs to three different victim classes is set significantly higher.
And this security guard apparently cleared both the official bar and the unofficial bar, which is all we really need to know about the case.
But that's not good enough for the leftist activists, because nothing ever is.
And they've spent the last week protesting both the killing and the city's decision to not press charges.
The activists have made it extremely clear.
If the security guard feared for his life, if his life was actually in danger, if he had reasonable fear for his life, which authorities have decided that he did, well, the activists say, well, then it was his responsibility to simply die.
That's it.
His life is less important than the life of a trans person.
Just as the lives of everybody on the subway train with Jordan Neely a few days ago in New York, all of their lives were less important than Jordan Neely himself.
If he was threatening to hurt them, and he was according to witness reports, it was their responsibility to sit there passively and allow themselves to be harassed and accosted and assaulted, potentially killed.
One of the greatest sins, according to the left and the leftist religion, is the sin of defending yourself.
An even greater sin, though, is the sin of defending your property.
So, in the leftist worldview, you can't even defend yourself, your own body, your own life, against someone who belongs to a privileged victim class.
Well, how much more outrageous is it to them, in that case, if you defend not just your life, but physical property or merchandise?
That's why activists in San Francisco are now calling for the abolition of security guards in response to this incident.
Reading from a Fox report, quote, protesters held a rally Monday to demonstrate against the DA's decision.
They called on Walgreens to eliminate armed guards saying nothing in the store was worth Brown's life.
Quote, it's insane that Walgreens has armed security.
There's nothing in that store worth a human life, and Walgreens is not taking care of our community.
According to Jessica Nowlin from the Young Women's Freedom Center, talking to Fox San Francisco, we demand an end to armed security.
Now, I agree that stealing isn't worth the cost of a human life.
So, don't steal.
You know, it's not worth your life.
The left, as always, responds to an incident involving two people, which in this case is the robber and the security guard, by putting all of the onus onto one of the parties involved and none at all on the other.
And the party that shares 0% of the blame is the party that instigated the incident and committed a crime and was both legally and morally in the wrong every step of the way.
They're the ones who are not responsible, though.
But there's a reason why activists respond to these kinds of situations by siding with the people who are clearly and totally at fault.
Partly, it's their rigidly hierarchical worldview, which places the life of a trans shoplifter over a male security guard, places the life of a black criminal over a white police officer, and so on.
That's the hierarchy on the left.
But it's also a reflection of their own dependence and immaturity.
They insist that it's never worth someone's life to defend property or products, ignoring that in this case, the security guard fired in self-defense, not in defense of Walgreens merchandise.
That's why he was let off and they didn't put any charges on him, because they said it was self-defense.
But even putting that aside, in fact, it is justified.
And worth it to use force to protect property.
Our lives depend on our property.
It's how we provide for ourselves and our families.
If property is not safe, then people are not safe.
If we cannot preserve property, we cannot preserve human life.
The left claims that people need to steal from Walgreens to survive and they're ignoring the fact that the thieves, they almost never steal the essential items that are needed to survive.
They say that this is, these are people who are starving and hungry and all of that and they just need the essentials.
But yet it's a funny thing because if you go into any store in the city and you look at the items that they have to keep behind locked glass because those are the high, you know, the merchandise that have the highest rate of being stolen, it's never like first aid kits.
And whole wheat bread and, I don't know, eggs that they have to lock up.
It's always makeup and expensive headphones and that sort of thing.
Regardless, if theft is allowed to go on unfettered, the stores will close.
They won't be able to keep their businesses open.
And then nobody will be able to access any of those items.
If people need, quote-unquote, to steal from Walgreens because they need the stuff that Walgreens has, then they also need to shop at Walgreens and they need Walgreens to be open, which means that Walgreens has to stay in business, which means that they have to stop people from stealing.
By the left's own logic, Walgreens is protecting human life by using lethal force to protect its merchandise.
Because by their logic, people depend on that merchandise to survive, and so if it shuts down because they can't stay open because they can't sell the merchandise because everyone's stealing it, then that puts people's lives in jeopardy.
But the problem is that people who contribute nothing to society, and who have no children or families to support, and who have the luxury to live in whatever delusional utopia they've invented in their heads, they aren't able to understand this.
They own nothing.
And they do nothing and they provide for no one, least of all themselves.
They don't understand the seriousness of property rights and how our lives depend on those rights because they are unserious people.
And these are the people we are handing our country over to.
Those who truly believe that hysterically screaming counts as an argument.
I am very upset and therefore I'm right.
My emotional state trumps everything.
This is the kind of logic that they use.
It's the kind of logic that my three-year-old daughter finds persuasive.
It's also the logic of a whole generation of grown adults.
And the future of our country really depends on rescuing it from these people.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Latest on Bud Light here, Anheuser-Busch CEO Michael Dorkeris addressed the Bud Light
controversy on an earnings call with investors Thursday, downplaying the brand's partnership
with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney that prompted a boycott from conservatives.
Dorkeris told investors there is misinformation spreading on social media about the company's team-up with Mulvaney.
We need to clarify the facts that this was one can, one influencer, one post, and not a campaign.
The CEO said that Anheuser-Busch is providing direct financial support to the frontline workers impacted by the boycott, naming delivery drivers, sale representatives, wholesalers, bar owners, and servers.
Well, they're impacted by not really the boycott so much as Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch's own marketing decisions, so this is where the impact originates.
By the way, Docker has said the brewing giant will triple media spending on advertising
for Bud Light over the summer, confirming reports that the company is planning a major
marketing push to recover its brand.
So there's still scrambling here as sales continue to drop significantly across the
But probably the most significant sign of Bud Light's troubles that we've seen so far is this video that somebody posted, I think to TikTok.
And this is from a Red Sox game this week.
And you can see how busy or not so busy the Bud Light concession stand is compared to all the other concession stands.
Let's see that.
Guys, this is so funny and bizarre.
Look at that.
That is the Bud Light.
That is every single Bud Light stand here at Fenway Park in Boston.
Right?
Where the Red Sox came.
And that's where the Bud Light stands.
Crap.
Well, I guess it's not a bad thing if you're working the Bud Light stand.
It gives you some time to take a nap and scroll your phone.
That is rough.
I mean, nobody drinking Bud Light at a baseball game.
People are choosing to wait in longer lines than drink Bud Light.
Like, I've never, at any stadium I've been to, you know, football stadium or baseball stadium, I've never seen that.
I've never seen, like, a massively long line at one stand and then nobody at another.
So that shows you.
And it's especially terrible at a stadium, because as much as I hate Bud Light, and I hated it before it was cool to hate it, because it's terrible, if there's one place where I would drink Bud Light up until now, it would be at a stadium.
Because your options are limited at a stadium.
And anyway, all beer tastes better at a stadium.
At least maybe I tell myself that to justify paying $27 for an 8-ounce pour.
But either way, this is how bad things are for the company.
And it's also why I think we should probably stop Referring to it as a boycott because it's it's not even a boycott anymore It's actually bigger than that and deeper than that for Bud Light and a much bigger problem So it's way worse than a boycott for Bud Light it is Really a rebrand Okay, and not a rebrand that Bud Light wanted It is we have branded Bud Light this way based on their own choices
We have branded it this way.
People aren't drinking it now, not because they're necessarily consciously trying to send a statement.
I think all those people in line who aren't going over to the Bud Light stand, I'm sure some of them are thinking of this as a boycott and they're sending a political statement, but I think much more it's just like Bud Light is lame now.
It's lame.
It's not cool.
And your buddies will make fun of you if they see you drinking Bud Light, so you're not going to drink it.
It has become cemented, I think.
And I don't know how they recover from that.
I'm not sure how they recover.
It's one thing to have a boycott.
It's another thing to be branded.
And they are branded now.
This is their brand now.
And I'm not sure how you get out of that.
The only way to do it would be, again, to Explicitly apologize and completely backtrack.
Now they've already tried to backtrack and they've tried to say, they've issued statements that do everything but apologize.
The only way to maybe shake this branding off of you, shake the stench off of you, is to directly apologize and to start branding yourself as the opposite of that.
But they're not going to do that, because then they're worried about the reverse backlash, and they don't want to do that, and they figure that's going to make it even worse for them.
Because then it's like, well, if the customers are trying to win back, if they still aren't satisfied, now we don't have them, but now we're losing.
Now we have the left coming after us.
And so they've probably figured that they can't do that.
There's really nothing they can do.
This is how they've been branded.
By their own choices, they've been branded this way.
And it's... I keep saying this is the... I can't think of another example where conservatives have been able to achieve something like this in the fight against corporate woke-ism.
It simply is one of the most significant victories in the fight against corporate wokeism.
Maybe there's some competition for the most significant, but I'm not even sure what's competing with it at this point.
Which maybe tells you as much about the Bud Light thing as it does about the parade of failures by conservatives up until now to land any blows at all against corporate wokeism.
But this is a major blow.
And I'll tell you something else, it is going to make brands in the future think long and hard before, you know, promoting transgenderism.
There'll still be brands that do it.
There are going to be brands that have a heavily left-wing customer base.
They're not worried about it.
There are going to be brands that figure, well, they're way too big and powerful to worry about it, so they can do whatever they want.
I think Bud Light assumed that about itself.
It assumed wrong.
There may be some brands where that actually is true, where they can basically do whatever they want.
You know, if you're Google or something, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
But there are a lot of other brands that, you know, they would be susceptible to something like this.
They have a heavily conservative, or not even conservative, just like a customer base of average, middle-income, you know, normal Americans.
And they are going to be very, very hesitant.
Which is a good thing.
Alright, much was made of this a few days ago.
Paul Stanley, who's the guitarist for the band KISS, which I guess they're still Out there making music?
He came out against gender transitions for minors, and here was the Daily Wire report, quote, Kiss singer and guitarist Paul Stanley called normalizing gender reassignment surgery on children a sad and dangerous fad on Sunday, sparking both backlash and praise-verse comments as the nation battles many states crafting legislation surrounding so-called gender-affirming care.
Stanley, who's 71 years old, posted a statement to Twitter where he shared thoughts about the controversial topic.
He said, there's a big difference between teaching acceptance and normalizing and even encouraging participation in a lifestyle that confuses young children into questioning their sexual identification as though some sort of game and then parents in some cases allow it.
He wrote in a statement under the title, my thoughts on what I'm seeing.
He continued, There are individuals who, as adults, may decide reassignment as their needed choice, but turning this into a game or parents normalizing it as some sort of natural alternative or believing that because a little boy likes to play dress-up in his sister's clothes or a girl and her brother's, we should lead them steps further down a path that's far from the innocence of what they're doing.
With many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences cut up in the fun of using pronouns and saying what they identify as, some adults mistakenly Okay, so that's what he wrote.
And he was, he's mostly right about this.
I say mostly because he also had that endorsement of adult gender transitions, which was unnecessary for him to add that caveat and also wrong.
That's what he wrote.
And he was, he's mostly right about this.
I say mostly because he also had that endorsement of adult gender transitions, which was unnecessary
for him to add that caveat and also wrong.
But it was good that he said it.
The rest of it was true.
But I didn't line up like a lot of conservatives did to cheer him on.
And the reason that I wasn't going to cheer him on is that I saw this next part coming from a mile away.
A couple of days later, here's the update.
Kiss singer and guitarist Paul Stanley reversed course Thursday on a statement that he made at the start of the week in which he called out those attempting to push transgender ideology on children.
He wrote yesterday on Twitter, While my thoughts were clear, my words clearly were not.
Most importantly and above all else, I support those struggling with their sexual identity while enduring constant hostility and those whose path leads them to reassignment surgery.
It's hard to fathom the kind of conviction that one must feel to take those steps.
A paragraph or two will remain far too short to fully convey my thoughts or point of view, so I will leave that for another time and place.
You absolute coward.
I have more respect for a full-on trans activist, okay?
I have more respect for a trans activist working at Media Matters or in Antifa or something than I do for somebody like this.
My respect for the former category is pretty much at zero, so I guess we're in the negatives with someone like Paul Stanley.
Because you know better, you clearly have demonstrated that you're not confused about this, you know better, you said the right thing, well, mostly the right thing, and you had to know, like, you knew that it was a controversial subject, even if it shouldn't be, and so you had to know that there was going to be pushback, and you said it anyway, and then you get the pushback, and almost immediately you give up.
Absolute cowardice.
And especially for someone... Okay, you're 71 years old.
I assume you're pretty wealthy.
You got a lot of residual checks coming in from all the, you know, from... I don't think Kiss has made any new music that anyone cared about in a long time.
But I assume he's doing pretty well for himself.
So, you're rich.
You're 71 years old.
You're a former rock star.
What do you have to lose?
What do you want?
So you said something that's true.
You upset people on Twitter.
So?
What in the world could happen to you as an aging rock star worth millions of dollars?
Why would you care what anyone on Twitter says?
Why would you be susceptible or vulnerable to that?
You're not.
You're in a position where you could say, okay, you're upset.
I don't care.
And especially as a former rock star, right?
That's supposed to be your attitude.
That was your brand for many years.
That's what being a rock star is all about, right?
You don't care if people are upset.
You're going to express yourself.
You're going to say what you think.
You're going to be bold.
You're going to be countercultural.
Well, maybe 30, you know, 40 years ago, when Kiss was dressing up, doing the glam rock thing, and dressing up in, you know, whatever, drag.
It was like, that was counter-cultural.
Well, now, counter-cultural is exactly what he said.
Coming out against gender mutilation of kids.
Counter-cultural.
And yet, he still caves.
We are surrounded by utter cowards.
Who know better.
They know better.
But they don't have the spine to withstand even the slightest pushback.
Alright, Planned Parenthood put out a PSA a few days ago trying to alleviate the stigma of executing your own child in cold blood.
This is something Andrea Yates, somebody like that, would really appreciate.
Let's watch that.
And after my abortion, I just started living my life.
Getting an abortion made me stronger.
It took me a really long time to say I had an abortion, even as a doctor.
I was told this was going to be something horrible, but it felt like, it felt like I saved my life.
All I could feel was relief, and I don't regret that.
It was an easy decision for me because the alternative wasn't an option.
I will tell any and everybody about my abortion.
I tell my abortion story because I want to normalize abortion.
Somebody out there can't tell theirs.
My story is just one story.
In the tapestry of abortion stories.
And I think that if a lot more people would be open and listen.
It's how we can break down those walls and have these conversations.
And I can stand up straight because who's going to tell me that my personal experience is wrong or invalid?
Even though it scared, can I say crap?
Even though it scared the crap out of me.
Saying the word abortion.
It heals me a little bit too.
The scary part is just the stigma.
That's it.
That's a tweet.
I'm proud to share my abortion story.
I'm proud to share my abortion story.
I would answer the one woman's question.
Who's going to tell you that your experiences are wrong?
Who's going to invalidate your experiences?
Well, I will.
I'll tell you they were wrong.
I'll invalidate them.
The experience of killing your child was wrong.
It was deeply evil.
It's most likely the worst thing you've ever done in your life.
I hope it's the worst thing.
I don't know.
It's hard to get worse than killing your own child.
I think in fact, yeah, it's really, it's impossible.
So yeah, that's, and your experience of doing that was wrong.
And now your experience of trying to convince yourself that it was not only, not only a solemn sort of somber necessity, which is how abortion was portrayed, Twenty years ago, that was the argument for abortion.
Safe, legal, and rare, they said.
But we want it to be rare.
It's a bad thing.
Well, at least it's a sad thing, they used to say.
Nobody wants to get an abortion.
No one's happy about it.
We're not worried about rare abortions anymore.
They're quite happy to have as many abortions as possible.
Abortion now is something to celebrate.
But she's trying to convince herself of that, and I will invalidate that delusion, because she also knows it's not true.
In fact, early on in the video, we saw someone saying how happy they were while crying, and these were not tears of joy.
This is a mantra.
It's this kind of self-hypnosis.
That many post-abortive women, who are on the left, engage in constantly, and they're going to be doomed to this for the rest of their lives, sadly.
Waking up every single morning, going to bed every single night, telling themselves, I'm happy, I'm happy, I'm happy.
Because they are trying to numb themselves to the realization of what they did.
And ignore the emptiness, this great hole in their lives.
That child that, you know, you should have a child.
You do have a child.
It's a dead child.
Doing everything they can to ignore that.
It's kind of related here.
A strange shift has happened.
Seemingly overnight, a bunch of pro-Trump accounts on Twitter have decided that the "culture wars" don't matter.
And there have been many tweets from relatively obscure Trump-boosting accounts.
I think many of them probably paid accounts, I don't know how many of them.
Tweets like this one from an account called "MAGA Originalist".
And this just gives you a sense of what they're saying.
This one says, the culture war is a huge grift, and grifters are mad it's getting called out.
Yes, cultural issues are serious, but when they're given way more attention than way more important issues like the economy and foreign policy, Then it is done for the purpose of clicks or publicity.
Pundits like Matt Walsh have **** political opinions, and mediocre politicians like DeSantis have **** records.
So they resort to focusing on easy, no-men-in-women sports, talking points to cover up their weaknesses, otherwise they would be irrelevant.
They went too far to the point where they're now calling this culture war matters more than World War III, lol.
So a lot of that sort of thing.
But not just from obscure accounts.
There have also been prominent Trump supporters like Carrie Lake, for example, who tweeted this from her official campaign account.
It says, No one is saying not to fight the culture war, but it simply is not the most critical issue heading into 2024.
The GOP must show the country how it plans to turn the economy around and prevent World War III.
We need to take this country back from Joe Biden before we can take our culture back from his friends.
Take the country back before taking the culture back.
That makes no sense.
But we'll talk about that in a second.
From a political perspective, it's obvious what's happening here.
Now, it's very transparent.
Because, like I said, this was like, overnight, the talking points went out.
You had a bunch of Trump accounts saying, oh, the culture war doesn't matter.
Forget about the culture war.
A decision has been made, clearly, on Trump's team to downplay the culture war because DeSantis is better on that and he's known as a culture warrior.
And so in an effort to undermine DeSantis, they've decided to surrender the culture.
Grasping for political power to the point of, we're going to give up on the culture if that's what it takes.
It's a political play and it's a really terrible one on like every level.
It's terrible also politically.
It's a politically bad political play.
Because Trump became a political sensation largely because he wasn't afraid to engage in the culture war and to talk about the culture.
He wasn't afraid of these cultural issues that the Republicans up till he came along had, for the most part, had been terrified of and wouldn't acknowledge.
The people saying the culture war doesn't matter, these were the same ones who were cheering Trump on in his, if we remember, his rather relentless fight against NFL players kneeling for the anthem.
Trump went on and on about this for years.
It was a major issue for him.
And it was an important fight, actually.
You know, having our athletes disrespecting our flag, that's a problem.
Trump saw that.
100% a culture war issue.
And it's the kind of thing that Trump was known for.
You know, we have this idea that even a lot of Trump critics will say that Trump, it's all a personality cult for Trump.
And there is an element of personality cult.
For any prominent, popular politician, there's going to be an element of a certain personality cult element.
AOC has a personality cult.
But coming onto the scene, it's not his personality that people were attracted to.
It's not what made him a sensation.
It was the issues.
Yeah, his primary issue, of course, what he was most known for was immigration, build the wall.
Immigration, not at all an issue that we can divorce from the culture war, it is also a cultural issue.
When we talk about defending America, and we talk about the threat that unfettered illegal immigration poses, we are also talking about the threat it poses to the culture.
So, that was his issue, but not just that.
It was cultural issues.
It was what we call social issues, quote-unquote.
To abandon that now is a really bad move.
It is a bad idea to start echoing the GOP establishment and David French.
Okay, understand this.
If you are doing this whole focus on the economy, not the culture war thing, you are repeating the same talking point that the GOP establishment has used for 40 years.
You are David French.
This is David French's position.
To a T!
Like, you have adopted the establishment Frenchian point of view.
Which you can do, but don't call yourself anti-establishment when you're saying exactly what those losers were saying for 40 years, and it's a position that was a loser 40 years ago and 10 years ago and is now too.
That's how we got into this position in the first place.
It's because the Republican Party, who are supposed to be ostensibly the leaders of the conservative movement, for decades now, they've been saying, oh, the culture doesn't matter.
All that matters is the economy and foreign policy.
Let's worry about that.
And so they surrendered the culture to the left, and now here we are.
It also doesn't make sense.
So a couple points on that.
This mantra now, well, it's more important to avoid World War III.
I agree that avoiding World War III is very important.
But this is not a choice we have to make.
We don't have to decide between defending the culture, defending our children from people who want to castrate and mutilate them, and avoiding World War III.
Now, in fact, for the average citizen, there's nothing we can do to avoid World War III.
Like, what do you want me to do right now?
That guy, whoever that guy was that called me out in the tweet, what do you want me to do to avoid World War III?
Do you want me to go over and broker a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia?
We can talk about it.
We can be critical of any attempts to escalate, which I have done many times.
I was very early on the Ukraine issue.
From the very beginning, I was against any American involvement in it.
So yeah, we could talk about it.
Sure.
And we should, but we can't.
There's almost nothing that the average citizen can do to affect the geopolitical situation.
All we could do is vote.
Vote for the right people.
And we should do that.
But in the meantime, we have the culture.
And to draw this distinction is incoherent.
What is the culture?
Okay?
The culture of a nation is It's institutions.
It's values.
It's customs.
It's traditions.
It's art.
It's beliefs.
It's priorities.
That's the... everything, in other words, okay?
The culture... America's culture is everything.
The culture is the entire substance of the country.
It's everything that makes a country a country.
You have the borders, which are very important physical barriers, or should be a physical barrier, that defines what the country is physically.
But all the stuff that makes up the country, that's the culture.
And when we talk about defending the country, we are talking about defending the culture.
The culture is what the country is made of, it's what we live in, it's what we are subject to, it's what our children are raised in.
It's what helps determine the value systems that people hold.
It's what defines, it doesn't just define, your culture doesn't just define the country, it defines the people.
And so if you have a perverse, depraved, degenerate culture, you will end up with a bunch of perverse, depraved, degenerate people.
How can anything be more important than that?
How can you draw this ridiculous choice, but well, we can either worry about everything that comprises the country, or World War III.
You think the economy is more important than the culture?
Okay, so let's say we turn the economy around, and we have a relatively prosperous country, but our culture lays in ruins.
So if we have a bunch of children that have been abused and sexualized, a bunch of mutilated and castrated, a generation of mutilated and castrated kids, that's okay as long as we have low taxes and inflation comes down a bit?
Is that what you're saying?
You know, external threats are important.
And that's what we're talking about with something like World War III.
Which is a theoretical thing that we're trying to avoid.
As opposed to the threats against our children posed by the culture, which are real and happening right now.
But those are external threats.
Internal threats are always going to be more serious and should be our first priority always.
Okay, if you're in your house and there's a tornado warning, That's a big problem.
Tornado hitting your house from the outside is a big problem.
It could destroy your house.
But if your house is on fire, if there's a raging fire inside your house, your first priority needs to be to put the fire out.
Before you go down to the storm shelter, you have to put the fire out in the house.
Because even if the tornado passes you by and you let the fire rage, the house isn't worth anything anymore.
It is a burned out shell.
So, fortunately, the tornado passes you by, keeps the structure, the external threat is gone, the structure is still in place.
What's inside?
A burned out shell.
Nothing.
In fact, if you let the fire destroy your house, then who cares if a tornado hits it or doesn't?
It's not even worth defending.
If we give up on the culture, if we say it doesn't matter, the country's not worth defending anymore.
Who gives a damn about the country if we give up on it?
If we're going to give up and say, well, this is what our country is.
It's a country that does this to children.
It's a country that is, again, degenerate, depraved, perverse, that utterly has succumbed to these demonic left-wing ideas.
Well, if that's what it is, and we have resigned ourselves to that, then who cares anymore?
Why is it even worth defending?
It's important to make, to defend your country against threats from the outside.
It's more important to make sure your country is worth defending.
And that's what the culture war is.
And it really frustrates me that 40 years on this still has to be explained.
And the fact that it has to be explained to people who pretend to be anti-establishment is even more frustrating.
All right.
Let's get to the comment section.
Yeah, it's a good name for a carnival ride, also a good name for a heavy metal band.
There's an interesting crossover there that I never really thought about, but you raise a good point.
Rita says patiently waiting for the cute missing a front tooth picture of Jordan Neely from elementary school photos Yeah, that's that's usually the game that they play.
I think in this case they've settled on the MJ impersonator thing So we haven't got as far as I've seen yet.
We haven't we haven't gotten the the elementary school photo Maybe eventually we will but but instead they're going with the MJ impersonator In spite of the fact that From what I've read, including one report that I read yesterday, a lot of people on social media and on Reddit have been posting, talking about their experiences, people that ride the New York City subway system, talking about their experiences with this particular guy.
So this guy evidently was known to commuters on the subway.
And not in a good way.
They knew him as the crazy guy who goes around assaulting and harassing and yelling at people.
And one of those people wrote something saying that, yeah, he was an MJ impersonator 10 years ago, and then he started getting pretty weird, and then he dropped the MJ impersonator thing altogether and just became a psychotic vagrant screaming at people and harassing and, according to some reports, assaulting people physically.
So, if that's true, then, you know, they're calling him an MJ impersonator when he was doing that a decade ago.
And he spent the last decade dedicated to what ultimately ended in his death this week.
Devin says, I get having a word that no one can say in any context.
I get having a word where I'm the only one that calls my brother that, quote-unquote.
I don't get the combination, the weird combination of it that we try to maintain.
Talking about the n-word.
Well, I think you're being a little bit too generous.
You're right that combining those two things, combining like this is wrong in every context and I'm the only one who's allowed to say it.
The combination of those two claims that we get with the N-word is especially absurd, but each claim individually doesn't make any sense.
There can't be, it just, there cannot be any word that can't be said in any context.
You cannot completely remove context and intention from words.
That's what you can't do.
That is always going to be ludicrous because you can't judge.
You cannot judge anyone's words until you've taken into account the context and you've taken into account their intention behind those words.
Now, a person can use words, certain words, and then they can get a reaction, and it's a bad reaction, and they regret it, and then they can lie about what their intention is.
They can say something, and it hurts someone's feelings, and they can say, oh, I didn't mean it that way, even though they did mean it that way.
Right?
So that can happen.
And so there are times when figuring out the intention behind someone's words is a little bit more complicated.
But when it comes to the N-word, what we've been told is that intention doesn't matter at all.
And even in a case where everyone agrees that the intention was totally innocent.
Somebody was simply quoting someone else.
Everyone agrees the intention was, there was no ill intent.
Everyone agrees that the context was, oh, they were quoting someone.
And yet we say, well, on a technicality, because you uttered those particular syllables in that particular order, well, your life is over anyway.
That's what we're doing here.
I keep saying it makes no sense, but really it does make sense when you understand the point.
The point is this is a narcissistic kind of power grab.
It's an attempt to control people, control their language, and intimidate, manipulate people.
So that's the point.
Ahmed says, okay, the story told to me by my younger sister was completely false.
She just said that a homeless guy had a mental breakdown, shouted that he wanted to die, and a random white guy killed him because of that.
And I keep telling her to stop using Twitter to get her news.
Yeah, as they say, what do they say about a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on?
But it's not just Twitter, unfortunately.
Yeah, maybe not a good idea to get your news from Twitter.
These days, you're almost better off, especially with Elon Musk in charge, you're better off getting it from Twitter than from CNN.
There are not many places where you can get your news reliably.
And once the narrative settles in to people's minds, it's very, very hard.
Once it cements, it's very hard to do anything about it.
And your sister's impression of this event is probably one shared by millions of people and they will go to their graves thinking it.
That Jordan Neely was killed simply because people were annoyed with him or because he was actually doing the moonwalk as a Michael Jackson impersonator and somebody was annoyed and they killed him.
People will go to their graves thinking that.
Just like there are people who still today, still today, think that Michael Brown dropped to his knees and put his hands up and yelled, hands up, don't shoot.
Total invention, never happened, but the media said it.
The media said it in those first few hours, and that's it.
That's all it takes.
If you, along with tens of millions of people, watched Netflix's hit show, Making a Murderer, then you're going to love Daily Wire Plus's new exclusive 10-part series with Candace Owens called Convicting a Murderer, coming this summer.
When leftists are confronted with the truth, their only response, as we've seen today, is to scream and run away.
I've personally been confronted with it, and so has Candace Owens many times.
She is unafraid to call out the mob and expose the truth.
When Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series, she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery case.
The end result, which is coming soon, is a new series called Convicting a Murderer.
You will not want to miss it.
And right now, there's never been a better time to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
Sign up now for Convicting a Murderer and you'll receive an early bird discount of 35% off your Daily Wire Plus membership.
Don't wait until the series comes out this summer because this deal will not last long.
You'll also get all the other premium content from Daily Wire Plus, including The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, What is a Woman, and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's series on the Book of Exodus.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member and see the truth when it finally comes out.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
One of the things that makes leftists so damned creepy, but also so effective, is their ability to rapidly adopt new lingo, replacing one word with some other nonsensical newspeak term, all at the same time.
You know, all together they're able to do this.
Virtually overnight, a word that we all had been using without issue suddenly becomes offensive, and some other term that was invented by leftist activists 19 seconds ago is put in its place.
This process can happen so quickly that a word you said openly during breakfast might be a slur by the time you're sitting down for dinner.
Meanwhile, a term that you never heard when you were eating breakfast might be ubiquitous by dinnertime.
Ubiquitous at least in the media, pop culture, even if not among normal human beings.
Think about how quickly gibberish like Latinx showed up on the scene and was adopted by our institutions.
Or consider how the term person of color entered the vernacular and supplanted the previous PC favorite, African American.
So we've seen this process play out many times, and now we have a chance to witness it once again.
While discussing and reporting on, and very often lying about, the death of psychotic violent drifter Jordan Neely, the left has collectively embraced a new label to describe Neely's living conditions, or former living conditions to be precise.
There was a time, a far less sensitive time, When he would have been described as a vagrant or a transient or a bum or a tramp, you know, all these words have been used.
All these descriptions, though, have long since been tossed on the linguistic ash heap.
And we've settled eventually on homeless, which we all seem to agree sufficiently sort of captures the essence of the people who are living in this condition without being judgmental or insulting.
A homeless person is a person without a home.
Why don't they have a home?
Is it their own fault that they're in this situation?
Or are they victims of circumstance?
Or is it some combination of the two?
Well, the term homeless passes down no verdict on those questions and isn't intended to pass a verdict on that.
The word is neutral on why.
It only seeks to describe the what.
It's a fine word.
It's a word that worked.
Perfectly fine.
We didn't need a new one.
But now we have one anyway.
See if you can spot the language shift as we run through a few media reports.
So this is from Axios.
Jordan Neely, an unhoused man, died after being placed in a chokehold by another New York subway train passenger during an apparent mental health episode.
The Guardian.
According to new accounts, Neely, who was unhoused and a known Michael Jackson impersonator, boarded a northbound F train and began screaming about his distress.
Philadelphia Inquirer.
Jordan Neely's death was ruled a homicide after an ex-Marine held him in chokehold on the subway.
Now it's sparking discussions on mental health care for the unhoused.
The Intercept says, The NYPD's treatment of a white man who strangled Jordan Neely, an unhoused black man, on the subway is not how things usually go down.
USA Today, Neely had been arrested 42 times since 2013, including charges of assault and transit fraud, but that many were for minor violations, like having an open container of alcohol.
Authority says it appears Neely was unhoused.
So you probably picked up on it.
It's not exactly subtle.
And Democratic politicians have adopted this terminology as well.
Here's Representative Jamal Bowman on CNN last night.
Listen.
As a black man watching the video, and I have to force myself to watch these videos because each time there's a new video, there's more trauma that I feel.
Eric Garner was choked to death.
George Floyd had a knee on his neck.
Philando Castile wasn't choked, but he was shot.
Yes, remember that the next time you make the mistake of boarding a New York City subway train when you see a drug-addled homeless guy randomly assaulting and mugging a commuter, nothing to be concerned about.
You often see people who are unhoused have episodes.
The memo has gone out.
Unhoused is the new Latinx.
It's the hot new PC lingo on the market.
And you want to get in on the action before it changes again, because yesterday the word was homeless, today it's unhoused, tomorrow it might be, I don't know, de-housed.
Then it will be person of an unhoused persuasion.
Then eventually, habitation challenged.
And they'll realize that all this sounds far too negative still, and they'll want a term that sends the message that homeless people aren't really homeless at all.
It's just that they don't have one single home in a fixed location.
Right?
Their home is everywhere.
It changes.
And they'll start using terms like house fluid and dwelling expensive.
That's where this leads.
But for now, unhoused is the new trendy thing.
Why is unhoused preferable to homeless?
Well, the website unhoused.org makes the case this way.
It explains, quote, The label of homeless has derogatory connotations.
It implies that one is less than, and it undermines self-esteem and progressive change.
The use of the term unhoused instead has a profound personal impact upon those in insecure housing situations.
It implies that there is a moral and social assumption that everyone should be housed in the first place.
Well, how in God's name does the word unhoused come with moral and social assumptions that don't also apply to homeless, which literally means exactly the same thing?
An article in Architectural Digest tries to flesh that out a little bit.
It explains, quote, in Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti and some members of the city council have embraced unhoused.
In Seattle, the city government uses the phrase person experiencing homelessness.
The word homeless has become inseparable from a toxic narrative that blames and demonizes people who are unhoused, according to Eve Garrow, homelessness policy analyst and advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Wait a second.
Homeless?
The word homeless is dehumanizing, says the homelessness policy analyst.
Alright.
The term is increasingly used in a way where it implies someone is dangerous or deviant.
Or devious, she said.
Or deviant.
As a result, a less charged term is more apt.
At the same time, a related term to homelessness, the homeless, has begun to be seen as othering.
In May 2020, the Associated Press updated its stylebook to focus on person-first language.
It said not to use the homeless, calling it a dehumanizing term, and instead use terms like homeless people or people without housing.
Ah, you see, homeless is offensive.
Offensive enough, but if you put the word the in front of it, it suddenly becomes even more offensive.
You know, that word the.
Very offensive word.
Why is that exactly?
And how can you change the narrative around a certain concept by simply swapping out one term for a synonymous term?
And if attaching the word less to a person, homeless, has the effect of diminishing them somehow, then wouldn't it have the same effect to attach the prefix un?
I mean, in what way is unhoused substantially or definitionally different from homeless?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't different.
The change is entirely arbitrary and meaningless, and that is exactly the point.
If there is any real meaning behind the terminology swap, it's in the fact that unhoused sounds slightly more passive, I guess, than homeless.
It sounds perhaps even more like something that would happen to a person without their involvement, really.
As if they walked outside one day and turned around to shut the door and their house vanished?
I've become unhoused!
What happened to my house?
The left seeks to remove the elements of personal agency and free will from all societal problems, especially homelessness or unhousedness.
They don't want us to notice or acknowledge the fact that many homeless people are mentally ill, yes, and many of them are mentally ill because their brains have been destroyed by drugs, and their brains were destroyed by drugs because they made the decision at some point in the past to start using drugs.
Now, I'm sure that a large percentage of the homeless suffered misfortunes in their lives outside of their control.
We all have.
But personal choice has also played a heavy role in many of these cases.
A person who makes good choices will almost certainly not end up homeless, except in very rare circumstances.
The left constantly calls for nuanced conversations, but this is the actual nuance in the homeless conversation, and they refuse to acknowledge it.
Okay, the un-nuanced view of homelessness is that they're all victims, and that's it.
That's the mainstream view, that's the acceptable view, that's the view without nuance.
Well, they're all victims.
The nuance is to realize that, well, that's not always the case.
We're not allowed to see the homeless as anything but pure helpless victims through and through, though.
There is no nuance to the picture that they paint.
And that is partly what this unhoused stuff is all about, but that's all kind of secondary.
Because even if unhoused has a slightly more passive, more helpless tone to it, the distinction is still mostly arbitrary, and the arbitrariness is the point most of all.
As always, we find ourselves unwillingly in this giant game of cultural Simon Says, where they come up with new rules, new concepts, new language, And we're meant to follow along out of pure obedience.
I think I've used the analogy before of the prison warden in the movie Cool Hand Luke, who demands that Luke dig a giant hole and then fill it back in again.
There's no point to the hole except to dig it.
There's no point to digging it except to break Luke's spirit and get him accustomed to following orders.
The fact that the order was arbitrary, that there was no reason to dig the hole, that the task assigned was so pointless, That's what made it an effective form of conditioning.
It's one thing to use arguments to persuade someone to adjust their language or their behavior.
It's another thing if you compel them to adjust their language and behavior, even if they haven't been persuaded.
Okay, when you can get people to speak a certain way, even when they don't see any reason why they should be.
Like, why can't I say this word?
Why is this word better?
Doesn't matter, just say it.
Get people to go along with that.
And there's a lot more power in that.
And that is the truly sinister agenda behind this language policing that, on the surface, always seems so laughable and ridiculous.
Which isn't to say that it isn't laughable and ridiculous, of course.
And that is why, ultimately, the term unhoused is today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to Members Block.
Become a member today by using code WALSH to check out for two months free on all annual plans.
