Ep. 1171 - The Left Has Found Their New Frontier: Male Breastfeeding
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in the never-ending quest to "affirm" trans people, the Left is now promoting male breast feeding. We'll talk about that today, unfortunately. Also, Bud Light's brand is in shambles. They went woke and actually did go broke. But they're still sponsoring some Pride parades this year. Also, the media has selected a main villain in the Bud Light and Target boycott story. And the villain is apparently me. Plus, Khloe Kardashian tries surrogacy and discovers that it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Ep.1171
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 30% off 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:
Cynch - Download the Cynch app and get your first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH. Visit http://cynch.com/offer for details.
RexMD - Get 90% off RexMD and only pay $2 per dosage with our exclusive link -> https://bit.ly/3VhjUaT #rexmdpod
Paint Your Life - Text MATT to 87204 to get 20% off.
EnviroKlenz - Save 10% off your EnviroKlenz home air purification unit.
Promo code WALSH at http://www.EKPURE.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, in the never-ending quest to affirm trans people, the left is now promoting male breastfeeding.
We'll talk about that today, unfortunately.
Also, Bud Light's brand is in shambles.
They went woke and actually did go broke, but they're still sponsoring some pride parades this year.
What do we make of that?
Also, the media has selected a main villain in the Bud Light and Target boycott story, and the villain is apparently me.
Plus, Khloe Kardashian tries surrogacy and discovers that it's not all it's cracked up to be.
to be.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Now imagine what this perfect summer night would look like if you went to turn on the grill and your propane tank was empty.
That's where my friends at Cinch come in.
Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.
They deliver propane tanks right to your door.
Cinch delivers on schedule and they don't require any long-term commitment or subscription.
Plus, delivery is completely contactless.
You don't have to wait around at home.
You can track the order on the Cinch app from anywhere.
Whether you're grilling for the Sweet Baby Gang, camping with your family, or lighting up your fire pit on a cold summer night, Cinch's propane delivery service ensures that you have the fuel you need to make the most of every moment.
Go online to cinch.com or download their app to order.
New customers can get their first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH.
That's C-Y-N-C-H dot com, promo code WALSH.
This is a limited time offer and you must live within a Cinch service area to redeem it.
Visit cinch.com slash offer for details.
We begin today with something extremely bizarre.
You might like to think that because it's so bizarre, it's also fringy and therefore irrelevant and a topic we can ignore.
But if you've been paying attention all over the past few years in our culture, you know better.
It is dangerous to ignore the things happening out on the fringes because before long, they won't be on the fringes anymore.
And that is why we are going to discuss male breastfeeding.
There has been a lot of conversation about the subject of male breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding, we have to put in air quotes in this case.
But a lot of discussion about this topic this week, thanks in large part to a trans activist, PhD student, and TikTok personality who claims that he can lactate and breastfeed his infant.
Actually, the child is not his, but we'll return to that in a moment.
First, we must unfortunately introduce you to this person who calls himself Naomi.
Watch.
Our achievement.
Trans women can indeed lactate.
You would follow the Newman Goldfarb Protocol, a medical protocol designed to help women induce lactation if they were not getting pregnant themselves.
I'm going to be a mother.
That's in the works, in the process.
And part of that process is that I am working to induce lactation, to be able to breastfeed There's been gatekeeping.
Like I can actually make milk now, which has been a very, a very interesting and very cool
experience. Like very biologically affirming too, which is something that's like gate
kept from trans women, like so, so difficult.
There's been gatekeeping. That's, that's what, that's what stops men from breastfeeding
is the gatekeeping. Biology is gatekeeping.
Now, in case you missed it, he did start that video by saying, cow achievement.
Now, what does that mean exactly?
I wasn't sure at first either, because adults who aren't mentally ill don't talk like that.
But if you look around Naomi's social media feeds, you'll begin to get some sort of idea.
And I'm sorry I have to show you this, but here is this one image there.
And the image says, I'm an incredibly cuddly cow.
Notice the cow attire and all of that.
Now at this point, two and two are starting to come together.
Your little grey cells are connecting the dots.
But you're resisting the obvious conclusion.
You don't want to believe that this guy is really some kind of bovine fetishist.
Yet, that's what he is.
There's other social media posts that I won't put on the screen clearly show.
He also apparently has an OnlyFans account.
So, Naomi has a fetish for lactation and wants to pretend to breastfeed a child in order to satisfy this deranged desire.
He just needed to find the child, to find the victim, and he did.
As he proudly reported on Twitter, he's adopted his partner's children from a prior marriage.
Of course, he claims that as a quote-unquote trans woman, he really is a mother, and therefore it's perfectly natural for him to breastfeed, and many trans activists and even media outlets have endorsed this claim.
Here he is explaining the alleged scientific basis behind what he's doing.
Listen.
I can actually make milk now!
Regardless if you're AMAB or AFAB, you are usually born with mammary glands, breasts, milk ducts, all the things that you would need to be able to lactate.
There is some breast development associated with estrogen and progesterone, which further develops those milk ducts, but it's really just a hormonal process.
You're trying to hormonally mimic birth and pregnancy, and this induces lactation.
You'll take medicine which raises your prolactin levels, that's the hormone associated with milking, and you also do this process of raising your estrogen and progesterone really high, And then lowering it significantly, which simulates pregnancy levels of hormones followed by birth levels of hormones, and including the estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin.
And if you start implementing a pumping, like a breast pumping regimen while you do that, you will start lactating!
It's the exact same process that was used in a case report.
They just implemented the Newman-Goldfarb protocol for a trans girl, and it worked!
I can also now tell you in personal experience That it works.
There's been some research that has analyzed the actual composition, male breast milk versus female breast milk, and it was identical.
Now, as you can see, he flashes a case report on the screen to explain that this is all medically sound.
But to be clear, this is not some authoritative longitudinal study.
It's a case report that came out in 2018.
It's called Induced Lactation in a Transgender Woman.
So you heard that right.
Induced Lactation in a Transgender Woman, as in one person.
This is the smallest sample size you can possibly have in a medical paper.
But let's read on.
Here's the conclusion of the case study, which came from Mount Sinai, quote, After implementing a regimen of domperidone, estradiol, progesterone, and breast pumping, a transgender woman was able to achieve sufficient breast milk volume to be the sole source of nourishment for a child for six weeks.
That's the big headline that you'll see paraded all over social media right now.
Men can produce breast milk.
The problem is that the case study is garbage.
It even contradicts itself.
A few years ago when the study came out, a doctor named Isadora Sanger explained that there are many flaws in this paper, and there's too many to list them all here, but we'll focus on a couple of the big ones.
And this is actually important because Nearly every time, not nearly, I'll say, every time trans activists cite studies to back up any of their delusional claims, the studies will always end up being hopelessly flawed and riddled with bias and wishful thinking.
And in that way, this case study is itself a good case study for pro-trans case studies.
First, the study reports two completely different testosterone levels for the supposedly breastfeeding transgender.
In a chart, the transgender's testosterone level is recorded as 20 nanograms per deciliter.
In the text of the article, it's recorded at over 250 nanograms per deciliter.
Why does that matter?
Well, as Dr. Sanger reported, quote, This is problematic not only because it constitutes a glaring inconsistency within the report, but also because the higher result indicates that the patient had male testosterone levels.
Therefore, Sanger concludes, quote, there is no reliable evidence that adequate androgen blockage was achieved, even though authors claim that androgen blockage was an important part of the regimen.
It's well established that breastfeeding with high testosterone levels can cause all kinds of complications in children, including precocious puberty.
But here, the authors at Mount Sinai apparently had no problem allowing it, which raises a red flag that we'll get back to later.
The second big problem with the case study is that the authors say the patient received a drug called Domperidone to induce lactation.
This is a drug that's approved for use to treat reflux, not to induce lactation, and there's a good reason.
It can cause severe cardiac problems in infants.
It's another thing we find with the trans activists and with gender ideology regularly.
Lots of different drugs are being used off-label in ways that they are not intended to be used.
Like the chemical castration drugs given to children.
These are off-label drugs that are being used in ways that they're not supposed to be used.
And that's why with this drug, neither the U.S.
nor Canada allow Domperidone to be used for inducing lactation.
The CBC explained the risks in a report.
Watch.
Effie Liu says without 120 milligrams a day of Domperidone she might not be able to breastfeed her daughter.
She's gaining weight properly at the right rate.
I have to say I'm pretty thankful for Domperidone.
But Health Canada has issued a warning about the medication saying it's linked to higher risk for abnormal heart rhythms even sudden death if a person takes more than 30 milligrams a day or is older than 60.
Domperidone isn't approved in the United States and the FDA has specifically warned mothers not to take it.
In Canada, the drug is an approved treatment for stomach problems.
Health Canada warns patients should stop taking it and get medical attention right away only if they have symptoms such as heart palpitations, dizziness, fainting or seizures.
The warning doesn't specifically mention breastfeeding mothers because Health Canada hasn't approved Domperidone for that use.
So what we learned from that is that this Mount Sinai case study about how great it is to induce lactation in men is actually promoting the use of a drug that endangers infants.
And by the way, it's not just Mount Sinai that's endorsing the use of Domperidone, even if it kills newborns.
Another case study these activists cite, which came out just a few weeks ago actually, ...involves the same drug.
It's a UCLA study called Lactation Induction in a Transgender Woman.
Study size, again, is a sample size of one.
And it doesn't reach any definitive conclusions.
In fact, it calls for future analysis into 24-hour milk samples in order to provide a, quote, detailed assessment of macronutrients.
But this case study also involves administering Domperidone, which, again, isn't allowed in this country because of how dangerous it is to infants.
So let's get back to the Mount Sinai case study, because it gets even worse.
The study makes it clear that the man in the case study isn't just on domperidone, he's also on anti-anxiety drugs, which can cause serious problems for infants during breastfeeding.
But the study never mentions if the man stopped those meds before supposedly breastfeeding.
Instead, the case study says that this man managed to produce eight ounces of milk daily and was, quote, the sole source of nourishment for a child for six weeks.
Well, as Dr. Sanger explained, it's clear that that's not enough breast milk.
A five-pound baby needs at least four more ounces than that.
So how did this work?
The study never says.
They never observed the man breastfeeding or studied the results in any way.
As Sanger writes, quote, this raises serious concerns about the authenticity of the entire report.
In other words, it could all just be made up.
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that the baby got enough of whatever this substance coming out of this guy's chest really is, that still doesn't make the artificially-induced fake breast milk into the same thing as a woman's breast milk.
A Sanger noted, quote, Mother's breast milk in the context of pregnancy isn't the same as drug-induced milk production in a man, nor is the breast milk static in composition.
Mother's breast milk begins, you know, it's loaded with vitamins and fat, then it transitions days later into a vitamin-rich composition.
Did that happen with this guy?
The authors of this case study didn't measure any of that, which is a pretty big oversight because normally when males start discharging liquid from their chest, which is something that has been known to happen, it's a sign of a significant medical problem.
It's not something you'd want to drink.
Starvation, for example, can cause spontaneous lactation.
That was observed in the concentration camps in World War II.
So, maybe at this point you're saying, well, I trust the researchers from Mount Sinai.
It's a reputable institution.
Or maybe you're wondering, how is it possible that a study from researchers at Mount Sinai could be this terrible?
Well, as always with this kind of thing, you can't rely on the source anymore.
Peer-reviewed doesn't mean anything given the state of medicine.
So, I did check.
What does that mean?
One of the authors of this case study is a trans activist and former sex worker named Zil Goldstein.
He's very active on Twitter, where he's actually come out and explicitly said that non-trans people shouldn't be working on research about trans people.
So Zil Goldstein, if you haven't guessed, is himself a man pretending to be a woman, which means that here we have a trans activist exiling actual scientists from the medical field and passing off his propaganda as real medical research.
But all the findings are just anecdotes that aren't supported by actual research.
That's why in the five years since the Mount Sinai case study of one person, all these activists can produce is yet another case study of another one person using the same banned drug at UCLA.
But in medicine, as in media, everyone's too cowed, literally it turns out, to stand up to this nonsense.
The Lactation Network, which connects families with lactation consultants, has this on their website, quote, Can I breastfeed if I was assigned male at birth?
Yes, you can.
You don't have to have ovaries or a uterus to breastfeed.
Now, there's no data to support that, as we've established, but they say it anyway.
Salon agrees, quote, Individuals with biologically male breasts actually do have the ability to lactate.
Colorado Surrogacy, which pairs parents with surrogates, has this on its website, quote, So this whole saga, as weird as it is, reveals a lot about trans ideology.
Mainly that it's intensely narcissistic, and it is primarily interested in normalizing bizarre, harmful, fetishistic behavior.
You know, they're constantly telling you to accept these medically-induced marvels without any scientific basis.
Do we actually know if a baby can be sustained healthily on the, quote, milk from a male?
No.
What are the long-term effects of ingesting synthetic hormone-laced nipple discharge?
They don't know that either.
This sums up the entire medical and scientific strategy behind the trans agenda.
We don't know exactly how harmful any of this is.
We can assume that it's harmful.
We don't even know, though, how harmful it is.
We don't know what will happen in the long term.
We don't know what effect this will have on the children unwillingly involved in it.
But do it anyway.
Do it because it will make the trans-identified person feel good.
Trans ideology, as I have argued for years, is narcissism made into a religion.
When a real mother breastfeeds her child, it is a loving, life-sustaining act.
Trans activists take that, something that is good and life-giving, and they fetishize it, and bastardize it, and turn the focus back to themselves, as always.
A mother breastfeeds her child for the sake of the child.
The man, quote, breastfeeds the child for his own sake, for his own ego, for his own weird desires and proclivities.
The well-being of the child is irrelevant.
Trans activists, they don't care about the well-being of anyone but themselves, though they do a really poor job even of taking care of their own well-being.
They don't care who they hurt.
They make all kinds of baseless claims about how all these things are safe.
But the truth is that they don't care if it's safe or not, and they don't know.
All they care about is being affirmed all the time, no matter the cost.
And the thing about affirmation is that it requires other people.
Gender ideology is not just a personal matter.
A man who tries to live as a woman is not making a mere personal decision.
As Naomi and his fake studies demonstrate, innocent people are being conscripted to affirm and validate it.
And it's not a coincidence that so often, those innocent people are children.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You have to make the appointment, you have to spend half your day sitting around in the waiting room, you have to endure uncomfortable conversations about your body with another man that you hardly know.
RexMD understands that no one likes to go to the doctor's office.
That's why they've created a safe online platform for men to discreetly consult with licensed physicians and get personalized treatment plans.
RexMD makes it easy and inexpensive to get the generic and branded Viagra or Cialis online.
No waiting rooms, no embarrassing trips to the doctor, no insurance, no co-pays.
Did you know Viagra could cost $90 a pill?
RexMD has generic Viagra for just as low as $2 a pill.
Just fill out their online medical questionnaire.
A doctor will review your situation and, if appropriate, prescribe you medication.
The medication will ship right to your door.
with free two-day shipping.
It's fast, it's simple, it's cheap.
Plus, you can access your U.S.
licensed RexMD physician anytime you need RexMD.
It's already helped over 300,000 guys gain confidence quickly and conveniently.
They are here to help.
They can help you to take advantage of their best deal yet at rexmd.com slash Walsh and save up to 90% off by paying only $2 per dosage.
That's rexmd.com slash Walsh for up to 90% off.
Go to rexmd.com for more details and safety information.
The Daily Wire broke this story yesterday.
Bud Light and its parent company, Anheuser-Busch, are sponsoring at least three different upcoming Pride events, despite backlash over the partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a social media influencer who identifies as transgender.
Bud Light is listed as a sponsor on the Cincinnati Pride Parade website.
Planned Parenthood and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital, which medically transition minors, are both also listed.
Meanwhile, in St.
Louis, Missouri, where Anheuser-Busch is headquartered, the company is listed as the presenting sponsor of the St.
Louis Pride Parade.
A sponsorship packet explains that there are only four presenting sponsor slots available.
The rainbow sponsorship tier, located below the presenting sponsorship tier, requires entities to pay $25,000.
And then, by the way, he's also listed as a Diamond Sponsor of Stonewall Columbus, which organizes and hosts the annual Columbus Pride Parade.
The Diamond Sponsorship tier requires companies to donate $20,000, according to a document.
So, even in spite of everything, all the backlash that they faced because of their Dylan Mulvaney sponsorship, they still are getting involved in these pride parades.
And, you know, so a lot of people are asking, well, why would they do this?
Why would they get themselves involved in this after they saw what happened to them?
I think the answer is that this was already, they were already signed up for this.
This was already going to happen.
And now, You know, this is, again, I'm not defending them being involved in the Pride Parade, by the way.
They never should have gotten involved and sponsored to begin with.
But this is the impossible lose-lose situation that they put themselves in because, you know, they did the Dyl Mulvaney thing.
They obviously already had plans for Pride Month like all the other corporations did.
And then they got the backlash from Dyl Mulvaney.
If they start pulling out of Pride Parades now, you know, now that's just going to attract more ire from the left.
And it's still not going to be enough to make the boycott by conservatives go away, so they're screwed.
And in fact, you know, I said early on in this thing that, and I think it still is true, that early on, like in the very beginning of the Bud Light boycott, if Bud Light Had actually apologized and renounced that whole sponsorship campaign and said, you know, we apologize for it and completely back down explicitly in that way.
Then I think.
You know, the Bud Light, the boycott would have been called off because we would have gotten the result that we wanted out of it.
And that is part, as I said, you know, in the beginning, part of the boycott is, you know, you're trying to get a certain result.
That's the point of the boycott.
And once you get the result, then you also want to incentivize that result.
So it's like with a boycott, there's the carrot and the stick.
And the stick comes first.
You're getting beat over the head with the stick as punishment for what you did.
But the carrot is, okay, if you stop doing that, and you renounce it and apologize for it, then we'll stop beating you with the stick.
And that could have been, I think if they had in the first couple of days, if they had taken that approach, and it would have completely alienated the left, and it would have been total outrage from the left, but who cares?
Because that's not their customer base anyway.
So if they had done that, then they might have been okay.
But at this point, it's too late.
They're not going to come out and apologize now.
Even if they did, it's too late.
Because they've been branded this way.
Now it's like an uncool, embarrassing product.
People don't want to be associated with it.
You don't want to be seen holding a Bud Light can.
They did this to themselves, and that's why we keep calling it a boycott, but it's not even really a boycott anymore.
It's just customer behavior has changed in response to this.
And that's what, as a brand, that's the nightmare, right?
A boycott's bad enough, but when the, it's sort of like when the boycott metastasizes, this is what happens.
And this is when it becomes terminal for you as a brand.
Started as a boycott, started as something that maybe you could address, but now it's metastasized.
It is just attached to you as a brand, and there's no getting out of it.
So now it's a lose-lose.
Anything that they do to back away from pride, it's just going to make the left upset.
But it's probably not going to do anything to repair the brand, which is now hopelessly ruined.
Of course, leaning into the pride thing even more is just going to make all the problems worse.
So, lose-lose.
But that's good.
This is what we want the brands to start thinking about.
When you go this route, you are putting yourself in a lose-lose situation.
Which means that it's probably better for you to just not do it at all.
We're not saying That what we wanted from Bud Light or what we want from any of these brands is to, you know, go out and, like, aggressively promote, quote-unquote, conservative values.
That's not what we're saying.
What we're saying is just stay out of it.
Just stay out of it.
Okay?
No one is saying that Bud Light needs to go out and campaign against gay marriage or something.
That's not the claim.
It's just, like, stay out of it completely.
And if we get to the point where the brands start thinking that, you know, from a marketing and branding strategy, they think, well, it's just not worth wading into these waters at all.
That's when we really start to win.
Speaking of which, NBC News has an article about the Target and Bud Light boycotts.
One of the great things about these boycotts is that it has forced the left to become the defenders of corporate America, which in fact is what they've always been anyway.
So they've had to reveal themselves as the defenders of corporate America.
But this article is interesting because they pinpoint one particular person as the primary villain in this whole story, and that person is me, it turns out.
They've pointed to me.
So, it says, Bud Light and Target were not always political punching bags, but both companies have been drawn into the center of long-brewing conservative battles after the brand's released campaigns supporting or featuring LGBTQ people.
No, they weren't drawn into the center of it.
They put themselves in the center of it.
And now they're looking around and thinking, well, was that a smart move?
Target announced Tuesday it was pulling some LGBTQ themed items from stores following what a company spokesperson described as threats to employees over this year's line of Pride Month merchandise.
And I want to say one thing about the threats is that some actual journalists have looked into this and have gone to Target and said, well, what threats are you talking about?
What's the evidence of these threats?
And there's no evidence of it at all.
There's no evidence of violence.
There's no evidence of threats.
The one video I've seen posted as evidence of this claim that conservatives are lashing out violently, I've seen one video where a guy walks into Target and goes to the Pride section and takes a Pride sign, it was about this big, made of cardboard, and he takes it and he puts it on the ground and steps on it.
That's the one example of violence.
And in fact, I saw that posted by a trans activist who described it as terrorism.
They don't make terrorists like they used to, okay?
We used to think of terrorists as someone who's wearing a suicide vest, setting it off in the middle of a crowded marketplace, flying a plane into a building.
That's a terrorist.
Now a terrorist is picking up a cardboard sign.
He doesn't even throw it, by the way.
He places it on the ground and just steps on it and then walks away.
Terrorism!
So that is the one single incident, so far as I can tell, of anything that could be classified as violence, and it's violence against a piece of cardboard.
There's no other evidence of it, but that's what they put in here.
Continuing on, it says, Ari Drennan, the LGBTQ program director for Media Matters, a liberal watchdog organization, said, a common thread connecting firestorms around Target and Bud Light's campaign with Dylan Mulvaney is Matt Walsh, a political commentator for the far-right website, The Daily Wire.
Drennan said, quote, he's been one of the most strident voices pushing this forward.
Now they've been picked up kind of more broadly throughout the right-wing media from people following that lead.
But he's been the person who's really pushing this kind of aggressive boycott tactic.
She noted that Walsh declared victory over Target on social media, where he has 1.9 million followers on Twitter.
Just crossed to 1.9 million followers, by the way, just yesterday.
They could have added a note of congratulations to me here.
Drennan said that part of what is allowing Walsh to get traction is his increased national recognition and efforts to restrict transition-related medical care for minors.
In February, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves invited Walsh to speak ahead of Reeves signing a bill to ban transition-related care for minors in the state.
Earlier that month, NBC News reported that Walsh's advocacy also influenced Tennessee's decision to reject more than $8 million in federal funds to combat HIV.
That part is just completely made up.
Drennan said all of this is a coordinated attempt to make it untenable to be specifically trans in public.
And one of the ways that they've attempted to do this is by removing any kind of political support, any kind of corporate support, just basically making it untenable to be an ally to the trans community.
And I think that's the real connective tissue between those.
Well, I will say these accusations against me, for the most part, are totally true.
Yes.
And that is... Now, are we trying to make it untenable to be specifically trans in public?
No, we're not making it untenable.
Biology is what makes it untenable to be trans.
No one can really be trans.
You can identify that way and say that you are, but you can't actually be it.
What we're trying to make untenable is the promotion of gender ideology, especially to kids, but also in general.
That's what we want to be, untenable.
And we have not succeeded yet.
We are a ways away from succeeding and actually making it totally untenable to promote these things publicly, but that is the goal.
And we have achieved a few victories towards that goal, but there's a long road ahead.
MSNBC also pointed the finger at little old me last night during one of their shows.
They brought a fake journalist named Ben Collins on to talk about all this.
And he actually read one of my tweets live on the air to the other panelists who were shocked.
Let's watch that.
Every company out there has a corporate social responsibility arm.
Diversity and inclusion is a key initiative.
They're just going to go after everyone?
Yeah, look, here's that tweet.
He said, this is Matt Walsh, a far-right commentator.
Here's what we should do.
Pick a victim and gang up on it.
And make an example of it.
We can't boycott every rogue company, or even most of them.
But we can pick one, it hardly matters which, he actually said that, and target it with
a ruthless boycott campaign.
Claim one scalp, then move on to the next.
It doesn't matter which company it is, they're going to try to make their stock price dip, which worked for Target.
For a moment.
For a second.
But again, they get to say they won.
That's all that matters.
This is a brief, narrative, viral thing.
And I think it's very important to note that this is a very online movement.
They call it terminally online, right?
People who just can't process stuff in the real world.
They are trying to get things to trend on Twitter, which is their favorite site now.
They're trying to get viral memes onto True Social and Facebook.
But in the real world, who cares?
Yeah.
Honestly.
Just don't buy it.
Just don't buy it.
Just don't look at it.
Just move along.
In the real world, who cares?
Well, Ben, turns out that lots of people care.
In the real world.
Lots of people do, as it turns out.
That's why these things are gaining traction.
That's why Target lost $8 billion.
What do you think is happening to Bud Light?
Is that not happening in the real world?
Where is that happening?
Where is the Bud Light boycott happening?
All the places where they're basically trying to give away their Bud Light for free.
It's going to be at the point where they're paying you to take it.
Is that not happening in the real world?
Where is it happening?
In the Matrix?
In your dreams?
In your nightmares?
No, it is the real world.
Not only that, but by the way, did you know this?
Twitter is also the real world.
Twitter is not the Matrix.
Twitter is not happening in your nightmares.
It is actually the real world.
In that there are, when you go on Twitter, it's a communication platform, so you have real human beings who are using it to communicate with other real humans.
There are also bots, that's true, but those exist in the real world too.
That's part of the real, all of that is real.
I don't know, what's the alternative?
This is a coping mechanism that people use to say, well, this is all online, no one cares about this in the real world.
First of all, online is the real world.
If I go on Twitter right now, I am in the real world doing it, and I'm communicating with other people who are also in the real world.
The fact that we're communicating through this mechanism doesn't make it not real any more than, I've said before, it's like if I wrote a note, I wrote a nasty note on a piece of paper, and I left it on your doorstep.
And then you read the note, and I was insulting you, and you were upset, and you said, why'd you leave that note?
And I said, it's not the real world, it's just a piece of paper.
That didn't happen in the real world.
That happened in the world of this piece of paper, which I am completely disconnected from.
No, all of that is real.
And this is something, it's not just the left that we hear this from.
There's even some conservatives, people on the right, who say the same thing.
And this is becoming, I'm hearing it increasingly from some on the right.
That all the culture war stuff, it's not real, it's not things that real people are concerned about.
Now on the right, the people that say that, the motivations are obvious.
Some of them, they're just establishment Republican types, and all they want to talk about is taxes and money, and that's the only thing they want to talk about.
And so some of that is just classic GOP squishiness.
And then there's also people on the right who are just jealous.
We're achieving real victories in the real world on issues that really matter.
And there are some people on the right who are not involved in it and haven't been spearheading it and haven't been leading it.
And it's not their issues that have been prompting this.
And so they're just jealous.
And they're not getting credit, and they're jealous about it, so they want to change the
subject to something that they want to talk about.
That's what a lot of it is on the right.
On the left, it's obvious why they want to dismiss it.
But the reality is that these concerns are very real.
These are things that regular people care about.
One of the things that regular people care about deeply is our society, the kind of society
that they are going to be passing on to their children.
What sort of society, what sort of world, what sort of country are your children going to inherit?
This is a concern that cuts to the deepest part of a regular person's soul.
It's the kind of thing you wake up in the morning thinking about.
The fear that your children will be destroyed by this culture, that your children will be, you know, claimed by the trans cult or any of these other self-destructive leftist cults.
That's something that, yeah, that's very normal, real person.
You go up to regular people, and I talk to regular people all the time.
I am a regular person.
And it is very much a regular person concern.
Now I also want to say that the tweet that he read there of mine, I posted on April 5th.
So this was after Bud Light had the sponsorship with Bill Mulvaney.
It was before the boycott caught on.
And if you remember, on this show, we were talking openly about it, and about, we need to, exactly what I said in the tweet, we need to make an example out of somebody.
Perhaps Bud Light should be the victim that we choose.
And there is a reason, okay?
I know it might appear sometimes that I just say things randomly, or I'm ranting and venting, and there is some of that that goes on.
But oftentimes, there's a method to the madness.
There's a reason why I'm saying things.
And I put that tweet up intentionally.
I wanted to call the shot ahead of time.
I wanted to say, okay, this is what we're going to do.
We're going to pick somebody, and we're going to pick a brand.
Pick a brand that has engaged in this, promoting this stuff, and we're going to destroy it.
And it's important to call the shot.
Because I want these people to know that we're doing it on purpose.
That it didn't just happen randomly.
That it wasn't happenstance.
We didn't get lucky.
We set out, we had a strategy, we executed it, and we won.
And I want them to know that.
I want them to know that their own strategies are now being used against them.
That this is what they're up against.
So, yes.
Proudly.
You can go ahead and read my tweets all you want on MSNBC.
Let's see.
A couple other things I wanted to mention.
Daily Wire Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes received the longest prison sentence to date, stemming from the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S.
Capitol.
Convicted by a Washington, D.C.
jury in November on seditious conspiracy and other charges, the 58-year-old Rhodes was sentenced on Thursday to 18 years behind bars.
I dare say, Mr. Rhodes, and I never have said this to anyone I've sentenced, you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country.
Said District Judge Amita Mehta, according to CNN.
I think it's interesting that the judge says, I've never said this to anyone, you pose an ongoing threat.
Really?
Yeah.
That's exactly the problem, Your Honor, is that you've never said that to anyone until this person, who was involved in January 6th.
I'm willing to bet that you have encountered, as a judge, and you have presided over trials many times, of criminals who absolutely pose an ongoing threat to this country and to the fabric of our society.
Every violent criminal, every chronic violent criminal, and so many violent criminals are chronic, In that they continue in this behavior and will always continue as long as they're allowed to.
All of them pose an ongoing threat.
It is a threat to the fabric of our society, which is right now being ripped at the seams by crime.
But she's never said that to anyone before.
Never said that to anyone before until this person.
Who, by the way, is not an ongoing threat.
January 6th is over.
Okay, it's been over for a long time.
It's not ever going to happen again.
I think that's pretty clear.
And anyone involved does not pose... What threat do they pose?
Really?
This person?
Let's say that Stuart Rhodes is an ongoing threat to our democracy?
How so?
Let's just say you let Stuart Rhodes walk out free and he's free tomorrow.
What is he going to do to our democracy?
What is Stuart Rhodes going to do to destroy our democracy single-handedly?
You know, this person has the longest sentence of any of the January Sixers, and we know that all of this is politically motivated, of course, and 18 years is absurd and unjust.
This is a cruel and unusual punishment.
It's unconstitutional for that reason, but I could almost In a different world, you know, in like some kind of, we
talk about living in a fantasy world, in a fantasy world, the way that they've come down on
people involved in January 6th, giving them these long prison sentences, there is a
possible universe where I could maybe be okay with some of that.
And that would be a universe where we live in a country with a actual criminal justice system that comes down on crime harshly and severely.
And where, you know, violent criminals are locked away forever.
And we actually execute people, and not after 30 years on death row.
And we do things like we execute drug traffickers.
In a country where we take criminal justice that seriously, and we are that consistent about it, and we are that severe with criminals, in that kind of country, then, yeah, maybe they say, well, look, if you participate in a riot, we're gonna put you in jail for 20 years if you participate in a riot.
I can be okay with that.
As long as, again, it's in the context of the criminal justice system where they take all crimes seriously.
And also, they do that with all rioters.
So the BLM rioters, if they were all looking at 20, 30, 40-year prison sentences, and January 6th comes along, some people on the right participate in a riot.
It was a riot.
And they say, well, same thing's gonna happen to you.
No exceptions.
Participate in a riot, you go to jail for 20 years.
I'd be okay with that.
I'd be okay with, you know, if the standard was, you participate in a riot, you're in jail for 20 years.
That's it.
Certainly make all riots go away.
And if that was the world that we lived in, and there was a riot, and there was people on our side allegedly involved in it, then I would say, well, you know, that's, those are the rules.
But we don't live in that world.
That's a fantasy world.
We don't live in that world.
We live in a world where if you participate in a riot on the left, then nothing happens to you.
You could go and burn down a police station, you could kill people, you could throw bricks at the, you know, you can bash police officers over the head with bricks, set police cars on fire, nothing happens to you.
You can have violent criminals who have been arrested 40 times that are still walking the street, assaulting old ladies.
All that is allowed to happen.
And then January 6th, and that's the one time that the criminal justice system decides to get really serious about punishing crime.
Alright, this is for the Daily Mail.
It says, growing human babies from scratch in a lab could be possible in just five years thanks to a new breakthrough.
Researchers in Japan are on the cusp of being able to create human eggs and sperm in the lab from scratch, which would then develop in an artificial womb.
Professor Katsuhiko Hayashi, I think I actually nailed that, a Japanese scientist, has already figured out the process in mice and believes he is just five years away from replicating the result in humans.
But there are ethical concerns, as it means women of any age could have babies, parents may also want to design their offspring to have certain traits using gene editing tools, giving way to the notion of an assumed perfect child.
Yeah, ethical concerns, that's one way of putting it.
There are ethical concerns.
Yeah, the ethical concern is that the whole idea is an abomination.
The ethical concern is that this is an abomination.
Creating human beings in a lab, taking the mother and father out of the picture completely, designing people to fit your own specifications, right?
Parents designing a child, rather than letting the child exist and be born as their own individual human being, you design him like he's a fashion accessory.
Yeah, ethical concerns.
The whole thing is an ethical concern.
The whole thing is abominable.
And it should obviously be banned.
Now, this is happening in Japan.
We can't pass laws for Japan.
But countries should be banning this.
The United States, we should just ban this.
This should be banned outright.
There's no good reason to do it.
I'm still skeptical about whether this could ever actually really happen.
But I can't say for sure that it can't.
Which is why right now we should say, no, you can't do that.
You cannot do that.
I don't care if science gets to the point where it can do it.
So, I guess I should amend.
You may not do that.
There are things that you can do, but you may not do them.
And we need to start, that needs to be a message that we're communicating to scientists too.
Just because you can do it, it's like the old Jurassic Park line, You're thinking about what you can do.
You didn't stop to think about what you should do.
Well, to me, it's a very obvious thing.
There should just simply be a law saying, no, you cannot design babies in laboratories.
You can't do that.
We're not going to allow that.
This is like, how many dystopian science fiction films and stories do we all need to see?
We all know where this leads.
We all know the problems.
And you've got scientists that they watch those dystopian horror sci-fi films, and they don't see a cautionary tale.
They see a guidebook.
They see an instruction manual.
And we sit back impotently just watching them do it, rather than passing laws and saying, you can't do this.
Let's get to the comments section.
Who's bringing shopping carts back to their rightful place?
♪ We're becoming saints ♪ ♪ Here in the Sweet Baby Gang ♪
(upbeat music)
If you're looking for a unique gift idea, here's one.
Paint Your Life creates hand-painted portraits that fit almost any budget, and it's a great gift idea for those you love.
Upload photos to create anything you imagine.
Plus, you can put yourself in a location you've always wanted to go to, or you can add a lost loved one to a special occasion to create the portrait of your dreams.
You can choose the artist, the art medium, whether it's oil, acrylic, watercolor, Charcoal, and they have a great selection of quality frames as well.
Their user-friendly platform lets you order a custom-made hand-painted portrait in less than five minutes.
You'll get your professional hand-painted portrait in as little as two weeks.
There's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, they will give you a full refund.
Right now, Paint Your Life is offering our listeners 20% off plus free shipping.
Text Matt to 87204.
That's Matt to 87204.
Paint your life and celebrate the moments that matter most.
Message and data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
So two comments I want to read, just two, because they both have some meat to them.
Different subjects.
This one's from Eric, says, Matt, for a small government conservative, it's funny that you support DeSantis, who voted three times for a 23% federal sales tax.
All right, I've seen this floating around from DeSantis critics, and I want to talk about it for a second.
Anyone who says this, who claims this, Or puts this in an attack ad or whatever without context is
lying. Okay. This is it is possible It's possible to say something that's true, but you're also
lying when you take out needed context so
Yes, DeSantis voted for a 23% national sales tax Do you know why?
Well, it was a plan to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
It's called the Fair Tax.
You've probably heard of it.
And the idea is to get rid of the income tax, get rid of the federal income tax.
And if you get rid of the federal income tax, you get rid of the IRS.
Get the IRS out of our paychecks, out of our bank accounts, stop allowing them to tax us just for earning a living, and instead shift it over to a consumption tax where several different kinds of goods, I think groceries and that sort of thing, would still be exempt from the 23% tax.
But in general, you shift it over to a consumption tax.
What's the advantage of that?
Well, you have more control.
Now, obviously, you still need to go out and buy things.
But you have more control over how much tax you pay and when it's consumption based.
It's a lot more fair.
It's the reason why it's called the fair tax.
It's a lot more equal for everybody.
Although it's still, you know, it's, it's equal in that we're all subject to the same kind of tax, but you still end up with rich people paying a lot more tax because they buy more stuff and they buy more expensive stuff.
And so they'd be paying more in taxes.
And the reason why you replace, the reason why you have the 23% Sales tax is part of the fair tax plan is because the idea is to replace the revenue that's lost from getting rid of the income tax.
I think it's like 40% of the government's revenue or probably more now is from the income tax.
One of the objections to getting rid of the income tax is, well, what are we going to do if we lose all that revenue?
It's going to be a disaster.
And so the fair tax idea is, OK, well, we can replace that revenue, but do it in a way that's a lot more fair, respects our privacy a lot more.
We don't have to have the IRS anymore.
You're not being taxed just for living, just for working.
I personally don't support the fair tax because I want something much more radical than that.
I think we get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.
Okay?
If you get rid of the income tax and the 40 to 50 percent of revenue that the government makes, they're still bringing in trillions of dollars.
Okay?
It still leaves them trillions of dollars to play with.
I think that should be enough.
Like, can you operate a government on two, three trillion dollars?
That's more money than exists in the world.
More money than can be conceived of.
Like enough money, if stacked it up, we made a big stack, it would hit the moon or something.
Is that, can we operate a government on that?
We can.
We should.
So I'd like to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing.
But the fair tax is certainly better than the income tax anyway.
It's an actual plan to do something, like a radical change that's actually necessary, a real change, and it is definitely better than having the income tax.
Because right now, you work for a living, and the government comes in, and they reach their hand into your paycheck before you even receive it.
They take their cut of your paycheck and then give you the rest.
That's the system right now.
There is no privacy.
There is no liberty.
There's no freedom involved in this.
And this would reclaim some of that.
So that's what he voted for.
And, you know, if you think if you want to defend the IRS and you want to defend the income tax, that's fine.
But that is what you're defending.
Haley Kirkpatrick says, I was diagnosed with depression when I was 10 years old.
I had a really rough childhood.
I started taking antidepressants at 11.
I took them up until about six months ago.
I had been on all kinds of antidepressants.
The side effects were awful.
The withdrawals were crippling, and I was already isolated from my peers, but this made things worse.
I tried to take my life upwards of 50 times for those eight years I was taking those meds.
I had 56 hospitalizations for suicide and self-harm.
My childhood was robbed from me.
Those places did nothing to help except shove more meds down my throat.
They traumatized me more than I already was.
I had a really hard time making friends and keeping them.
I never had a good relationship with my parents for a whole surplus of reasons.
I was isolated and alone, a traumatized kid given meds to try and cure me.
The only ever made things worse.
When I went off my meds, everything changed.
I started to see a purpose in life.
I no longer struggled with self-harm or suicidal tendencies.
My other mental health disorders started seeing extreme improvement, too.
I told everyone about the changes I was seeing, and all they did was tell me to get back on the meds.
I was a victim of this over-medicalization for almost my entire life.
I have to live knowing I will probably never see justice for the abuse I experienced at the hands of these doctors looking to make a quick buck.
I've heard many stories like this.
I'm sorry that you went through all that.
I'm glad that That you have, as you said, reclaimed some sense of purpose in your life, which is obviously crucial to living a happy life.
But the thing that disturbed me the most in your comment is that you have been on antidepressants since the age of 10 because you say you had a really rough childhood.
So you had a really rough childhood and you were depressed, you know, because of your rough childhood,
and they put you on drugs.
And this is exactly the problem right here.
This is it.
I mean, they claim, right, they claim that depression is nothing
but a medical problem, it's a disease, something that we can solve with a pill.
But then they prescribe the pills, even for people who are depressed,
for obvious, valid, external reasons.
If you had a rough childhood, and I don't know what you mean specifically by that,
but we can imagine, if your childhood was bad,
It makes sense that you were depressed.
There's a rational response.
There's a rational response to a bad childhood.
It doesn't mean that I want you to be depressed or anything, of course, but you had a bad childhood that made you sad as a child, made you depressed.
Well, that makes sense.
So when they give the drugs and they diagnose you with a disease, are they saying you shouldn't be sad about having a terrible childhood?
That somehow it's unreasonable or extreme for you to respond emotionally to your environment?
For you to respond like a human being?
You didn't have an illness, you were a human.
That was your illness.
Being human.
The same illness we all have.
And again, I don't know the nature of your childhood, but let's just say, you know, a child is abused, neglected, unloved.
These are things that we normally mean when we talk about having a rough childhood.
But you have a child like that, she's sad about it, and they put her on drugs.
Okay, and if the drugs work, She's not sad anymore.
Is that better?
I mean, is it better for a child to be happy while being treated that way?
Isn't sadness the correct and healthy response?
Isn't treating the sadness but not the external cause just like giving someone a painkiller so they can put their hand on a hot stove?
Isn't it like the same kind of thing?
Not that you as a child had your hand on a hot stove like it was your fault.
My point is simply that when you numb a person's emotional response to a negative external condition, You are doing something that is going to make them less healthy in the long run, not as well adjusted, more vulnerable in the long run.
So that's the point.
There are so many reasons in this world why a person might experience despair, depression, deep, lasting sadness.
There are a lot of reasons for that, tragically, because we live in a world where a lot of really horrible things happen.
And so when a person is depressed, most of the time, you don't have to look that far to peer into their lives and see, well, okay, here are all these things that are happening in your life, happening to you, and you're sad because of that.
Of course you're going to be sad because of that.
So there's just something about it that I find, it's so antidepressant to a child who has a bad childhood.
Is that really the solution?
Making children numb to their own terrible circumstances?
That's how we solve it?
And as I've said many times before, you know, even Even if there isn't something obviously happening in your life that would make you depressed, like having a horrible childhood, you're experiencing loss, you lost a job, you lost a loved one.
Even if you don't have something like that.
And the thing is, people do have those big red flag things that are obviously causing them to be depressed, and they still get put on the antidepressants.
But let's say you don't have that.
The simple fact of being human, of living in this world and being a mortal creature and seeing all the pain and suffering around you, that can cause people to experience depression just based on that alone.
Being human can cause depression, which doesn't mean that we Abandon someone to those feelings, that we don't try to help them.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that we don't treat it like a disease, because it is not a diseased, disordered response to what they're seeing in the world.
That's the point, but I think you summed it up perfectly well.
Are you tired of breathing in polluted air in the comfort of your own home and want to safeguard your family's health and well-being?
Well, with our friends at EnviroCleanse, you'll never have to worry again.
EnviroCleanse is an in-home air-purifying unit designed to destroy cold and flu viruses, allergy-inflamming toxins, mold, and even more.
With EnviroCleanse, they promise far fewer colds, allergies, and better sleep.
They even give you a free air quality monitor to test the difference in your home.
If all home purifiers are the same, then why did the US Department of Defense
select EnviroCleanse to protect and purify the air on board our Navy ships?
EnviroCleanse air purifiers have a hospital-grade technology.
Their air purifiers come in all sizes, all colors, and prices to fit every budget.
They offer additional products like surface cleaner and laundry detergent as well.
You can get all of it there.
Breathe in pure air and live a healthier life as well.
Visit ekpure.com.
Use code Walsh for 10% off your EnviroCleanse home air purification unit.
Right now you also get their free air quality monitor plus fast free shipping.
That's a $150 savings which you can get at EKpure.com.
Code Walsh.
That's EKpure.com.
Promo code Walsh.
Also, you can never start thinking about Father's Day gifts too early, and a gift of Jeremy's Razors is dual-purpose.
Not only are you helping your dad look his best each day, you're also kicking Woke out of his bathroom.
There's no other razor that can do that.
Shaving is not just about grooming, it's about embracing masculinity and feeling like a real man in the process.
Save 30% off a Jeremy's Razor Select Bundles and Razor Starter Sets as part of our Father's Day sale.
Go to Jeremy'sRazors.com today and help Dad kick Woke out of his bathroom.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I didn't realize that the Kardashians reality show was still on the air, but apparently it is.
In my head, it ended sometime around the year 2003, which I think is before the series actually started.
But anyway, the point is that I was surprised to see a clip from the show go viral this week.
To me, it felt a bit like seeing everyone sharing a clip from last night's episode of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire with Regis Philbin.
But once I got past the initial surprise, I found that the content was quite interesting.
I imagine it's probably the first time that anything interesting has ever happened on the show, and I'm glad that I was able to witness this historic occasion.
In the video, Khloe Kardashian talks about her experience having a baby.
Except that, small detail, she did not experience having a baby.
Instead, she rented out another woman's womb and she paid her to have the baby.
Last year, Khloe and her husband, who of course she is now divorced, welcomed a new son via surrogacy.
But as she shared with her sister Kim, who is also an experienced womb renter, she learned that the process is not all it's cracked up to be.
Watch.
Very good process.
Kim knows it's really hard for me.
What does that mean?
She had a really hard time accepting the whole process.
Oh, got it.
It's a mind f***.
It's really the weirdest thing.
Right, I could see that.
I do think that there is a difference.
When the baby is in your belly, the baby actually feels your real heart.
Think about it.
Right.
It, like, touches your org- like, it's feel- there's no one else on this planet that will feel you from the inside like that, like your heart, you know?
I got so many good jokes.
People can connect in different ways.
People could not connect.
Do you feel less connected?
Mm-hmm.
That'll take a minute.
Yeah, people say that.
I mean, listen, the other was 10 months of walking around.
Hers was like easy.
This is not easy.
I definitely like buried my head in the sand during that pregnancy that I didn't digest what was happening.
And so I think when I went to the hospital, I really think that was the first time that really registered.
And it has nothing to do with the baby.
It's just, you're like, okay, we're having a baby and this is my son and I'm taking him home with me.
I definitely was in a state of shock, I think, from my entire experience in general.
Go, go, go, go, go.
Don't stop.
Don't stop.
I felt really guilty that, like, this woman just had my baby, and you're just... I take the baby, and then I go to another room, and you're sort of separated.
Like, I felt it's such a transactional experience, because it's not about him.
I wish someone was honest about surrogacy and the difference of it, but it doesn't mean it's bad or good.
It's still great.
Yes, I was waiting for that plot twist at the end.
Surrogacy is weird and distant and transactional and I feel less connected to my own child, but it's still great!
This is maybe the most morbidly fascinating thing about that clip.
You can see in real time as a typical modern progressive, typical ideologically if not financially, tries to wrestle with a moral conundrum while at the same time lacking the moral framework and language to arrive at the proper conclusions.
Her worldview will not allow her to connect the dots.
This thing feels bad and seems bad and has had a bad effect on her and her family, but it can't be bad because it's a lifestyle choice and no lifestyle choice can be bad.
Because if this lifestyle choice was bad, then that means lifestyle choices can be bad, which opens up a whole Pandora's box that she is too terrified to peek inside of.
It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it can't really be a duck, because then she might find that there are a whole lot of other ducks out there.
Who wants to live in a world with so many ducks?
But before veering off at the end and bailing out of the car right before it made it to the logical destination, both Khloe and Kim were making true and important points.
Surrogacy feels transactional.
Because it is transactional.
You are paying someone else to carry your child.
You rented out a womb like it's an Airbnb.
You outsourced your pregnancy like you're a cell phone company opening a new call center.
You used another woman's body as an incubator for your child.
Yes, you paid her for the service, but as you found out, the payment only makes the thing worse, if anything.
You did all of this, and why did you do all this?
Well, you did all this for the sake of your vanity and for convenience.
And that's why you feel those pangs of guilt and shame.
This is the worst thing about surrogacy.
It is transactional.
And considering the nature of the transaction, it is therefore dehumanizing.
Dehumanizing for everybody involved.
For the surrogate, for the child, and for the mother who stands off at a distance.
So why do you feel distant from your son?
Why are you struggling to connect?
Well, because you put a distance between yourself and the child.
You didn't want to give yourself to him.
You didn't want to love him fully and sacrificially, and so you placed him off at a distance.
You let another woman do the hard part, thinking that you could swoop in for the easy stuff, but there's a cost.
And it's a cost much greater than whatever fee you paid for the surrogacy service.
The cost is emotional and spiritual.
Because it turns out that women who carry their children and give birth to them, and love them fully and completely in that way, they are sacrificing quite a lot.
But they receive something in return.
It is not a one-way street.
They give of themselves, and what they receive is that special bond, that special love, that is known only between a mother and the child that she delivers.
That isn't to say that you can't love a child unless you give birth to him.
I love all six of my children, and it may surprise you to learn this, that I did not give birth to any of them.
Adoptive parents also, of course, love their children too.
But that love is unique for each role, right?
And the love deepens and increases the more that you sacrifice for and serve the one that you love.
A father makes, a good father anyway, makes unique sacrifices for his children, serves his family in unique ways, And experiences a unique love.
Adoptive parents, by seeking children in need of parents and choosing to adopt them, also serve and sacrifice uniquely and therefore also partake in a unique sort of love that people who have never adopted will never experience.
Mothers like Chloe, who choose not to sacrifice, who put a distance between themselves and their children intentionally, So that they can maintain their figure and not be burdened, or whatever, have also made a unique choice, but it's one that makes that loving connection more difficult to establish.
Because it's a choice defined by its lack of sacrifice, by its selfishness.
Doesn't mean that she can't love her son, or doesn't, or never will.
It simply means exactly what Chloe says.
It's a struggle to connect.
She put her son off at a distance, and now she feels that distance.
The lesson that she's learning here, hopefully, is that truly there are no shortcuts in life.
Not really.
Not when it comes to the big and important things.
You cannot skip the hard part and cut right to the good stuff.
You can't do that because the hard part is what gives the good stuff its goodness.
Another way of saying this is that there is no happiness that isn't earned.
So you can pay for all the luxuries you want.
You can pay for all the convenience.
You can take all the pills you want.
You can defer as much as you want to modern technology.
You can get a lot of convenience out of that.
You can even get comfort and satisfaction.
But love and happiness, the things that the human heart really desires most deeply, those have to be earned.
I mean, there's no way around it.
There are shortcuts that only seem like shortcuts.
In reality, they are detours that take you farther away from the thing that you want.
Farther from what you really desire.
This is the lesson that Khloe is learning today.
The lesson that surrogacy has taught many people, unfortunately, the hard way.
And that is why, maybe not Khloe Kardashian, who is learning, but at least surrogacy is today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
As we head into the weekend, and there won't be a show on Monday, I believe, because it's Memorial Day, so I'll talk to you on Tuesday.
