Ep. 1225 - Here's What The Media Doesn't Want You To Know About The Violent Crime Plaguing Our Cities
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, viral footage shows two teenagers intentionally running into and killing a man on a bicycle. It's just the latest example of totally arbitrary, pointless violent crime. And it's a problem that will only get worse until we're honest about it. Also, Russell Brand has now been demonetized by YouTube over allegations made in the media from 15 years ago. Plus, another city has learned that providing "safe and clean" areas for people to use drugs will not lead to less drug use. In our Daily Cancellation, a woman identifies as a man and is horrified after her first experience in a men's bathroom.
Ep.1225
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
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 information kit.
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.
- - -
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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, viral footage shows two teenagers intentionally running into and killing a man on a bicycle.
It's just the latest example of totally arbitrary, pointless, violent crime in our cities.
And it's a problem that will only get worse until we're honest about it.
Also, Russell Brand has now been demonetized by YouTube over allegations made in the media from 15 years ago.
Plus, another city has learned that providing safe and clean areas for people to use drugs will not lead to less drug use.
Imagine that.
In our daily cancellation, a woman identifies as a man and is horrified after her first experience in a men's bathroom.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Vladimir Putin called the US dollar's drop in dominance objective and irreversible, as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa formally agreed to use local currencies in trade instead of the U.S.
dollar.
As demand for the dollar weakens, the buying power of the dollar also weakens.
And that's why Birch Gold is busier than ever.
Investors and savers are looking to harness the power of physical gold held in a tax-sheltered IRA.
You can, too.
You can protect your IRA or 401k by diversifying with gold from Birch Gold.
As the U.S. dollar continues to receive pressure from foreign countries, digital currency and
central banks arm yourself with information on how to protect your savings.
Learn if gold is the right for you too.
Text Walsh to 989898 and they'll send you a free info kit on gold with an A+ rating
with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers and countless five-star
reviews.
I trust Birch Gold to help you diversify into gold.
If a central bank digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to depend on.
Again, text WALSH to 989898.
You know, if you ask human rights groups, public executions are a thing of the past in the developed world.
If you want to see a public execution, according to the experts at Amnesty International, you need to go somewhere truly third world, like Somalia or North Korea.
Otherwise, you're not going to come across executions in the middle of the day, right out in the open, because we're more civilized than that.
We might have runaway inflation that rivals the late Roman Empire.
We might have state-of-the-art fighter jets that the Pentagon loses, like spare change.
At least we don't lop people's heads off in the town square because they stole a loaf of bread or whatever.
What human rights groups will not tell you, because it's inconvenient for their preferred political narrative, is that public executions are now, in fact, more common in the first world than they've ever been in history.
And it's not even close.
In fact, these executions are happening all the time, right here in the United States.
All that's changed from a century ago is that the authorities are not the ones carrying out these killings in accordance with any kind of, you know, legal standard.
Instead, the perpetrators are young criminals who also happen to be, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, disproportionately male and black.
One of these public executions took place in northwest Las Vegas around six o'clock in the morning of August 14th.
This is a 64-year-old retired police chief named Andreas Probst was out, you know, on his bicycle when a 17-year-old driver, urged on by his friend, Decided that it was time for probst to die the passenger in
the vehicle recorded what happened next uploaded the footage on the internet
the video begins with these criminals ramming a random car off the road performing a
pit maneuver for no apparent reason and Then the thugs in the car spot probst on his bicycle. We're
gonna show you the footage now But you should know that it's very disturbing as you might
expect Here it is
I I
Can't move You
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Stop talking!
Stop talking!
Record these.
On my butt.
Ready?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, hit his ass.
[LAUGH]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Knocked out.
Get out of here.
What the address?
Thank you.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, now at the outset, commonplace.
It is, to see footage like that on social media these days.
We'll get more into the reasons for that in a second, but it used to be that you would only see people dying if you were disturbed enough to seek out that kind of material from, you know, live leak videos out of Iraq, or on some horrific snuff porn forum in some dark and terrible corner of the internet.
Now those videos are all over the place on the internet, and you're likely to see them whether you sought them or not.
This is a very bad thing, obviously.
Bad because people are being killed on video.
Bad that we have to see it.
But you would think that if one positive thing could possibly come out of the proliferation and accessibility of these kinds of videos, it would at least be honesty.
We all know what's going on in these videos.
We can see them.
We have seen them.
So we should at least be able to be honest about them and have an honest conversation.
But we can't.
Because even if the videos are all over the place, and they are, the institutions tasked with reporting on them, and giving us all the information we need about them, are determined to protect their own narratives at all costs.
So back to this case.
The driver of that vehicle has been arrested.
He was initially picked up for vehicular homicide before cops saw the video.
And then once they saw the footage, they upgraded the charges to murder.
And that's the good news.
The good news is that he's caught.
He's going to be charged with murder.
The bad news is that authorities won't release the name of this driver, supposedly because he's 17 years old.
And for that reason, they're protecting him.
You see, in our legal system, thugs who mow down retirees are entitled to anonymity.
Conveniently enough, that policy makes it a lot harder to track which demographic groups are committing these horrible crimes, almost as if it's by design.
Therefore, to be completely honest and forthright with you, we can't tell you with certainty who the driver or his passenger are.
Apparently, police still haven't even arrested the passenger somehow.
I can't see how that could be the case.
I mean, the passenger encourages the driver, says, go and hit him.
So we can't really tell you anything about them.
We don't know.
We can't look up their social media profiles.
We can't see if they offered a motive for this killing, for example.
The government wants us to remain as clueless as possible about this heinous crime, and all for the benefit of the murderers.
But to the extent possible, I don't want to play along with that, because when you run over an elderly man on a bike, no sane person will want to silence an open and honest conversation about what happened.
So let's have that conversation.
It appears that the video depicts one, probably two, black teenagers killing an elderly white man.
That's not an observation that's unique to my deft skills of perception.
A lot of people have come to the same conclusion because they have two working eyes and ears.
And before anyone says, well, that's not confirmed.
You know, we don't know the races of both people in the car.
You shouldn't spread unconfirmed information.
I agree with you in a sense.
Speculation, however well-founded it may be, shouldn't be necessary.
Ideally, your government is honest with you about the people who are running over innocent men in the middle of the street.
Ideally, they give you all the information.
Ideally, they release perpetrators' photos and names and social media feeds immediately.
That's what they do when the police kill someone, even if it's an accident.
Even if it's a justified shooting.
You have the cop's entire life story printed in every major newspaper within 24 hours.
But like Europe, we're now hiding demographic information about the perpetrators of violent crime in this country as long as they fit certain characteristics.
And until our leaders stop doing what they're doing in Europe, they better get used to speculation.
The less information you provide the public, the more speculation you get.
But it doesn't appear that our leaders will stop doing what they're doing because, if we're being honest, it's working.
There's a complete media blackout on the identity of the killers in this case.
So let's take a look at the media coverage of the footage you just saw.
Here's the New York Post, for example.
Footage shows teen driver appear to deliberately hit and kill retired police chief Andreas Probst.
Fox News says, teen driver appears to intentionally hit kill retired police chief in viral video.
People Magazine, teen charged with murder after video appears to show driver hit retired police chief on purpose.
The Independent, video allegedly shows teen driver intentionally striking retired police chief in deadly bike crash.
And on it goes.
Now, all of these headlines don't just obscure the racial element of this murder, they omit it entirely.
And this is almost too obvious a point to make, but we need to make it anyway.
Consider what would happen if the races were reversed in this scenario.
Okay, people get tired of hearing that phrase.
Well, imagine if the races were reversed.
But it is important to imagine that.
Like, imagine that two white teens mow down an elderly black man on a bicycle.
That exact same video reversed the races.
Just imagine that.
Can you imagine any headline in any mainstream publication that says, teens appear to kill a retired cop?
Can you imagine?
That's the headline.
That's all it says.
That's all the information they provide in the headline.
No, of course not.
Like, would there be any hesitation whatsoever to report on the race of everybody involved in that incident?
And frontload it as quickly as possible?
You know the answer to that question.
You know that every single headline would say, white teens mow down black cyclists.
Every headline would say that.
At every opportunity when there's a black victim and a white perpetrator, the media makes sure to mention race as much as possible.
Just examples, one recent PBS headline says, shot black teenager crying buckets of tears, 84-year-old in custody.
Another one, quote, after years of threats, a feud ends with a black mom dead and her white neighbor arrested.
That's an AP headline.
Here's another one, quote, Takaya Young's family urges officers arrest after video shows him killing the pregnant black woman.
That again is from the AP.
In none of these cases was it clear, or even plausible, that race motivated the killing.
In the Takiya Young shooting, what motivated the killing is that she was in a car and she was driving it directly into a police officer.
And it just seems very unlikely to me that that police officer, if the driver was white, would have said, okay, well, you can run me over.
No, no, no, it's okay, well, you're white, so go ahead and run me over.
In fact, I'll lay down, I'll make it easy for you.
So race had nothing to do with it, but our media led with race because it allowed them to force-feed the BLM narrative.
If you're wondering why a certain large portion of the public still believes that black Americans are being hunted and killed en masse by whites, this is why.
This is why so many people still march and shout Black Lives Matter to protest this phantom injustice.
The majority of Americans are fed a carefully curated version of events that bears very little resemblance to what's actually happening in this country.
You know, we talked about this before.
We live in a kind of what I call a curated reality.
Where the media, yeah, sometimes they openly lie about what's happening.
Sometimes they just make things up.
But most of the time, it's not about making things up.
It's just about selecting very carefully the things they want to tell you and the things they don't want to tell you.
And so they construct this curated reality for you.
Now the truth is that, as the ex-account Data Hazard has pointed out, more than 27% of white murder victims are killed by non-whites.
And by contrast, less than 10% of black murder victims are killed by criminals who aren't black.
Black people are roughly 10 times more likely to kill a white person as compared to the odds of a white person killing a black person.
Those are the facts.
Now this fact isn't factored into the equation because the powers that be work to conceal it.
They hide the truth in headlines.
And when there's obvious racial violence, like the attacks by predominantly black offenders against Asians in San Francisco or Orthodox Jews in New York, the media simply looks the other way.
If we're being charitable, which we shouldn't be, then we can conclude that these media organizations are petrified, that they might give fuel to all the dreaded MAGA Republicans and all the white supremacists who are lurking around the country.
And so they're lying to us for that reason.
But all these concerns about racial violence, real and imagined, obscure a very uncomfortable truth, which is that the vast majority of violence in this country is not motivated specifically by race.
It's not motivated by white supremacy.
It's not motivated by black supremacy or any other kind of racial supremacy.
So take that video of the police chief who was killed.
Everyone watching that footage knows that it's likely those kids in the car would have hit that cyclist no matter who he was or what he looked like.
The data are clear on this point.
The epidemic of violent crime is fueled not by racial animosity for the most part.
Even if you use the government's cooked hate crime stats, you don't explain the vast majority of violent crime in this country.
The truth is that lots of kids who were not raised to be civilized human beings are being unleashed onto the world as barbarians looking to inflict pain and suffering just for the sake of it.
And that's what was happening, I think, in that video.
Those were people who were just looking to inflict pain and suffering.
Why?
Just for fun.
For the most part, these are kids who aren't raised in stable two-parent households, which includes a very high percentage of black children.
And without a stable family life or a father figure, these kids are going out and committing heinous, arbitrary acts of violence, and they're targeting people of all races.
It's because these violent crimes are so blatant, so unrestrained, that you can often find footage of them on social media.
For example, consider the viral video this week of a killing in Philadelphia.
And you can see a guy, we're not going to play the clip for you, but you can see a guy standing on a street corner, looking at his phone, and then somebody in a hoodie walks by, pulls a gun, and shoots him in the back of the head before robbing him.
And then just kind of walks away.
Both the victim and the assailant, in that case, are black.
And that's the kind of barbarism that's regularly on display in major American cities.
But videos like that will never appear on CNN or MSNBC.
And if they ever do, there's not going to be any honest conversation about them.
There's another one just this week of, and this is again, these are videos all just this
week.
Another one is of a man, what appears to be a man, being shot down in the middle of a
parking lot in broad daylight.
Again, the killer just casually kills the guy and then strolls away as if nothing happened.
Entirely unfazed by what he'd done.
Probably because it wasn't his first time.
Again, in that case, both victim and assailant were black.
Now, BLM has not issued any statements about any of these cases.
There will be no mass protests or vigils to honor the man shot for holding a cell phone in Philadelphia or the men in the parking lot in that apartment complex.
Certainly not for the biker, the cyclist who was killed.
None of these deaths fit a convenient narrative, even where they involve black victims.
So they're ignored.
But at a certain point, if we care about victims of all racial backgrounds, including white and black victims and every other kind of victim, We need to ask ourselves why society is filled with so many degenerates and thugs who have no compunction about executing people in broad daylight.
Now, this was not always the case, despite what you may be told.
It hasn't always been like this.
As the blogger Devin Helton noted recently, homicide rates in U.S.
cities all blew up somewhere around the mid-20th century.
Baltimore's homicides went up by 346% from 1950 to 1991.
346%.
Chicago's homicide rate went up by 322%.
Detroit went up by 1400%.
New York City's by 692%.
New Orleans by 504%.
346% Chicago's homicide rate went up by 322%
Detroit went up by 1400% New York City's by 692%
New Orleans by 504% San Francisco by 128% and so on. Okay, we could go on and
on.
In all these cases, Helton notes, homicide rates were higher in 1991 than they were in the early 1900s, before the invention of antibiotics and modern surgical techniques.
Now, what these figures demonstrate is that the violence we accept as normal is, in fact, a choice.
It is normal now.
It doesn't need to be.
It's not inevitable.
It's not just like how cities always are.
The BLM regime and corporate media, they have done everything they can to obscure that fact.
They want to make you think it's inevitable.
It's just the way it is.
It can't change.
But that's not true.
And it's incumbent on all the liars in the media and the political class to explain why we've gone backwards to such an enormous and measurable degree.
If they start screaming about white supremacy and dog whistles, then you know they're not interested in a truthful discussion.
A few years ago, they could get away with that.
But now the bodies are piling up on camera.
People can see it.
Now the suspects are recording themselves in the act of committing heinous murders.
So the lies need to end.
It's time for actual solutions.
And if our leaders can't provide them, then inevitably, this country will elect leaders who will.
And these may not be the solutions that Amnesty International wants.
But if we continue to ignore what's happening in bike lanes and parking lots all over the country, Then these solutions will be inevitable.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Have you ever craved a nice barbecue meal with the family?
Say you go to the store, you get all the groceries, invite family over, and when you go to turn on the grill, your propane tank is empty.
Tragedy strikes.
That's where Cinch comes in to save the day.
Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.
They deliver propane tanks right to your door.
Cinch delivers on your schedule.
Does not require any long-term commitment or subscription.
Plus, delivery is completely contactless.
You don't have to wait around at home.
Track the order on the Cinch app from anywhere.
Whether you're grilling, 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.
So we start with this report from Business Insider.
YouTube said Tuesday that Russell Brand will no longer make money from the video streaming site after several women made allegations of sexual assault against the comedian-turned-influencer.
The BBC removed some of Brand's material from its streaming archive, joining a growing list of organizations distancing themselves from the performer, who denies sexual assault and has not been charged with any criminal offenses.
YouTube's demonetization of Brand's account, which has 6.6 million subscribers, has been suspended, quote, following serious allegations against the creator.
This decision applies to all channels that may be owned or operated by Russell Brand, according to YouTube.
The suspension means Brand won't be able to earn money from the ads that run within and alongside YouTube videos which have titles including, what really started the Hawaii fires and COVID czar admits lockdowns were never about science.
I guess they included those titles because they're supposed to sound extreme or conspiratorial when, you know, when of course a normal person reads those titles and thinks, yeah, well, that's, yeah, sounds like those sound like interesting videos.
Anyway, other channels associated with Brand's main YouTube channel page were also demonetized The BBC has already taken a lot of his content down, and he's been dropped by his talent agency, he's been dropped by his publisher, so this is just, so he's already been, he's already had his talent agency, his publisher, drop him, BBC is taking down content from him, and now YouTube is coming along and demonetizing him.
All based on allegations, dating back 15 years, made in the media with no criminal charges even filed.
So, we talked about this yesterday extensively.
Go back if you missed it and you can hear my full analysis of these Russell Brand accusations.
The summary is that I have no idea whether he did those things 15 years ago or not.
I didn't know him back then.
I don't know him now.
I have never met him.
I don't know anything about him.
I have no clue whatsoever.
There's no way for me to judge.
I don't know.
What I do know, what can't be denied, Is that the accusations are only being dug up and only being printed now because he has made himself into an enemy of the system, of the mainstream media, of Hollywood, and so on.
And they are especially upset with Russell Brand because he used to be one of them.
He used to be a big-time film star himself.
And now he's on YouTube, you know, having conversations with very dangerous figures like Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro.
And so it was just inevitable that they would come for him and that there would be some kind of allegations, whether true or not.
So whether true or not, the only reason that we're hearing about any of this is because they want to take him down for ideological reasons.
And again, everyone knows that.
And that alone, the obvious motivation behind this, is also reason enough to be very skeptical of the claims being made.
But of course, the problem is that Russell Brand can't vindicate himself, can't defend himself, can't clear his name, because it's basically impossible to provide evidence that you didn't do something 15 years ago.
You can't provide evidence that something didn't happen 15 years ago.
Like, it's also impossible Usually to provide evidence that something did happen 15 years ago But even more so you can't provide evidence of a of a negative of a thing that didn't happen.
I mean you can barely prove That you didn't do something yesterday Okay, if I made up something that you did yesterday, it'd be very hard for you to prove you didn't do it So if I demanded evidence that you did not Push an old lady in front of a bus, yesterday.
It would be hard for you to prove that.
And that's something that, if it happened, it would have happened in public.
Now, if I claim that yesterday, in private, you did something terrible, and only I was there to witness it, then you especially would be hard-pressed to prove me wrong.
Now, add 15 years on top of that, and it's basically impossible.
Which is why, and I think this is a point that's often overlooked, but it's important to make.
If you actually are a victim, so let's go for a moment, sake of argument, that Russell Brand did these things he was accused of doing.
So you take any one of these, in that case, actual victims.
Well, here's the issue.
It is your responsibility to come out and report it right away.
It is your responsibility to not wait 15 years, or 20 years, or 30 years.
It's too late at that point.
It's just too late.
You missed your chance.
You failed to speak up when it would have mattered.
And also, by the way, when you could have prevented other people, conceivably, from becoming victims.
If you had spoken up at the time.
And now it's too late.
You can't prove it all these years later.
The person you're accusing can't defend themselves.
It's too late.
You need to speak up sooner.
That's your responsibility.
And look, I know that to claim that there's any responsibility on a victim at all is considered outrageous and victim-blaming.
It's a terrible thing.
But that's absurd.
Of course, we all have responsibilities.
And even if something terrible happens to you, it shouldn't have happened.
It's an awful thing.
There are still certain responsibilities that you have, and one of them is to say something to tell people.
Right away.
Not waiting 15 years.
It's like, you know, I can think back to times that I was wrong 15 or 20 years ago.
I was never sexually assaulted.
I never went through anything close to as bad as that.
But just like any other human being on Earth, right, we can all think back.
And I can think to specific people and specific instances where things were done that were wrong, where I was wronged in some way.
Well, I'm not going to come out now, two decades after the fact, and say, guess what this person did to me in 2002?
I'm not going to do that.
It's too late.
I waited too long.
And besides, the person that I'm holding to account now, all these years later, might be a very changed person by now.
Now, I might be holding him to account for things that essentially a different person did, a different version of him.
Which, again, is why it's just you have to come out sooner.
You just have to.
When you wait until the moment when there cannot possibly be any evidence because it's so far in the past, and that's when you decide, hey, guess what happened?
There's not a lot of good that can come of that.
There's a lot of good that can come of speaking out right away.
Now, as for this YouTube thing specifically, this thing with YouTube is chilling.
I mean, this is really terrible.
I can't emphasize enough how bad this is.
And I know we're used to hearing this kind of news from big tech and YouTube, and they're demonetizing someone.
I've been demonetized.
Lots of people have been demonetized.
Candace Owens was just suspended from YouTube.
So you hear about these sorts of things, and maybe your eyes kind of gloss over at this point, and you've heard it before.
But we have to understand that in this particular case, this is something we should pay attention to.
That they are demonetizing all of his channels, taking away all of his YouTube income, which is probably, I imagine, the lion's share of his income at this point.
And they're doing it based on unproven allegations in the media that have nothing to do with YouTube at all.
There aren't even any criminal charges filed.
Again, these are claims in the media, and based on that alone, YouTube is demonetizing.
Is this their policy?
Have they enacted it consistently?
If so, are there any examples that anyone can think of of any left-wing YouTuber being demonetized because of unrelated allegations made against them?
Are there any examples of that?
Of course not.
And that alone is all the evidence that you need that this hit on Russell Brand is a thousand percent politically motivated, whether true or not.
And think about what's really happening here.
YouTube is giving the left a blueprint.
Which is why this is very sinister stuff.
It's very sinister.
Because they are deliberately giving the left a blueprint.
They're saying to the left, hey, if you want to demonetize someone, just accuse them of sexual assault.
That's all you got to do now.
They don't need to be charged.
There doesn't need to be any evidence.
They don't need to be found guilty.
Just accuse them.
Get it published in some kind of mainstream outlet.
And they'll be demonetized.
Now, of course, this is not a new blueprint, right?
Using allegations to ruin someone's reputation and all that.
But as it applies to YouTube monetization specifically, it does appear to be new.
This is an escalation.
And now what's going to happen?
What's going to happen is exactly what YouTube wants to happen, which is that there's going to be an avalanche of allegations against prominent people on YouTube who the left doesn't like.
Now that they've seen, oh, okay, well, this is how to do it.
And once that starts happening, just realize, again, this is entirely by design.
This is what was intended all along.
Daily Wire has this report.
Philadelphia passed a bill last week banning supervised drug consumption sites across most of the city in the latest attempt by a Democrat-run city to curb rampant public drug use.
The Philadelphia City Council approved the ban Thursday in a 13-to-1 vote during a heated meeting where dozens of people on both sides of the issue showed up to cheer and heckle speakers.
The bill now heads to Mayor Jim Kenney, a Democrat, who supports supervised drug consumption sites and may refuse to sign it.
However, the city council passed the bill with enough of a majority to override a veto should the mayor issue one.
The legislation would update zoning codes to ban supervised drug consumption sites in nine of the city's ten districts, including in the Kensington neighborhood where homeless people dealing and shooting up drugs line the streets.
If you've Kensington is if you've seen those, those videos from Philadelphia of what looks
like the zombie apocalypse with people just crowds of people on the sidewalk, bent over
lurching along.
That's Kensington.
I mean, that could be anywhere in the city at this point, but it's probably Kensington.
Continue supervised drug consumption sites involve allowing people to bring their own
drugs and BYOD bring your own drugs and take them under supervision of clinicians to prevent
an overdose.
Such sites often offer addicts supplies like clean needles and information about addiction
treatment as well.
So that's what the supervised drug consumption site is.
And we've seen this strategy in cities all across the country.
We've seen supervised drug consumption sites.
We've seen the decriminalization of certain drugs.
We've seen law enforcement officially or unofficially de-emphasizing enforcing these kinds of laws.
And what we find is shockingly that when you do this you end up with more people doing drugs.
Because it turns out that the problem with having a whole lot of people who are addicted to heroin and methamphetamine and crack and all the rest of it, the problem with having a lot of people who are behaving this way, it's not just that they could overdose.
It's not just that they're using unclean needles and they can get HIV or some other illness.
Those are symptoms of the problem.
Those are manifestations of the problem.
But that's not the problem in and of itself.
And the whole philosophy behind the supervised drug consumption site is that, well, that's just it.
That's the problem.
The only problem with having a city full of heroin addicts is that the needles might not be clean and so they might get AIDS.
Or they might overdose because they take too much and they're not doing it in a supervised way with a licensed physician right there to monitor their heroin use.
And so if you could just, you know, provide people an opportunity to use clean needles and to use the drugs in front of a doctor, then you're not going to have as many overdoses and everything will be fine.
Well, shockingly, that's not how it works.
Because it turns out, well a couple things, it turns out, a few revelations that should not really be revelations.
And one of them is that crack addicts and meth addicts and heroin addicts, they're, these by definition are not responsible people, and so they're not saying to themselves, well, I'm shooting up heroin, I'm injecting this poison directly into my veins, but I want to make sure I do it in the most responsible way possible.
And so, you know what, I'm going to hold off.
I've got this heroin needle here, I've got some heroin I just scored.
I'm going to hold off on using it until I can get to a supervised drug consumption site.
And I'll get a clean needle, and I want to make sure that I'm shooting up in front of the, with a doctor standing right there.
That's not what heroin addicts are saying to themselves.
And even if it did, even if they did, it still would not solve the problem.
Because the problem is the simple fact that you have so many people on these drugs in the first place.
Even if none of them ever overdosed, even if none of them got HIV from dirty needles, it would still be a problem.
You drive, again, drive down Kensington, or don't drive down yourself, all you gotta do is look at the videos of it, and you see all these zombified people.
Okay, well, what if none of them had HIV and none of them overdosed?
Does that make it fine now?
Well, okay, it's fine.
I mean, they're all still alive, and as long as I know that they don't have any diseases, then everything's cool.
No, is that what you want your cities to look like?
Is this what we want society to look like?
Of course not.
But what we want is for people not to be using these drugs in the first place.
We want the drugs not to be available in the first place.
And it turns out, you know, we can try all these other methods, but ultimately we circle back around to the basic fact of human nature, that if you want to have less of something, you have to punish it.
If you want less of a certain behavior, you punish it.
If you want more of a certain behavior, you reward it.
You incentivize it.
You make it easier for people to do that.
And so, if you make it easier for people to use heroin, more people will use heroin.
If you make it harder, and you punish that kind of behavior, you'll get less of it.
Not none, not none of it, but there will be less.
They've legalized marijuana in, it seems like, every city in the country at this point.
And so what happens?
You walk through any city in the country now, and it just reeks of weed everywhere.
It's like, everybody's high, everywhere, all the time now.
It wasn't like that before, when weed was illegal.
But we were told that, well, the laws against marijuana use, they're not doing anything.
They're not stopping anyone from doing it, everyone's doing it anyway.
So you might as well make it legal.
Well, then we make it legal, and what happens?
A lot more people are doing it, and it's just everywhere, it's inescapable.
Because there's just a basic logic here.
Yes, punishing things cannot... You can't stop everyone from doing something absolutely by punishing it, but you can mitigate it.
You can dissuade people through punishment.
It's just... It's human nature.
You cannot escape it.
It's just the way it is.
And so, if you really want to clean up this problem in the streets of our cities, then, I mean, the first thing that you do, and the harshest punishments, of course, go to the drug dealers.
And you punish them severely.
Because they're not just drug dealers.
These are mass murderers.
That's how you start prosecuting them.
You find someone who's been dealing heroin, you prosecute that person as a serial killer, as a mass murderer, because that's what they are.
Okay, they're distributing poison.
They know what they're doing.
They know what the effects are.
They know when they hand over that poison to someone, they're handing over their death sentence.
And it might not be a sentence that's carried out right then and there, but eventually it will be.
And they know that.
And they're doing it anyway because they want the money.
And so you start prosecuting them as mass murderers.
Which means execution.
And you start doing that, and you do that enough, there's going to be a lot less of this.
It's guaranteed.
There just will be.
It's just, it's guaranteed.
Okay, the first time you pull some small-time drug dealer off the streets, and you prosecute him as a mass murderer, And then take him crying and weeping to the execution chamber?
It's an ugly thing.
It's not fun.
But do you want to live in a decaying, decrepit, collapsed civilization where everybody's a bunch of drugged out zombies?
Is that the kind of civilization you want to live in?
Or do you want to clean it up?
Do you want to have a civilization or not?
Because if you want to have one, this is what it's going to take.
And the first time you do that, I guarantee, just that first time, there's gonna be a lot of drug dealers who see the light.
Not all of them, but a lot of them will.
A lot of them are gonna say, uh, I don't know if this is worth it.
Or, yeah, or, you know, or the other option is we can continue to live in a, in a zombie apocalypse by choice.
Yeah, that's great too.
That's, that's the compassionate approach.
That's what we do if we're compassionate.
Right.
Okay, I wanted to...
Mentioned this and this is not really a headline at all But I thought it was funny so I'm going to talk about it briefly Which is that the NFL season is back, and you watch football, of course, every year, and you notice that the commercials are getting more and more politically correct.
And we're all aware of this trend.
It's not just when you're watching football, it's when you're watching anything.
You basically never see white couples, except in certain circumstances, and we'll see one of those circumstances in a second.
But usually, you're not going to see white couples and white families in commercials anymore.
Unless you need someone to portray a burglar in a home security system advertisement.
Other than that, multiculturalism and diversity is the way to go.
And with football, it's even more obvious because all the ads are tailored, obviously, for football fans, which means that most of the ads feature people who are portraying football fans.
So every ad is like, football fans love beer.
Here's our beer that we're selling, and you're a football fan, and you'll like it.
And so then all they're showing on the screen is a bunch of football fans who enjoy the beer.
And for many years, this meant that every ad would just feature men because football fans have always been, by far and away, predominantly men.
And that's still the case, but the ads don't reflect it anymore.
So in every ad now, you can't help but, it's very funny, you can't help but notice that you see an ad and they're showing It's a Miller Lite ad or whatever it is and they're showing a group of friends watching the game and you look at the group of friends and it's all, you know, it's a mix of races and ethnicities.
It's very multicultural and there's an exact mix of sexes.
There's as many women in this football watching party as there are men and all the rest of it, which isn't how it works in real life.
So this weekend I'm watching the Ravens game and I see this Best Buy ad, which I want to play for you.
Which, to me, really takes this political correctness thing over the top.
And here's the thing.
This is not the kind of commercial that would go viral on the right as being crazy and woke.
Because it's not aggressively woke or anything.
But it's actually extremely woke.
And this is the kind of wokeness that we see that kind of permeates the culture even more.
The kind that, you know, it's not Dylan Mulvaney where people are really going to notice that.
It's this kind of thing.
So let's watch this ad real quick.
Hey, can we talk?
So, I know that you love football, but maybe too much?
Not seeing it.
Not seeing it?
Oh.
Defense?
Wins championships.
Okay.
Let's go big.
Up your game with top brand TVs from Best Buy.
Okay, up your game, fandom unleashed.
So, these are spouses, it would appear, I guess we're supposed to assume.
And the one spouse is confronting the other spouse for being too obsessed with football, for being too big a fan of football.
And this is the kind of setup we've seen a million times in advertisements and sitcoms, you know, going back to the 90s.
But here, it's the husband confronting the wife for being too big of a football fan.
And all I'm saying is, look, I mean, in the entire history of sports, Going all the way back through time, to ancient times where they had their own sports, maybe not football, but through the whole history of the world.
How many times over thousands of years, how many times has a husband had to sit down with his wife and confront her for being too big of a sports fan?
Like, how many times has there been a conversation where the husband is like, you never pay attention to me because you're always watching football.
How many times?
Ever in history?
Like, is it more than three in the history of the human race?
Probably not.
And yet this is a scenario they present for a Best Buy commercial, which is funny because commercials are supposed to be relatable, right?
They're supposed to be recognizable.
You're trying to sell something in 30 seconds, and so you want the audience to immediately recognize the situation and be able to put themselves in it.
And they say, oh, I relate to that.
Yeah, I'm an obsessed football fan.
I want a big TV also.
So you want that to click right away.
And that's why usually, in the past anyway, commercials would have a lot of stereotypes and just broad generalizations that are basically true, that basically resonate, because they're trying to connect with you very quickly and sell you a product.
But wokeness has made that impossible.
Wokeness exists in an alternate reality, which means that woke ads can't even accomplish the purpose of advertisements anymore.
Because they are not based in any kind of real world that anyone actually recognizes.
No husband is going to watch that commercial and say, oh yeah, I can relate to that.
My wife constantly has the game on.
Can't get her to pay attention.
I'm trying to talk to my wife about my feelings and she's just always watching football.
Man, I gotta go buy that Best Buy TV.
That's not going to happen.
But of course, the real point is that the woke ad doesn't want to reflect reality.
It doesn't want to reflect how people are.
It wants to shape reality.
That's what they're going for.
It wants to change how people perceive themselves and perceive reality.
And so, yes, women are not likely to be the bigger sports fans in a family, but that's what wokeness wants.
It wants that gender reversal.
Not because, why?
Like, why would that make it better?
Is that an improvement somehow, if women become bigger sports fans?
Have we improved anything?
No, but it's a break from how it traditionally has been, and that's all that they care about.
Alright, let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
You know, as the Daily Wire's resident contrarian, I've been told that some may perceive me as a bit rough around the edges.
I can't imagine why that would be the case.
This couldn't be further from the truth, and because I'm so emotionally aware and in touch with my softer side, we have an exciting update to the Matt Walsh swag shack.
At long last, the stuffed Johnny the Walrus is back in stock over at dailywire.com slash shop.
That's right, the cuddly little marine mammals that swept the nation are once again ready to bring home.
They make great gifts regardless of age, and to sweeten the deal, we have the Book and Plushie Bundle, where you can get the walrus and my best-selling LGBTQ children's book, Johnny the Walrus, right now.
Get your walrus before these sell out.
Again, go to dailywire.com slash shop to get yours today.
Okay, a couple of comments here.
This is from TheBigRepublicat.
So Matt, I don't have to agree with everything he says, with everything Trump says he's talking about.
And I do agree that the abortion issue should be left to the states.
I see what you're doing, but it's not going to work there, DeSanctimonious.
DeSantis actively violated Florida law by running a shadow campaign for president.
Another comment from the same person, really are you going to use the federal government to force your moral views on others?
You railed against the federal government making abortion legal, you didn't like that, so why are you doing the same thing?
You are, you're an authoritarian just like Obama who would use, it's cut off from there.
Anyway, you're an authoritarian just like Obama.
Okay, couple of points.
The point Trump was making was not that abortion should simply be left to the states.
Trump attacked Florida for the law that they passed in their states.
He said it's a terrible thing.
So his point was not, the states should do whatever they want.
He was attacking a state law.
So the federal state distinction here is irrelevant.
He's attacking a state law.
And I'm saying that his attack is wrong.
That he's wrong on what he said.
And I explained why.
Explained why I thought that.
So that's just a dodge.
That's a dodge by you and by many other people who left similar comments and sent messages.
Oh no, Trump, he just wants the states to do what they want.
Then why is he going after Florida?
Which is a state last I checked.
And passed a law by their own duly elected government.
They passed their own law.
So Trump could If he only cares about, he just wants states to handle it, he could say, even if he doesn't agree with the Florida law, he could say, he doesn't have to denounce it, he could say, I think states should pass their own law, Florida pass their law.
And that's it.
He could say that.
Instead, he goes after the law itself.
And he goes after Republicans.
For allegedly being too extreme on abortion.
Wow!
And I didn't even mention this because Trump's comments on abortion were so off-base and ridiculous that it was hard to pinpoint all of the different areas where he was wrong.
And I missed one.
Because one thing I missed there, yesterday when we talked about it, is that in his answer on abortion, he actually claims that Democrats don't want to be extreme on the issue.
He claims that Democrats don't want to be extreme on abortion.
What?
Yes, they do.
That's absolutely what they want.
They're very extreme.
Almost every Democrat on the national stage, with maybe, maybe two or three exceptions, if that, wants abortion to be legal until birth, until the moment of birth.
That's what every Democrat on the national stage wants.
That's what the official position of the Democrat Party is.
And so Trump accuses Republicans of being extreme on abortion while absolving Democrats of their own extremism.
That's not moving to the middle.
And I think moving to the middle would be bad enough.
That is moving to the left.
That's throwing pro-life conservatives under the bus while absolving the other side.
And I think we all can recognize, plain as day, that that's what happened.
As far as you said, using the federal government to force your moral views on others, do I want to use federal law or law in general to force my moral view on people?
Yes, I do.
And that's because that's what all laws do.
Okay?
So can we stop this silliness?
This, once again, this is what you're talking about here, what we're getting from you, Republicat, if that's your real name, is we are getting half-baked, midwit, libertarian talking points that you should have grown out of when you were like 22.
And maybe that's how old you are now, and if that's the case, then all I can say is you'll grow out of this.
But if you're older than that and you're still saying, we don't want laws to force morality on people, then I don't know, you really need to, I take a break from Twitter, I take a break from social media and maybe read a few books, try to notch up the IQ points by a couple there.
Because it's just such a ridiculous, every law is imposing a moral view.
That's what laws do.
There's no such thing as a morality neutral law.
Every single thing that is illegal, okay?
If something's illegal, why is it illegal?
And I assume you agree that there are some things that should be illegal, right?
We can all agree there are things that should be illegal.
And if it's illegal, why is it illegal?
It's illegal because the people that are passing the law have judged that that thing is wrong.
And I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say that, no, it's not just because it's wrong.
It's because it hurts people.
So we should only make things illegal if they hurt people.
And yet abortion hurts people, it hurts human beings, and you want to make an exception for that.
But let's leave that exception aside for a second.
We'll pretend that you don't have that contradiction.
You're saying, no, only if it hurts someone.
Okay, why does it matter if you hurt someone?
Who cares about that?
Why shouldn't you be able to hurt someone?
Oh, because it's wrong to hurt people.
Because it's immoral.
So no matter how you slice it, no matter how you slice it, things are illegal because they are immoral.
Now, does that mean that every immoral thing should be illegal?
No.
But it does mean that something should only be illegal if it is immoral.
There should be nothing moral that is illegal.
And so if you are passing a law, you are making a moral judgment every single time.
Every set of laws is grounded in a moral code.
Without exception.
That's what laws do.
That's what they are.
I happen to believe that mass murdering human beings in the womb is deeply evil and immoral.
And yes, I want to impose That morality on the whole country, I do.
The morality that says that mass murdering human beings in the womb is wrong, I want to impose it on everybody.
Yes, absolutely, I want to impose it.
Just like we impose our moral view that murdering people outside of the womb is wrong.
We impose that on everyone, whether they agree with it or not.
Imagine that.
Well, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't carve out this absurd, arbitrary exception where we say, well, that obviously killing people, killing human beings is wrong, unless they're in the womb, and of course, go ahead and do it.
I'm saying I want to get rid of that, of that arbitrary exception.
Um, let's see.
Okay, one other.
We'll have to skip to this.
Sherg The Beast says, really?
You're going to criticize someone else for advertising something only to put it behind a paywall?
Really?
Wish I could finally watch What Is Woman, but, you know, In fact, we made What Is A Woman free.
Maybe you didn't hear, it was only viewed like 180 million times on Twitter, but we have made that available to the public.
Yeah, I criticized the Times in the UK for putting their Russell Brand accusations behind a paywall, not because I have a problem with a paywall, we have a paywall here at The Daily Wire.
The point, though, is that if you are going to make allegations against a specific person, that they are a serial rapist, Then I think you have a responsibility to keep those allegations available to the public.
To say in the headline, Russell Brand is a serial rapist!
Subscribe to find out more.
That, I think, is very wrong, yes.
I think if you're going to specifically accuse an individual of committing heinous crimes, and you claim that you have evidence of it, and that you have the details about it, yes, you have a responsibility, you have a journalistic responsibility to keep those details at the front of the paywall, in front of the paywall, so that people can read them and they don't have to pay you for the privilege.
I don't know.
Call that hypocrisy if you want, but I think it's a pretty clear standard.
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who champion free speech and intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has a vast array of exclusive Jordan Peterson content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content.
You're not going to find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, which includes vision and destiny, marriage and dragons, monsters and men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, like Logos and Literacy and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
That's only the beginning.
I haven't even mentioned his Beyond Order lecture series or his extensive archive of lectures and podcasts.
This is the absolute compendium of all things Jordan.
Plus, there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you'll get to embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
And these are differences that begin with the obvious physical distinctions, but they don't end there.
Men and women have different ways of thinking, of acting, of being in the world, different priorities and expectations.
And ironically, the effort to erase the distinction between men and women has made the distinction clearer than it's ever been before.
The more we call men women and women men, the more obvious it becomes that men are not women and women are not men.
There are, of course, many examples I can show and have shown that demonstrate this fact.
This week gives us a particularly funny one, though, and although the humor is entirely unintentional, of course.
So here's a viral video of a woman who recently started identifying as a man and has just had her first encounter with a men's restroom.
She was displeased.
Watch.
So today was my first day using the men's staff bathroom at school, and it is so boring in there.
The women have nice soap and plants that smells kind of like a waterfall.
I asked one of my colleagues about it, and he said that's just the way that it is, that it's like boring to be a man.
But guys, we don't have to accept that.
I've been on the other side.
There is another way.
Colorless misery doesn't have to be a secondary sex characteristic.
There's still time to make the little things delightful if you're only brave enough.
A singular Glade plug-in is not gonna make you a girl, I promise.
Yes, let's make the little things delightful, you know.
You know when us men always say things like that.
I can't count how many times I've heard a guy utter a phrase like that.
I have to say, it's annoying enough when a woman who still identifies as a woman declares that she's just one of the guys because she told a fart joke once or whatever.
But it's a whole different level to hear a woman who, by the way, is very obviously a woman, even after chopping body parts off.
Like, you're clearly still a woman.
But it's a whole different thing to hear her use the word we when referring to men.
And since we're supposed to be respecting pronouns, I want to make it clear to this young lady that I do not identify as a we with you.
Okay?
There's no we here.
Hey, fellas, we need to make our bathrooms prettier.
No, we don't.
And also, you aren't part of the we.
And the very fact that you want to make bathrooms prettier is proof that you aren't part of the we.
And this is where the irony comes in, because she's gone to all of these lengths to become a man, quote-unquote, yet she can't help but still be a woman, because that's what she is.
She says that the bathroom shouldn't be boring.
Yes, it should, ma'am.
Yes, it should.
In fact, as men, as actual men, boring is exactly what we want our bathrooms to be.
That is 100%.
If I were to describe the ideal bathroom, it is a boring one.
In fact, I don't want anything out of my bathroom except dullness.
If a bathroom is not boring, if there is anything happening in a bathroom that makes the experience somehow eventful, then something is wrong.
And as men, we go into the bathroom, we take care of business, we wash our hands, we leave.
We don't linger.
We don't hang out.
We don't talk to each other.
We don't look at each other.
We get in.
We get out.
We're efficient.
We move on with our day.
That's it.
No man, no real actual man, has ever emerged from a public restroom and then gone up to his buddy and said, man, that bathroom is terrible.
It's so boring.
Yuck.
No man, it's never happened, no man has ever walked into a bathroom and wished that the atmosphere was livelier.
The only time a man complains about a public restroom is if it's so disgusting and grimy and dirty that he can hardly breathe while he's inside it.
But even then, he probably won't complain because by the time he's done using the bathroom, it's a moot point.
You know, many public restrooms will have a notice posted somewhere telling patrons to notify staff or call a number if the bathroom is in need of cleaning.
Well, I can tell you this.
No man has ever called that number or notified the staff.
Because once we're done doing our business, we just leave and we figure that someone else will take care of it.
It's like, it's not my problem anymore.
So, I'm already done.
I already had to deal with it.
So, now the rest of you do.
Whatever.
It's not my issue.
This is how men handle these kinds of situations.
The woman in the video doesn't realize that because she's not a man.
I am also troubled by the prospect that as more women identify as men, our bathrooms will become filled with people who see the bathroom as a social occasion.
Next thing you know, you're going to be at the urinal and some post-op, quote, trans man is going to slide up in right next to you, which will be the first problem because all men know that you never, ever use the urinal right next to another guy unless there's no other available.
This is man code, but women don't know about man code because they're not men.
And then to make matters worse, she's going to try to strike up a conversation like, hey there fellow dude, what do you think of the tile in this bathroom?
It feels a little outdated to me.
Now, I don't know if that's the kind of thing women talk about in their bathrooms, but I know that it's not the kind of thing we talk about in ours, because we don't talk about anything.
It's interesting to observe this dynamic, actually, because when men identify as women, they turn womanhood into an absurd caricature.
A man's version of womanhood is excessive, grotesque.
A man will appropriate femininity by obnoxiously exaggerating it.
The womanhood that he constructs will be overwrought and inflated.
The best example of this is the drag queen, of course.
A ludicrous parody of womanhood.
A masquerade.
Womanhood made into a kind of preposterous cartoon.
Now, on the other hand, as we're beginning to see, when women identify as men, rather than exaggerating masculinity, they instead attempt to feminize it.
The woman doesn't want to turn into a man so much as she wants to turn men into her.
The man becomes a funhouse mirror version of femininity.
The woman wants masculinity to become a funhouse mirror version of herself.
This partly reflects the fact that men and women embrace trans ideology for entirely different reasons.
Like, we're almost dealing with two completely different phenomena.
We have the transgenderism of women and the transgenderism of men, and we tend to think of these things as the same thing, but they're really not.
Because the man rejects his manhood because he fetishizes womanhood.
The woman rejects her womanhood because she hates her body and herself, and she sees manhood as an escape.
But the crucial point is that she doesn't really want to be a man.
She just wants to be not a woman.
Just look at the way that trans men, quote-unquote, tend to dress and style their hair.
I mean, it's not masculine.
It's not even trying to be.
There's a reason you don't see a lot of trans men, quote-unquote, trying to get jobs in construction or working on oil rigs.
They're still all Starbucks baristas.
They aren't attempting to inhabit some idealized version of masculinity that they have in their heads.
They're trying to escape their own bodies, and they see manhood as a refuge, as a hideout.
But then, when they get there, they can't help but look around and say, eww, this is gross.
We need to spruce this place up a bit, gents.
In other words, they can't help but still be women, because they are.
Now, of course, this goes beyond the trans issue.
Modern women have been trying to feminize male spaces for a long time, and where they can't feminize a male space, they seek to simply abolish it.
Trans ideology just gives them the cover to infiltrate masculinity and attempt to destroy it from the inside, which is exactly what men are doing to femininity, just in a different way and for slightly different reasons.
But the results ultimately are the same and are awful.
Which is why the woman complaining about boring men's restrooms is today Canceled.
