Ep. 1233 - Team Sanity Wins A Major Victory Over The Gender Ideology Cult
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a major victory for team sanity this week as a judge upholds Tennessee's ban of child gender transitions. Trans activists never saw this coming. We'll talk about it. Also, GOP donors are now trying to push Glenn Youngkin into the race to save the day. I'll explain why that's a horrible idea. And Britney Spears was freed from her conservatorship thanks to the internet mob. Now she's falling apart in front of her eyes. Good work, guys. In our Daily Cancellation, a woman explains her parenting strategy, which involves giving her child literally everything he wants all the time.
Ep.1233
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Watch Episodes 1-6 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Genucel - Exclusive Discount Just For My Listeners!
https://genucel.com/Walsh
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
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
Well, let Rough Greens boost your dog food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, Probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health.
He's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart trial bag so your dog can try it.
A free Jumpstart trial bag can be at your door.
In just a few business days, go to roughgreens.com/mat or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's RUFFGREENS.COM/MAT or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Last night was a big night because it marked the single most crushing legal defeat that
trans activists and corrupt civil liberties organizations and big law firms and big pharma
have suffered in years.
Less than 24 hours ago, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, issued a point-by-point refutation of every substantive argument that proponents of transgenderism have made over the past decade.
And this was not a ruling on technicalities.
This was a well-articulated takedown of their claims in every dimension, medical, legal, logical.
And given the makeup of the Supreme Court right now, we can be pretty confident that this ruling is going to cause some major problems for trans activists for the indefinite future.
It's hard to see the Supreme Court right now overturning this ruling.
And the upshot is that the bans on child gender transitions in both Tennessee and Kentucky Will stand.
So both are immediately going into effect.
You know, when our ban was passed in Tennessee, trans activists gloated that they would easily get it overturned in court.
But they failed.
We beat them.
Now, in a moment, I'm going to get into specific details about this ruling and what exactly it says and the context for it.
But one of the first takeaways is this, that no matter how often you're smeared as a bigot, no matter how often you're told to believe a lie and to just trust the experts, quote-unquote, you have to maintain your convictions.
Like, if you know that what you're saying is true, then you stand by that.
And if you do that, eventually you'll win.
I mean, the truth really does prevail eventually.
In this case, the lives of millions of children are better off because of it.
Now, you may remember that it was just about a year ago that we ran a series of video clips from Vanderbilt Medical Center in Tennessee.
And these clips show that medical professionals at Vanderbilt were pushing experimental operations on young people, including children, who claim that they were transgender and born in the wrong body.
And in one case that we uncovered, a physician at Vanderbilt admitted that operations like
this were a big money maker for the hospital.
In fact, she said that that was one of the ways that she convinced the hospital to get into this
business is by pointing out how much money there was in it.
And this footage and many other clips and news reports along these lines were a big part of the
reason that lawmakers in this state were spurred to take action.
In March of this year, the state of Tennessee enacted a, quote, prohibition on medical procedures performed on minors related to sexual identity.
In this law, banned healthcare providers from administering or offering to administer any
quote medical procedure to a minor for the purpose of either enabling a minor to identify
with or live as a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex or treating purported
discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.
Basically, this bans cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, which is castration and
sterilization of children.
Among the procedures that were outlawed in Tennessee were operations that involved surgically removing, modifying, altering, or entering into tissues, cavities, or organs, and prescribing, administering, dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone.
In fact, this was a total ban on what the media loves to call gender-affirming care for minors, which is really a form of castration, mutilation, and sterilization.
And Kentucky passed a similar law.
Shortly after this bill was signed into law in Tennessee, a judge by the name of Eli Richardson, who by the way was appointed by Donald Trump, Blocked the law.
Richardson held that the voters of Tennessee don't have a right to overrule the medical experts who say that minors need cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers.
There is a constitutional right, Richardson ruled, for parents to dictate the medical treatment of children, as long as major medical associations concurred that the treatment is necessary, which means that, according to him, there is effectively a constitutional right that parents have to castrate and sterilize their children.
This is very confusing because you might go and look at the Constitution and try to find that right or anything that resembles it located in that document and you won't find it.
It was a, to put it mildly, bizarre decision.
And I outlined this on Twitter at the time.
There were a lot of obvious holes in Richardson's ruling.
He cited cases that didn't support his argument, for example.
And he put a lot of faith in activist doctors and quacks, like the ghouls working at WPATH, who constantly change their minds about these so-called standards of care of trans patients.
And they're constantly expanding those standards of care so that they can include more and more people and get more and more people sterilized and castrated.
But the end result was that Richardson issued an injunction against the state of Tennessee.
He prevented the law prohibiting childhood castration from going into effect, even though this law was passed by democratically elected politicians.
And that's what he decided to do.
But within days...
In an extraordinary move, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals put out a preliminary opinion that rejected Richardson's opinion and overturned his injunction.
The Sixth Circuit allowed the Tennessee law to go into effect and promised to issue a final ruling on the injunction by September.
And last night, we got that ruling.
And that ruling is everything that parents and anyone else who actually cares about children could have possibly hoped for.
I mean, it goes far beyond the tepid, wishy-washy, kind of down-the-middle approach that we so often see in so many courts related to this issue.
The court completely rejects the argument from the ACLU and trans activists that quote-unquote experts and medical associations and big pharma should be able to just unilaterally overrule the will of the people.
And you hear this argument all the time from these people.
They tell you that you have to ignore common sense, and ignore all that, ignore your own rights as a parent, and celebrate the butchery of children because the experts know best.
And if the experts say that this is what you're supposed to do, then just do it.
Don't think about it.
Just go along with it.
But last night, the appellate court ruled that if a majority of voters in Tennessee, or any state, think that kids shouldn't be castrated, then their judgment is what matters.
That's supposed to be the whole point of living in a democracy, after all.
Quoting from the decision, it says, quote, As long as it acts reasonably, a state may ban even long-standing and non-experimental treatments for children.
In other words, unless voters are doing something that's clearly going to kill children, then they get to override these so-called experts.
But the court didn't stop there.
They noted that the experts You know, as far as that goes, haven't even come close to proving that these gender-affirming treatments, quote-unquote, do anything productive.
Quoting from the decision, quote, European countries that pioneered these treatments now express caution about them and have pulled back on their use.
How, in this setting, can one maintain that long-term studies support their use and that the Constitution requires it?
Until more time has passed, it's difficult to gauge the risks to children.
The court continues, quote, the relevant medical and regulatory authorities are not of one mind
about the cost benefit trade-offs of this care. Consider the work of the FDA, an agency whose
existence is premised on a form of medical expertise of its own. Gender transitioning
procedures often employ FDA approved drugs for non-approved off-label uses.
Now, the court was especially harsh on the QACS at WPATH, which is the World Professional
Association for Transgender Health.
This is the group that creates the quote-unquote standards of care for trans-identifying patients, and then pretty much every major hospital just takes that as gospel.
Whatever WPATH says, it goes, as far as the hospitals are concerned.
The court noted that WPATH first said, ...that puberty blockers and hormones should be used on children about a decade ago, but before that, the court noted, quote, "...its guidance documents from 1979 to 2000 generally disfavored using puberty blockers or hormones for minors, and only in 2012 did it abandon age limits for cross-sex hormones."
And even now, the court observed, WPATH concedes that data on long-term consequences of these hormones are limited.
Which is an understatement, but even WPATH admits that the data supporting these procedures is limited.
And yet they turn around and say, well, you know, we don't have a lot of data saying that this is okay to do, but do it anyway.
To children.
Indeed, just before this ruling from the Sixth Circuit came out, we learned that a lot of the key data on puberty blockers, which has been cited by trans activists and doctors for years, is extremely misleading to the point that it's basically useless.
So, first some background on this.
For many years, you know, trans activists and medical associations have said that these puberty blockers are completely harmless.
They say that they're a pause button on puberty.
And that's all they do.
They just put a pause on it, and you pick it back up like nothing ever happened.
Here's one propaganda video on YouTube from one activist group that targets kids, and here is them explaining what it really means to be chemically castrated.
Watch.
Hi, Fish.
Come here.
Oh, you need a name.
Let's see.
Wait a second.
What gender are you?
A person who is transgender is someone whose internal sense of their gender, being a boy, girl, or something else, doesn't match their physical body.
People who feel this way sometimes feel anxious when they begin to reach puberty and their body starts to change in ways that don't match their internal sense of their gender.
These feelings are totally normal.
If you feel you want more time to explore how you feel about your gender before your body starts to change, it's important to talk with a parent, counselor, therapist, or doctor about the feelings you have regarding your gender.
After some discussion and counseling, you may be referred to an endocrinologist.
Endocrinologists specialize in hormones, and they are the most likely to prescribe puberty blockers for someone who wants them.
Puberty blockers are medications that will stop your body from changing.
They are usually given as an injection or an implant.
They block the production of hormones to stop or delay the physical changes of puberty.
The effects of the medication are only temporary, so if a person stops using puberty blockers, the physical changes of puberty will begin again.
So, typical trans propaganda there, which is to say, deceptive and absurdly misleading.
There's no discussion in that clip of the potential harms that puberty blockers might cause.
I mean, in fact, not even might.
I mean, what the puberty blockers are doing to the body in the first place is disrupting.
They are intended to disrupt the natural processes of the body.
Which you might define as harm already.
So, like, by definition, they're doing harm.
And those harms are immense and widespread.
And among the harms is the psychological damage that they can cause.
There's the physical damage.
There's also the psychological damage.
The psychological damage is really important to point out because the whole point of the puberty blocker, supposedly, is to mitigate psychological harm.
Now data on this point about psychological harm has been out there for more than a decade, but scientists and researchers have not disclosed it.
So here's what happened.
Back in 2011, researchers in Britain published a highly influential study claiming that quote, overall patient experience of changes on puberty blocker treatment was positive.
We identified no changes in psychological function.
Now, those findings and similar reports became gospel among trans activists.
In fact, when they go around and they say that it's all good, you know, it helps all the kids and there's no problem with puberty blockers, it's all fantastic, they are getting that.
If they're getting it from anywhere other than their imagination, they're probably getting it from this study.
The idea was that, on average, puberty blockers either help kids or at least don't harm them.
No peer-reviewed paper was allowed to contest those findings or the data they referenced.
But a couple of weeks ago, a retired scientist by the name of Susan McPherson decided to circle back around and double-check that data from that study.
And she uploaded her research to a pre-print website, which doesn't require peer review and therefore isn't censored.
So she was able to just show everybody what her findings were.
McPherson found that the original research from the UK was highly misleading.
Specifically, McPherson determined the research methodology obscured the fact that the mental health of many children on puberty blockers had deteriorated in just 12 months.
By relying on group averages instead of individual data, the researchers in the UK had managed to hide this fact.
They hide the fact that although they're claiming that it worked out great for everybody, in fact, for a lot of these kids, They suffered psychological damage.
That was known by the researchers.
Essentially, McPherson estimated that, in reality, this number of children who suffered adverse mental health responses to puberty blockers could have been as high as one-third of children who were on those blockers.
And, of course, that number would have likely grown if the researchers had continued monitoring these children past one year.
They only monitored them for a year.
Like, already, that's enough reason to basically discount the findings.
Because when we're doing something to a child that's going to have drastic effects to their body and their mind and their mental health and their emotional effects, what we want to know is what are the long term?
Let's check back in with those kids five years from now, seven years from now, ten years from now.
A year is not nearly enough time.
But even in a year, What the research actually showed is that about a third of these kids suffered psychological damage.
Think about that.
A third of children on these puberty blockers suffered deteriorating mental health in the first year.
A failure rate of over 30% in the first year is astonishingly high for a medical procedure.
And it doesn't even tell anything close to the whole story.
But again, the whole point of drugging the kids, you know, in the first place, and altering the natural development of their bodies, is allegedly to improve their mental health.
This is supposedly the reason doctors are reducing the bone density of young children, giving many of them early-onset osteoporosis.
It's to help their mental health.
And yet, for roughly a third of these children, it failed, like, right away.
It didn't just fail to help, it made their mental state worse.
And the researchers failed to mention that.
I wonder why.
They chose to use a method of data analysis which allowed them to simply claim that, overall, the treatments were helpful.
This proves, once again, that there's no data that actually justifies giving children puberty blockers, much less cross-sex hormones or administering surgeries.
It also proves that doctors and quote-unquote experts have been lying about the data.
Thanks to the Sixth Circuit's ruling, these experts can say whatever they want.
Doesn't really matter.
None of their half-baked studies provide any legal justification to overturn the will of the voters, as the court ruled.
And if they had just stopped there, that would have been a major win for children already.
But the appellate court didn't simply reject the bunk science behind puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
They also went after other common arguments from trans activists, including this idea that they're a marginalized group that deserves special legal protections.
Here's how the court responded to that claim.
So this is them going beyond where they really had to go, but this is fantastic.
Quote, the President of the United States and the Department of Justice support the plaintiffs.
The major medical organizations support the plaintiffs.
And the only large law firms to make an appearance in the case all enter the controversy in support of the plaintiffs.
These are not the hallmarks of a skewed or unfair political process.
In other words, when every lawyer, medical organization, and government agency is on your side, you are not marginalized.
This is an obvious point to make, but as far as we can tell, this is the first time that any appeals court in this country has made it.
Trans activists and politicians get a lot of mileage out of their false claims of victimhood while they're busy punching everybody else in the face.
And they've been using that tactic in court also, and it's been very effective.
Now it's been rejected.
For good measure, the Sixth Circuit went on to reject the argument from trans activists that we should always defer to what parents want.
I mean, you often hear trans activists and many Democrats trot this line out.
Half the time, they're saying that kids should be able to hide their alleged sexuality and gender identity from their parents, because the parents don't matter.
And the other half the time, they're saying that parents know best, and we should always just defer to their judgment, even if they want to castrate their kids.
Well, here's how the court responded to that latter argument.
"Parents usually do know what's best for their children, and in most matters, where to live, how to live,
what to eat, how to learn, when to be exposed to mature subject matter.
Their decisions govern until the child reaches 18.
But becoming a parent does not create a right to reject democratically enacted laws."
So trans activists in the ACLU and politicians need to go back to the drawing board at this point.
There's gonna be more litigation in this case and many other cases like it around the country.
But every single one of their major arguments has just been forcefully rejected in a federal appellate court.
For a long time now, courts have been cowed by the lies of quote-unquote experts and the false claims of victimhood by these activists.
Well, finally, an appellate court has stepped up and said that none of their claims matter.
Principles of self-governance matter.
Protecting children matters.
What voters want matters.
Not what Big Pharma wants.
Trans activists and the ghouls who profit from butchering children, you know, they're going to regroup.
They're going to keep going.
They're not going to give up.
But what happened last night is the clearest sign yet that they're not going to win ultimately.
Last night, Americans who believe in self-representation and in the well-being of children prevailed over demagogues pushing oligarchy and child butchery.
This is a win that trans activists didn't see coming.
It's a win that many on the right didn't see coming.
And I think many more victories like it are on the way.
As the court noted in its decision last night, 19 states have passed similar laws.
What we need now is for appellate courts in those states to uphold all those laws.
And if they don't, then we need to take it to the Supreme Court.
The Sixth Circuit's ruling is a clear sign, maybe the best sign yet, that our work is paying off.
And all that's left to do is take this work to its conclusion and ban this barbarism nationwide.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Praised for its culture of community giving and impact, GCU integrates the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview perspective into over 320 academic programs, with more than 260 programs online as of March.
of 2023, earn your bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree where you engage with faculty and connect
with your own university counselor who takes a personalized approach for your success.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
The Washington Post reports, some of the biggest Republican donors in the country
will converge next month at the historic Cavalier Hotel in Virginia Beach for a two-day meeting
to rally behind Governor Glenn Youngkin.
The closed gathering, named the Red Vest Retreat after the Fleece-Youngkin War during his 2021 campaign, will begin October 17 and be focused officially on the Republican effort to win full control of the General Assembly.
In Virginia's upcoming elections, but unofficially, several donors say it will be an opportunity for them to try to push, if not shove, Youngkin into the Republican presidential race.
Others say they'll be busy prodding Youngkin and his allies in phone calls from afar.
Thomas Paterfi says, quote, he appears to be leaving the door open.
This is a billionaire who's already given millions of dollars to Youngkin's PAC.
So he continues, and if Republicans win in Virginia, maybe we can talk him into it.
He obviously wants to see what emerges, what the state of play is.
And then other donors have said that, these big billionaire donors have said they want to push Junkin.
So we've heard rumors about Junkin getting into the race for a while now, and now the rumors are heating up.
And I have to say, this is a terrible idea.
To put Glenn Junkin, for Glenn Junkin to enter the race is a terrible idea.
I'm sorry, it just is.
And I say that as someone who, I like Glenn Youngkin.
I mean, we're a big part of the reason why he's governor to begin with here at The Daily Wire.
And I'm proud to say that because he's doing a great job in Virginia.
But if you're pushing him into the race right now, then I can only assume that you're some kind of double agent working for the Democrats.
Because all you would be doing is taking this guy, who's a good conservative leader, Part of the next generation of conservative leaders.
And all you're doing is taking him, and you're kind of sullying him, and you're hurting his support nationally among conservatives, and you're putting a loss on his resume.
Like, what's the plan?
Just look at the polling.
Here's the latest 538 national polling average.
And you've got Trump at about 55%.
Next you have DeSantis.
Pushing to 14%, then Ramaswamy at 6.7%, Haley at 6.5%, Pence at 4%, Scott at 2.7%, Christie at 2.7%, and then the rest of them at less than 1%.
So I'm just looking at this, and even if you don't buy the polls completely, and still, if we could, you know, just using this as a frame of reference.
Youngkin gets into the race.
What's the strategy?
What's the winning strategy?
Where does his support come from?
Where does it come from?
You would think that, you would think, if you didn't know any better, if you're very naive, you would think that billionaire political donors would have some political insight, would understand these basic things, at least would understand them better than I do, but apparently they don't.
So where is the support coming from?
Do you think that Trump's at 55%?
Is Junkin going to peel off support from Trump?
How?
Who are the Trump supporters at this point who don't like any of the 50 other options that are currently available to them, including Ron DeSantis, but would abandon Trump for Glenn Junkin?
Who is that?
Who is that person?
I mean, you would think, looking at the other options, you would think that anyone who is willing to abandon Trump Either already has, or maybe if they can be persuaded in the future, they can be persuaded by someone else in the race, namely Ron DeSantis.
It's hard to imagine significant support that has not peeled off already, peeling off for Glenn Youngkin.
So does he take the support from everybody else?
Well, even if he does, I mean, even if he jumped into the race, And he took all of the support from Ramaswamy, Haley, Pence, Scott, Christie, the guys that no one's ever heard of.
If he came in and all of them dropped to zero, because all of them went to Junkin, that still puts him at what, like 20%?
The math isn't there.
Especially with DeSantis in the race, there's no lane for him.
If DeSantis wasn't in the race, then that would leave that lane open, but it's not.
He's there.
Look, we can all see the reality in front of our face here, that as long as Trump is massively ahead, of course, his chances of becoming the nominee are very, very high.
The only chance of that possibly changing is not if more people get into the race, but if people start getting out.
But that's not what's happening here.
This is like it was always destined to be.
It's exactly like 2016.
We had a whole bunch of people in the race, you know, you had 19 candidates, something crazy, and almost all of them claimed that, you know, Donald Trump should not be the guy.
Yet they all stayed into the race to the very bitter end so that the non-Trump vote could never, never had a chance to coalesce around any one particular person.
It was just broken up into all these little pieces.
So the only chance of Trump not being the nominee, the only chance, and even then it's a relatively small chance, but the only chance is if Almost all of these people drop out.
Or really, all of them but DeSantis, because he's the only viable candidate who's not Trump.
Let's be real about it.
I know that there are people out there that like Ramaswamy.
He's not going to be the Ramaswamy, okay?
He's not going to be the GOP nominee.
As I said, let's deal with the actual reality.
The only thing that Ramaswamy can do, the only function he's serving right now, Is to take support away from DeSantis.
That's the only thing he can do.
And same for Jankin, if Jankin gets in there.
Okay, moving from politics to pop culture.
Britney Spears went viral this week for all the wrong reasons, which is the only reason that she ever goes viral anymore these days.
And of course, she's always on Instagram, posting videos of herself dancing half naked or fully naked, rambling incoherently.
Uh, just coming off like a very disturbed person.
She recently got divorced from her husband after 12 seconds, and he claimed that she abused him.
I don't know if that's true or not, but we do know that she, it was definitely not the first time that somebody close to her said that she is volatile and dangerous.
This has been what most of the people close to her have been saying for a long time.
Anyway, the video this week that went viral was her dancing with butcher knives, and she claims that the knives were fake.
Um, they very much appear not to be fake.
But here, let's look at that video for a second.
The dogs in the background are terrified.
There it is.
I never actually even watched the video, so I didn't realize that she was dancing.
What is that, a Gregorian chant?
Is that like a...
Somehow, it's even more disturbing than you originally thought, with the Gregorian chant in the background, while you've got this half-naked woman dancing with butcher knives.
And those knives are not fake, by the way.
Those are not what fake knives look like.
Those are real.
And the cops didn't think the butcher knives were fake either, which is why they showed up at her house for a wellness check.
And they were, the cops, they were not called by fans who were concerned, they were called apparently by a friend of hers who was worried, that was worried about her.
And listen, it's all very sad, and it's even sadder because we're watching this woman fall apart in front of us, and it just seems very likely that in the not-too-distant future she's going to do something drastic and really hurt herself, or worse.
And it's like we all it's a slow-motion train wreck and we all know that's gonna happen I think we all kind of understand she's what in her early 40s now The chance that she that Britney Spears turns 50 seems to be pretty low and we all know it So which is why?
Her conservatorship was in place to begin with so once again I was right and I said back during the whole free Britney movement you may recall and I got a lot of flack for it and A lot of flack.
But I said at the time, when everybody was demanding that Britney Spears be freed from her conservatorship, and why were they demanding it?
It's because they saw some documentary on FX or whatever, and most of them didn't even see the documentary, they just, they just, other people saw it, and then it was trending on Twitter, and hashtag free Britney, and so a bunch of people jumped on the bandwagon.
And I said at the time, okay, people don't get conservatorships placed on them for no reason.
It doesn't happen.
Use your head.
Stop following internet trends.
Now, none of us know even like 1% of what goes on behind the scenes in anybody else's life, much less in Britney Spears' life.
We don't know.
But we can use our heads and we can figure out that you don't lose legal rights to make decisions over your own life for no reason.
Now, of course, everyone claimed that it was a conspiracy by the people who wanted Britney's money.
Okay, well, once again, use your head.
There are a lot of rich celebrities out there, a lot of rich female celebrities out there, who probably have people in their lives who covet their wealth, and yet they're not under conservatorships.
Britney is.
Why is that?
Could it be because Britney very publicly had a mental breakdown and repeatedly revealed herself to be a danger to herself and those around her, including her children?
Could that be it?
I tried to explain this at the time.
Britney, a wealthy, famous woman, lost custody and lost visitation rights.
She lost visitation rights and custody over her kids in a court in Los Angeles.
Do you understand how difficult that is to do?
You're a woman, you're in Los Angeles, and you're rich and famous.
And you lose total custody over your kids and you can't even visit them?
Do you know how hard it is for a woman to pull that off, even if they're not rich and famous?
Even if they're not in a Los Angeles court.
Very, very hard.
So you have to be a monstrously terrible mother for that to happen.
You just do.
Like, is there a small chance that it's all some big giant conspiracy against you?
Yeah, I mean that's, anything's possible.
But if you don't have any, if you know nothing else about someone, but you know that they're a woman who lost custody of their children, then that's, you know, 99.9% chance that this is a, this is like a, a bad mother doesn't even begin to describe it.
And in Britney's case, we know about some of what preceded that decision.
We know, for instance, that she barricaded herself in her home with her children.
She had a standoff with emergency personnel with her kids.
Reportedly, she threatened to kill herself in front of them.
We know about that.
That was reported.
That happened publicly.
Okay, if that kind of thing's happening publicly, do you think it's better behind the scenes?
Do you think what's happening privately is less disturbing?
There's a reason, and her kids don't want to be around her right now.
Again, like, you know, if your kids, especially your sons, as they get older, don't want to be around you as a woman, pretty good chance that you, there's a reason for that.
So, you can look at these things, and you can use your damned head, and you can realize that obviously this woman is not competent and needs help.
Or you can believe a hashtag trend.
And a lot of people chose the hashtag trend.
And now this woman's going to get herself killed.
She's going to overdose.
Something like that.
She's going to end up dead.
And you know something?
If you're screaming free Britney, then that's going to be partly on you.
It just is.
And I hope you're prepared for that.
It turns out that, like, just joining mindlessly in some internet mob, there are real-world implications to that.
It's not something you can just do.
Like, it's not all fun and games.
And whether the subject is Britney Spears or anybody else, when you jump on into an internet mob without thinking straight, you know, that's, it's not just, I know people like to say, oh, it's Twitter, it's not the real world.
No, it's the real world.
This is happening in the real world.
It's not, we're not dreaming it.
And by the way, I fully acknowledge that this woman was screwed up by all the fame from a young age.
Not just fame, but a very obviously sexualized kind of fame.
I mean, how old was she when Hit Me Baby One More Time came out?
She was what, like 16 or 17 or something?
And all that is terrible, and her parents certainly never should have allowed that, much less should they have facilitated it and pushed it as they did.
But the point is that whatever the reasons for how She turned out, like, this is who she is now, and you have to deal with who she is.
If she's incompetent and she's a danger to herself and others, then that doesn't become less the case or less relevant just because there's a reason why she ended up that way.
Guess what?
Every bad person, every deranged person, every dangerous person, every crazy person, every incompetent person, Has a reason why they turned out that way.
You take anyone who falls into any of those categories, and you can be pretty sure that their childhood probably
wasn't great.
Like there's probably stuff that happened to them, you know, in the past that was pretty bad.
But that doesn't change the reality of the current situation.
We have to deal with that reality.
And also I have to say that if a man is judged to be a danger
to his own kids, if he barricades himself in his house with them,
has a standoff and all of that, Nobody is going to be saying that we should be sympathetic
because of how he was raised.
Like, men lose custody in court all the time.
They lose custody of their children all the time.
It's a lot easier to do if you're a man.
And in many cases, they lose custody for bad reasons, for illegitimate reasons.
Sometimes they lose custody for good reasons.
But you rarely hear anyone giving a damn, one way or another, about their upbringing.
So, it doesn't usually work that way.
Including also with plenty of dysfunctional, you know, celebrities out there.
Um, who are, who are, whatever, going out and being self-destructive and all that.
Usually, if it's a male celebrity, nobody says, well, think about how they were raised.
Think about that.
No one says that.
Everyone says, like, this person's a lunatic.
So although we, the narrative is trying to make Britney Spears into some sort of victim of the patriarchy, it's actually completely the opposite.
You know, if everything's exactly the same with Britney Spears, but she's a man, no one cares.
There's none of the free Britney movement.
None of that happens.
There's no documentary about it.
Nobody cares.
Everyone just assumes that she or he, in that case, is crazy, and that would be the end of it.
So, the only reason that Britney was freed is because she's a woman, which ultimately, when she winds up dead, and the chances of that, again, are very high, That's what taking down the patriarchy gets you, I suppose.
All right, one other thing that I think is very, very important that we have to talk about is that Disney just dropped a trailer for a new film.
And this is funny to me because they hope that it'll be their next big hit, which would be their first big hit in a while.
Disney's trying to get back on track.
Like, Disney is way off track right now.
They've had a lot of flops.
And obviously a legendary movie studio has put out some of the classic films of all time, but recently it's been nothing but terrible movies and big flops and everything.
So they got this big, it's getting a lot of hype already, because it's like tailor-made to be, it's like everything, all the algorithms, it's all engineered for that, to be a big blockbuster hit.
And the movie is called Wish.
And one of the things that the studio is excited about, and the people behind the film, you know, they talked about in interviews, is that this movie will see the return of the classic Disney villain.
So this is not what we see recently in Disney movies.
This is not a tragic villain or an unintentional villain like in whatever Frozen or something.
This is like a classic Disney villain, just an evil person who's evil for the sake of
it, like in the old days.
Straightforward bad guy who is voiced by Chris Pine.
Because of course, you already know that if Disney's putting an actual villain in a movie,
it has to be a white guy.
This is the most predictable result ever.
When you hear that Disney's got a real classic villain in there, oh, it's a white guy.
Of course it is.
And you already know also that the hero, of course, is a non-white girl.
All that you already know.
What's great about this trailer is that you can tell immediately that this movie is going
to be garbage.
Disney desperately trying to get back on track.
You can tell just from the trailer that this is a miss.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And you could say that I'm not the target demo for this trailer, so obviously I think that.
But actually, I am.
You know, I have six kids.
I have two daughters.
I'm the one who has to pay for the movie ticket.
I'm the target demo.
And I won't be paying for tickets for this.
But let's watch a little bit of this trailer.
Here it is.
Where your heart's desire can become a reality.
What if I told you that place is within reach?
[MUSIC PLAYING]
All you have to do is give your wish to me.
I wish...
Whoa, whoa!
What was that?
(dramatic music)
(dramatic music)
Valentino, don't eat that!
It didn't work.
When does the magic happen, huh?
I'm talking!
I am talking!
Ha!
Who knew my voice?
So the plot of the film is that, we didn't even see it in that clip, but the prince is, or the evil bad guy is this white guy, and he's a king, and he has the ability to grant wishes.
And all the wishes in the kingdom are sent to him, and then he decides who gets to grant the wishes.
But he's not going to grant everyone's wish.
And then the heroic brown girl finds out that he is able to grant all these wishes, but he chooses not to.
He only wants to grant the wishes that he thinks are going to be best for the kingdom and the common good.
And she's very upset about that, and so then she goes out to make sure that she can grant all the wishes.
So, this is great.
Disney doing everything they can to get back on track, to really have a major hit.
And all they have to do is just make an actual classic Disney film.
You already have the roadmap right in front of you.
It's there.
Just go back and look at what you did 30 years ago and do that.
But they can't do it.
They just can't do it.
They're incapable.
So the issue here, and we'll leave aside the underwhelming animation style, I mean the animation In all these movies, not just Disney, but in all these kids' movies now, it just looks cheap, doesn't look artistic, it's not interesting, it's kind of lifeless and bland and all the rest of it.
But leaving that aside, in an effort to put out a blockbuster crowd pleaser, they've made a film where the villain is an evil white man who refuses to grant everyone's wishes and needs to be vanquished by the heroic brown girl who will create a utopia by letting everyone get exactly what they want, which is really, it's like a parody of a modern Disney film.
And the funny thing is that the movies are getting so woke that they now undercut their own messaging.
Because in this case, the guy who's supposed to be the villain is clearly the good guy.
And yes, Disney has always had a problem where their villains are actually kind of right.
We've talked before about Gaston in Beauty and the Beast.
He was basically right.
At the very least, he had a point.
But here it's kicked into overdrive.
The evil king is absolutely correct that you can't grant everybody's wishes.
In fact, if you had the power to grant wishes, the morally correct thing would be to either grant nobody's wishes, probably would be best, or only a few.
And the ones that you would grant are the ones that advance the common good and the good of the kingdom.
And that's the only way to do it.
That's the actual correct, wise approach.
Very clearly, I think, to almost everyone.
Which is why the comments on this video, this trailer, everyone watches the trailer and says, what do you mean?
That guy's right.
What's the point here?
So, that's Disney.
They just can't, at this point, they are incapable of creating anything that comes close to their classic films.
Let's get to the comment section.
Don't just take my word for it, though.
Ella from Rockford says, I have both age and acne spots, and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
This serum is worth every penny.
Ella is raving about the famous Dark Spot Corrector from GenuCell, a must-have after months of record heat and humidity.
Sunspots, brown spots, discoloration, and even red inflamed patches all disappear in front of your very eyes.
And here's the GenuCell Amazing Guarantee.
You'll see results on day one or your money back.
So take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package, which now includes the Dark Spot Corrector plus the classic GenuCell bags and puffiness treatment and immediate effects, all at about 70% off, so you can try the best skincare in the world for yourself completely free.
Reading a couple of comments from this past week.
First of all, on Tuesday, if you haven't seen this video yet, then you need to go and watch it.
liver spots, bags of puffiness under the eyes, and crow's feet at genuicell.com/walsh.
That's genuicell.com/walsh.
We're reading a couple of comments from this past week.
First of all, on Tuesday, and if you haven't seen this video yet, then you need to go and
watch it.
I think it's the most important video.
Certainly the most important video we've posted to YouTube in the history of the channel.
But it is my, as you know, period on Dancing With The Stars, and it's my Dancing With The
Stars, my first rehearsal.
With my dance partner, and we have that in its entirety pretty much on YouTube.
You can go check out the video.
And I think anyone who's seen the video already knows that the rehearsal went very, very well.
And look, I'll admit, when it was first announced that I was going to be on Dancing with the Stars, I kind of talked a big game about my dancing prowess and about my history as a dancer.
Also, a lot of things that I think people, especially people who are not big fans of the show, are not familiar with the lore, were maybe even surprised to hear.
So I talked to Big Game.
That video was my opportunity to show what I can really do, to show what my moves are.
And I have to say, I really delivered, I think.
And the comments agreed.
So one comment says, so stunning and brave of Matt to let out his inner butterfly and be vulnerable enough to show us his performance.
The man was born to dance.
Another one says, as a professional ballroom dancer, I approve of this sketch.
It's not a sketch.
Well, forget that comment.
Anyway, focus on the first comment.
It was, I'll admit to, you know, when I started this whole journey with Dancing with the Stars, I was a little bit nervous because, and I don't get nervous very often, but I was nervous in this case because dancing is such a vulnerable thing and it's, you know, You know what I like to say is that dancing is a language.
When you learn how to dance, you're almost becoming bilingual because you're learning a whole different language, but it's a universal language.
But through that language, you're expressing things that are deep within your heart, and you're expressing things that you cannot convey in any other way.
And so the first time that you let that all out into the public, it can be a very nerve-wracking thing, but I really appreciate all the support.
And yeah, this was great.
Okay, a comment on the issue of that UK dating show where people present themselves naked.
This has been around for years, Chaos Flowers, this has been around for years in the UK.
It was always vile.
As expected, it started off fairly normal, boy and girl, Jack and Jill, but progressively, it became more rainbow alphabet.
In the latter seasons, the wobbly WoJack and blue-haired wobbly WoJill contestants were in awful shape, which made it even more vile.
I don't know if we could say that it ever started off normal, unless when the show first began they were actually clothed, and then as the show went on into later seasons they progressively started taking more and more items of clothing off.
Then we could say it started off fairly normal.
But in this case, as far as I understand it, from the very beginning, it was one contestant deciding who that person wants to date by looking at naked people in boxes.
So never exactly normal.
Lauren says, but otherwise I get your point.
The show is a direct impact of having pornography available to everyone.
Porn is directly and indirectly destroying everything good we once had.
That, of course, is correct on a lot of levels.
It's desensitizing people.
It also moves the boundary.
So here's what happens.
Hardcore pornography, I think everyone basically understands, is the most gratuitous thing, the most objectionable, the most inappropriate.
But as that becomes more and more mainstream, and now it's completely mainstream, Pornhub is, you know, billions of hours of footage are watched by people in this country alone every single year.
So as that becomes more and more acceptable, hardcore pornography, then of course everything that is not hardcore pornography, even the things that just bump up against the line of hardcore pornography, but don't cross it, well if hardcore porn is considered mainstream and acceptable, then all that automatically is ushered in.
So the moment that we accept pornography as a normal, healthy thing, which in our society, tragically, we have, then you're correct that automatically everything that is not as gratuitous as that becomes normal by default.
Comment about the presidential or the Republican nominee debates.
Peanut Senpai says, Joe Rogan needs to host a real debate with Trump, Vivek, and DeSantis.
Only ones that matter.
Let them speak for as long as they need to.
Giving someone 15 seconds to respond to questions is insane.
The worst part is that these people watch this stuff and use it to decide who to vote for.
I completely agree.
That's the only kind of debate that I would be interested in.
And I think one actually hosted by Joe Rogan would be phenomenal.
But even if it's not hosted by Joe Rogan, it is that style.
It's like a Joe Rogan interview.
You sit down for two and a half hours, there's no time limit on your answers, and it is a free-flowing conversation.
That's the only kind of debate that would really matter.
It's the only kind of debate that would show us what these people actually think and what they actually believe, because now you're taking them away from their prepared talk.
In the way debates are set up right now, All the candidates, of course, come in with their prepared talking points, and that's all they're ever required to deliver.
We never get past their prepared talking points because they're never allowed to talk for more than 60 seconds.
Um, and I say they're never allowed to talk for more than 60 seconds.
You could also say they're never required to talk for more than 60 seconds, so they can hide behind their talking points.
So at the end of it, we don't even, we don't know.
You watch an entire debate, you could sit there for three hours and watch a debate, and by the end of it, you don't even know what any of these people think about anything.
All you know is what their team, what the consultants and everything, their advisors, all you know is what, what was fed to them to say.
You don't know what they think.
You can find out, actually, what they think if you just put them in an environment where they have to speak for more than a minute at a time.
And 15 seconds, I meant to remark on that in that clip we played yesterday, where Haley goes after Vivek Ramaswamy.
And goes after him on the issue of TikTok, and the fact that, you know, originally Ramaswamy said he wanted to ban TikTok, now he's on TikTok.
Haley goes after him for that, and Haley says that every time Ramaswamy speaks, she feels dumber.
And so she lays into him, right, with this whole long harangue.
And then the moderators go to him, and they say, you have 15 seconds to respond.
15 seconds?! !
So she just laid all those charges at his feet, and he is, what can you say in 15 seconds?
What kind of response can you possibly offer?
Someone just sat there and said, you're a hypocrite, you're an idiot, nothing you say makes any sense, you're a liar, you're terrible, you're awful for the country.
Okay, sir, you have 15 seconds to respond to that.
There's nothing I can't, you cannot say anything worthwhile in 15 seconds, you just can't do it.
I know we live in the soundbite culture, But you can't say anything worthwhile in 15 seconds.
You can't even say anything worthwhile in a minute.
Especially on, you know, it's one thing if we're looking at, if this is an ESPN panel of football analysts talking about the games last weekend.
Okay, yeah, you should be able to say everything that needs to be said in 30 seconds, 30, 45 seconds.
We're talking about real substantive issues.
You need to give someone I don't know, 10 minutes to lay out their perspective and defend their point of view?
More than 10 minutes.
So yeah, say Joe Rogan debate.
I'll give a vote to that as well.
Well, who doesn't love a good Columbus Day sale?
You know, some folks don't even want you to celebrate Columbus Day.
At Jeremy's Razors, though, we want you to discover the new world of woke-free shaving.
Get 20% off select Jeremy's Razors products and bundles, including the Precision 5 Starter Kit, the Founders Kit, the Beard Kit, the Skin Care Bundle, and more.
Be a pioneer for a better shave and get better hygiene as well.
Don't wait.
Make the switch today.
Get yours at Jeremy'sRazors.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Sometimes I think that parents get a bad rap these days.
Sure, being a parent myself, there may be some personal biases that have helped to lead me to that conclusion, but I think that there's some truth to the idea.
It's extremely challenging to raise children in our culture.
In fact, I would say, and I have said before, it has never been more challenging to raise kids than it is right now.
I mean that in a literal sense, that parenting is harder today than it ever was in the whole history of the human species.
And I don't think that that statement is hyperbole.
Now granted, life is easier today in a number of very important ways.
If I was parenting six kids in the 1700s, for instance, the chance that all of them would make it to adulthood would be pretty slim.
So, for that extremely significant reason alone, I am happy to be living today rather than back then, but when it comes to The biggest challenge is that while we're raising our children, civilization is decaying all around us.
us to decent, functional, virtuous human beings in the world, we parents in the modern age
have to navigate around certain enormous obstacles that did not exist until very recently.
The biggest challenge is that while we're raising our children, civilization is decaying
all around us.
We live in a decadent, depraved, morally insane culture, one that actively wants to steal
our kids' minds and souls and turn them into hollowed out husks of human beings.
Now, of course, people have lived and parented in degenerate societies before.
This unfortunately is a common experience in the history of human civilization.
The difference now is that it's nearly impossible to escape The degeneracy.
It's all around us.
And homes today are filled with devices that become access points, places where our debased culture can reach in and grab a child and make him its prisoner.
A child can be lost to the culture before he graduates elementary school.
And he doesn't even need to leave his house.
And when I say lost to the culture, I mean lost in ways previously unheard of.
His entire sense of his own identity, his grasp on reality itself, may be destroyed.
So that's the unique challenge.
It's the thing that no other generation of parent has really had to deal with, certainly not in the same way or to the same extent.
So there is no roadmap for us.
There's no how-to guide.
The parenting wisdom passed down through the generations before us kind of runs off the tracks before it reaches us.
And we're left out on our own to figure it out.
This is why parents today deserve some grace, I believe.
We're out here in the thick of it, we're in the trenches, doing our best.
Cut us some slack.
Well, some of us at least.
Some of us are doing our best to raise our children to be decent people in spite of all this, and some of us, on the other hand, are doing our best to make our children into the worst human beings the world has ever seen.
And in some cases, we must admit, the hardest parenting environment has been met by the most insufferably awful parents of all time.
And that's where our criticism should be pointed.
Pointed, for example, at this woman.
Her name is Arlie, and she has a TikTok account where she posts about and promotes her unique parenting style.
A style that, as it turns out, is not nearly as unique as it should be.
In fact, there are a lot of parents that parent basically like this.
So here's one video that's gone viral this week.
It now has nearly 2 million views, and more depressingly, it has almost 70,000 likes.
The video shows various pictures and videos of her toddler son, along with captions explaining her parenting strategy, and I will read the captions as we watch it.
Here's the video.
It says, Controversial Ways We're Raising Our Son.
He has his own iPad.
Screen time is not limited.
He eats what he likes.
He's never forced to eat something he doesn't like, and if there's nothing he likes, we go buy him something that he will eat.
He's allowed to try and have candy, juice, soda, etc.
We co-sleep and contact nap.
Whatever that is.
If he wants something from the store, he will get it.
He doesn't have a strict bedtime routine.
He will not be made to do something he does not want to do.
His feelings and boundaries are just as valid as ours.
When he says no, it means no.
There we go.
Poor kid.
Alright, so no means no.
Well, that's a problem for me because my kids say no to doing their chores, to going to bed, to brushing their teeth, to getting dressed in the morning, etc.
Well, let me clarify.
My kids absolutely would never say no to me when I tell them to do any of those things.
They know that saying no to dad isn't going to fly.
But if they thought they could get away with it, they would absolutely say no to all of those things.
If no was an option on the menu, they would choose it for nearly every productive and healthy thing I tell them to do.
That's because kids have an extremely limited ability to understand that there are benefits to doing something you don't want to do.
The concept of delayed gratification is very difficult for a child to grasp.
And at a certain age, they literally just don't get it at all.
They don't understand the concept.
It's impossible at a certain age.
Now, that child there in the video, my daughter is not much older than him, and I have on many occasions Just for fun, you know, asked her to explain why she doesn't want to do something that she says she doesn't want to do.
Like, I'll ask her to do something, I'll tell her to do something, and she'll say she doesn't want to do it, and I'll say, and I'll say, well, why don't you want to do it?
And the answer is almost always, because I don't want to.
Which isn't her being disrespectful or defiant, she literally doesn't know why she doesn't want to do the thing, or why she does want to do something.
She doesn't understand her own feelings.
Certainly not well enough to articulate them.
She may have a good reason for not wanting to do something, or she may have a bad reason, or she may have no reason.
She can't figure that out.
That's why she has two loving, intelligent parents to figure it out for her.
Now most of the parenting choices, if you can call them that, that you see in that video, if you can call them parenting choices anyway, that you see in the video are so over-the-top ridiculous that you would hope they'd require no further comment.
Obviously, giving unlimited screen time to a toddler is deranged.
You are guaranteeing that he will be hooked on screens and spend his entire childhood sitting around staring at a little box.
That's what you're guaranteeing.
It's not that it might turn out that way.
It is 100% guaranteed to turn out that way.
And letting a child eat whatever he wants, especially combined with the unlimited screen time, means that he will be morbidly obese well before he makes it to high school.
Guaranteed.
Giving him whatever he wants from the store means that he will be spoiled and materialistic.
Again, it doesn't mean that he might turn out that way, but that he absolutely, with total certainty, will turn out that way.
All of this, you would hope, is obvious.
But if you look at the way many parents handle their kids these days, it would seem that these points are not so obvious.
And whether parents are making all these mistakes or not, or making them to this extreme degree or not, it's certainly the case that many struggle to understand one basic fact about raising children.
And the fact is this.
Kids need structure, boundaries, routine, and guidance.
They need all those things.
And when I say they need those things, I mean they need them.
They need them in the same way they need food and clothing and a roof over their heads.
That doesn't mean that we should never give our children the ability to choose something, to actually have a choice.
The ability to pick a path and walk down it, it means that their choices, especially when they're very young, should be extremely limited and controlled.
And as they get older, you progressively expand their choices, and you drop some of the limitations until they're adults, at which point, if you've done your job, they can go out into the world of limitless options and relative freedom, and they can make, hopefully, the right choices, because they've been given the moral formation they need to make the right choices.
Now, if you don't give your child structure, boundaries, routine, and guidance, then not only do they grow up to be terrible people due to a lack of moral intellectual formation, but they also grow up to be plagued with anxiety and uncertainty.
You know, we're told that childhood anxiety is on the rise.
It's reached epidemic levels, we're told.
That kids are so anxious.
Well, that's not because there's some kind of mysterious mental illness going around.
It's simply because many kids are growing up in environments without structure, without boundaries, without routine, and without guidance.
This makes them uncertain, confused, flustered, overwhelmed, which is another way of saying anxious.
The reason that kids ask a million questions every day is because they don't understand very much about the world, and this lack of understanding makes them uneasy.
And they look to their parents to shine some light so that they can feel more confident and comfortable in the world.
But what if all they hear from their parents is, I don't know, it's up to you.
You make your own decisions.
Do whatever you want.
Be whoever you want to be.
The world is your oyster.
Well, this is not an empowering message for kids.
It's not liberating.
It's actually suffocating.
Because it drowns them in unease and uncertainty.
It leaves them lost and alone.
Now, does that mean that we should take away our children's freedoms?
Yes, in a certain sense, if by freedom you mean the ability to do whatever you want.
But in another deeper sense, no, this is actually giving your child freedom.
In fact, a childhood full of structure and rules and guidance is really the most freeing sort of childhood.
I've used this analogy before, but if you've got a guy who's lost in the wilderness, And you want to free that guy.
Do you free him by taking away his compass and map?
So that no one's telling him what to do?
Or do you free him by giving him a compass and a map?
So the man may be out in a wide open space.
He may be able to go wherever he wants.
The essence of freedom, if by freedom we just mean doing whatever you want.
But he's trapped.
Because he doesn't know which way he should go.
Or where any of the paths lead.
And a person who comes along and eliminates most of those potential paths and tells him which direction to walk is limiting his environment and taking away options, but also at the same time freeing him.
True human freedom is not simply being able to do anything you want, but it's understanding what you should do.
You cannot really choose anyway unless you know what you're choosing and you know what the consequences are.
And that's what parents are for.
But some parents, too many, including the one on TikTok here, don't understand that basic fact.
