Ep. 1239 - These Are Serious Times And We Are Led By Unserious People
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as we stand potentially on the brink of World War 3, it should worry us that we are led by unserious incompetent clowns. Also, the Supreme Court may take up the issue of "conversion therapy." The Left tells a lot of lies about this practice, but we'll get to the truth today. And a porn star was fired by Playboy for her comments supporting Hamas. How heinous do you have to be to get yourself fired by a porn company? And the number of young adults living with their parents is nearing record highs. What is causing this problem? And is it actually a problem at all?
Ep.1239
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Pre-Order your copy of Christmas Karol here: https://amzn.to/3ZD40K8
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
Genucel - Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
- - -
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, as we stand potentially on the brink of World War III, it should worry us that we are led by unserious, incompetent clowns.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the Supreme Court may take up the issue of conversion therapy.
The left tells a lot of lies about this practice, but we'll get to the truth today.
And a porn star was fired by Playboy for her comments supporting Hamas.
How heinous do you have to be to get yourself fired by a porn company?
And the number of young adults living with their parents is nearing record highs.
What is causing this problem, and is it actually a problem at all?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
Balance of nature fruits and veggies are a great way to make sure you're getting
essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Balance of Nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process to preserve the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients of the fruits and vegetables they use.
The capsules are whole food supplements with no additives, fillers, extracts, synthetic pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in their capsule is pure fruit and vegetables.
Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the studio for my team to try, and we all love them.
With Balance of Nature, I get the nutrition of over 10 servings of fruit and vegetables in just a few easy-to-swallow capsules.
This makes my crazy schedule so much more manageable no matter what my day looks like.
I start each morning with my Balance of Nature fruits and veggies.
When you're disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all kinds of benefits.
Your body will thank you.
Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH for 35% off your first preferred order.
Fifty years ago, the United States Congress established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And at the time, the idea was to ensure that America would have a stable supply of energy in the event of a natural disaster, or more likely, in the case of a war in the Middle East.
The reserve was like a fire extinguisher in a building that read, break glass in case of emergency.
It was a last resort.
To be used only if, somehow, the U.S.
could neither generate its own energy nor find oil for reasonable prices overseas.
When the Biden administration took control of the federal government a few years ago, all of that changed.
For one thing, the Biden administration shut down existing drilling sites and prevented new oil leases from being signed.
And then, to add insult to injury, Joe Biden's handlers used the Strategic Reserve to temporarily lower the price of gas in the weeks before the midterm elections.
Nothing like that had ever happened in the history of this country.
It was a really big deal that not a lot of people paid attention to.
But the Biden administration insisted that, you know, this was necessary because war had broken out in Ukraine.
And as a result, we needed to ban Russian oil imports.
They told us again and again that this was a once-in-a-lifetime situation.
They said it was precisely the kind of emergency that justified the use of the strategic reserve.
Well, less than two years later, it's clear to everyone that the Biden administration was either lying or totally incompetent, or probably both.
That's because, once again, we're confronted with yet another war that no one saw coming, supposedly.
This time, it's a war in the Middle East, exactly the kind of conflict that Congress established the Strategic Reserve to deal with in the first place.
So what's the plan?
What do we do now that we've tapped our emergency oil reserves to the point that they're at the lowest level in four decades?
Probably won't surprise you to hear that nobody in the Biden administration has an answer to that question.
No one on the right does either, actually.
Instead, both political parties are now calling for U.S.
military intervention in the Middle East that would deplete our oil supply even further.
When I say military intervention, I mean that Republicans are calling for all-out war with a nuclear power.
So here's Lindsey Graham the other day explaining that we need to start bombing Iran's oil refineries.
Watch.
Well, for every Israeli or American hostage executed by Hamas, we should take down an Iranian oil refinery.
The only way you're going to keep this war from escalating is to hold Iran accountable.
How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the Iranian regime?
I am confident this was planned and funded by the Iranians.
Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals.
So if I was Israel, I would go in on the ground.
There is no truce to be had here.
I would dismantle Hamas.
This is the best opportunity Israel has to destroy Hamas.
Take it to the Iranians.
If you harm one American in Syria by using your Iranian militia against us in Syria, if you escalate the war by urging Hezbollah to attack Israel in the north, if Hamas kills one American and Israeli hostage, we're going to blow up your oil refineries and put you out of business.
It is now time to take the war to the Ayatollah's backyard.
Yes, let's keep this from escalating by bombing Iran's oil refineries.
That's how you de-escalate a situation.
Now, what would happen if the Pentagon did exactly what Lindsey Graham said and started bombing Iran?
Would the price of oil instantly increase by 500%?
Would Iran retaliate using the nuclear weapons that they probably have by now?
Who knows?
What we do know is that the end result for America would almost certainly be bad.
I mean, it's hard to imagine any scenario where any average American's life is improved by blowing up Iran's oil refineries.
But Lindsey Graham doesn't care.
He doesn't care about Americans at all, that's the truth.
He's an unhinged, reckless neocon who should have been run out of political office years ago, yet like so many other neocons in both the Republican and Democrat parties, he remains in place, constantly hatching new schemes to hurt this country and its people.
Schemes that, by the way, aren't going to affect him at all.
So, here's the point where it becomes necessary to take ten steps back and assess the situation from a distance.
Pretend you're, say, the leader of the Communist Party of China, and you've been looking for an opportunity to expand your borders for a very long time with a particular eye towards Hong Kong and Taiwan.
And then you see this.
The government of the United States, supposedly the world's preeminent superpower, is shutting down its own domestic energy production at the same time it's destroying its own domestic supply of petroleum.
Put two and two together, and the message from the Biden administration is pretty clear.
That message is this.
Our leaders have no idea what they're doing.
And as if to emphasize that point, the Biden administration has stumbled over itself repeatedly since the invasion of Israel began over the weekend.
The State Department sent not one, but two tweets out telling Israel to sign a ceasefire without retaliating in any way for the attack on their homeland.
One of those tweets was from Tony Blinken's account, and both of those tweets were deleted within 24 hours, which really inspires confidence, you know.
Then on Monday, to add insult to injury, Joe Biden's account tweeted something about how he's going to ban junk fees charged by airlines and concert venues.
That's what he's thinking about right now.
He's thinking about junk fees.
Now, this is the laziest possible form of voter engagement, and it's one that Joe Biden's handlers keep coming back to.
Vote for us and Ticketmaster will be more upfront with its fees.
What an inspiring platform.
And by the way, since we're on the subject briefly, you know, we all pay a significant amount of junk fees every day courtesy of the IRS.
So Biden wants to, wants airlines to stop bilking us of every last cent.
And by the way, I want them to stop that too.
Except that the government, his own government, is doing the same thing and to a much greater extent.
So perhaps you should take the plank out of the government's own eye before worrying about the speck in Ticketmaster.
Now again, our adversaries in China and elsewhere, they can see all this.
They can see a nation that's completely unprepared for a massive international crisis, up to and including the outbreak of World War III, potentially.
The signs are everywhere.
There's really no way that anyone can deny it at this point.
We are an unserious nation, led by the most unserious people imaginable.
One of those unserious people happens to lead the Department of Interior, and here she was just days before the Hamas terrorists invaded Israel.
Here's what she was thinking about.
watch.
Tell me, in your own words, why places like this, like Stonewall, are so important to telling America's story.
That's a great question.
I think it's because queer rights are more under attack than ever.
And I think if we don't acknowledge the past, we're bound to repeat it.
So, at a place like Stonewall, this beautiful place, it's a place where so much discrimination and hatred occurred against the queer community, but it's also a place where resistance and queer joy and queer liberation happened.
So that is the Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States.
She oversees all federal lands and natural resources in this country, including regulations concerning oil and gas leasing.
But that's what she's doing right now.
She can't be bothered with the prospect of war in the Middle East.
Instead, she's off having a conversation with a grown man dressed like some sort of cracked-out, weirdly fetishized female park ranger.
We are on the brink of potential global cataclysm, and the Department of Interior is chatting about queer joy.
Now, to be fair, the Department of Interior is not alone in that respect.
Plenty of other U.S.-governed agencies and departments have been wasting their time with frivolous virtue signaling.
They don't care about keeping you safe or preparing for World War III, or better yet, working to actually avoid World War III, which would really be the best.
That would be what I would prefer.
Instead, they're fixated on diversity and equity and inclusion.
Just a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal, and this is some great timing on this, they ran a truly extraordinary piece explaining how the U.S.
military is overrun with so-called skinny fat recruits.
According to the piece, quote, one problem the army faces these days is a high number of skinny fat recruits.
These people don't look out of shape, but indeed are because of sedentary lifestyles that have left them with low muscle mass and frail bones and connective tissue.
At Fort Moore in Georgia, new soldiers are given calcium supplements to counter a recent uptick in broken feet and bones in the legs, according to several senior soldiers in charge of training.
Well, nothing wrong with that.
Nothing to worry about.
We just have Army recruits that need calcium supplements so that their bones don't fracture when they're going for a jog or something.
This is the state of the U.S.
military, and the reason why we're in this state is, well, there's a lot of reasons for it.
One of them is that we're looking at the situation after years of purges in which so-called vaccine skeptics were removed from the service.
You know, and you've got a bunch of overweight slobs who are, quote, skinny fats, and these are the people standing between you and a potential foreign invasion force.
I mean, how many skinny fat soldiers do you think they have in, I don't know, the Chinese army, exactly?
Does anybody with a brain think the number is higher than zero?
Now, if we lived in a serious country, we'd expel all these skinny fat troops from our military, we'd insist on some standards, and we'd do it fast.
And we would also be recruiting people because we're looking for, you know, tough men who want to kill the enemy and protect the country.
Like, that's the kind of recruiting we'd be doing.
Instead, for a very long time, they've been putting out, as we've played on the show, they've been putting out recruitment ads that look like Disney movies, going out of their way to recruit women and non-binary and transgenders, because we don't live in a serious country.
So instead, our government is preoccupied with this sort of thing.
And with other things, too, like social media feuds, for example.
The other day, the White House went after the very popular account Libs of TikTok.
Why is that?
Well, because Libs of TikTok did what Libs of TikTok always does.
She revealed what leftists, particularly leftists in power, are doing.
She didn't distort anything.
She didn't lie.
She just held up a mirror.
And in this particular case, Libs of TikTok held a mirror up to Tyler Cherry.
He's a communications official.
At the Department of Interior, which is the same agency that interviewed the fetishist at Stonewall, which we just showed you.
So a lot of interesting things happening over at the Department of Interior.
But Liz's TikTok posted Tyler Cherry's photo along with his many deranged social media posts in which he rants about Russia gays and compares police officers to slave patrols.
So here's what he looks like, and here's the picture.
Now, of course, it's usually not polite to mock somebody's physical appearance, but at some point, you're allowed to look at somebody and form some common-sense conclusions.
You know, you can tell what corrupt ideology they subscribe to just by looking at them.
This is certainly one of those cases.
The fact that this person moonlights as an activist on social media is just more evidence that we're led by deeply unserious people.
And when a man runs around dressed like this, It is a massive red flag pointing to all kinds of potential mental and emotional issues.
Healthy, normal men don't present themselves this way.
We're supposed to pretend that we don't realize that or don't understand it.
You see a man running around like that, like we all look at that and we all know that this is not a normal person.
This is not a healthy person.
This is not someone we should trust in a position of authority.
Period.
Now you may recall that a bunch of us right-wing bigots, we jumped to very similar conclusions about the energy official Sam Brinton last year.
And when we did, we were condemned as homophobes.
And in that case, all we did was look at the guy and how he dressed, and we said, something's not right here.
I don't think this person should be working in government.
We were told, oh, open your mind, be tolerant.
A few months later, Brinton was fired and under arrest for stealing women's luggage from the airport.
So you can, indeed, judge a book by its cover, it turns out.
Now, admittedly, if you're approaching this from a distance, all of this might seem like a social media drama, it might seem consequential, but it's not.
This is what your government is spending its time doing, as a second major war erupts under their watch in just two years.
They're worried about libs of TikTok.
They're concerned with backing up their fetishist in the Department of the Interior.
What this means is that if World War III does break out at some point in the near future, God forbid, which unfortunately seems increasingly likely considering that we are led by a parade of morally corrupt circus clowns, well, if that happens, then we are unprepared, to put it mildly.
We aren't simply incapable of handling the next global crisis, whether it's an invasion of Taiwan or something even worse.
Our leaders can't even run their own Twitter accounts in a responsible and coherent fashion.
This is not just embarrassing.
The problem is that for the enemies of this country, it's an opportunity.
And let's pray they don't take advantage of it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the left has lost their minds making abortion their official sacrament.
Meanwhile, pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one is in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion state by state.
40 Days for Life is changing hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
They've had a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they grew in both volunteers and locations.
With a million volunteers in 1,500 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
You can help their volunteers fight the ongoing legal battles to protect free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount to 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
According to USA Today, the Supreme Court may take up the issue of so-called conversion therapy.
And I'll read some of the USA Today article on this.
Keep in mind that this article bills itself as a news article, not as an opinion piece.
But news articles and opinion pieces these days are basically indistinguishable, and that's certainly the case here.
So, here's what it says.
The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh a ban on conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, in an appeal that tests the court's appetite for engaging this term in the legal battle between religion and LGBTQ rights.
Long discredited and already banned for minors in about half of the U.S.
states, The practice of using treatment to make a gay or lesbian person straight has re-emerged as the Supreme Court has become more conservative and receptive to appeals dealing with religious freedom.
Opponents say the practice can involve electrical shocks and nausea-inducing drugs, as well as psychoanalysis and counseling.
Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor in Washington state, is challenging the state's ban on the practice for people under 18, claiming it violates his free speech and religious rights.
The law, he told the Supreme Court this year, forbids him from speaking, treating his professional license as a license for government censorship.
Opponents of the practice say that states have banned it for minors because it increases the risk of depression and suicide for LGBTQ plus young people.
Washington's law doesn't apply to churches or religious groups, only to therapists who are licensed and regulated by the state.
Okay, a couple, just a few points.
First of all, Nobody is trying to give gay people electrical shocks to make them not gay anymore.
Anytime the conversation of a conversion therapy comes up, this is what they talk about.
This is what they want you to imagine is some gay person strapped to a gurney, being electrically shocked in the temples or something.
That isn't happening.
It's just not happening.
It's completely ridiculous.
If you look it up, you'll find alleged examples of this kind of thing from like a century ago or half a century ago.
The first case that popped up for me when I was looking this up is from 50 years ago where a gay man says that he was subjected to electrical shocks as part of some kind of experiment by a university psychology department.
Which has nothing to do with modern so-called conversion therapy anyway.
And if this is evidence of anything, it's evidence that the psychology field has always been full of quacks who like to try out their weird theories on patients who don't know any better.
Also, this is 50 years ago when they were giving people electric shocks for, like, everything.
Again, if you want to use this as a criticism of the psychological industry, then go ahead. But yeah, there
was a time when they would give you a shock. They thought that electrical shocks cured
everything. It was a dark time in the psychology field. And in fact, it's still a dark time in
the psychology field, but for different reasons. The point is that nobody today is trying to give
electric shocks or even drugs, okay?
In almost every case, when we hear about so-called conversion therapy, it is a case where somebody with a same-sex attraction goes to a therapist or to a counselor to help them overcome that attraction.
Like, they're looking for counseling, for therapy to help them overcome this attraction that is troubling them and that they don't want.
They don't, you know, they don't want to have the same sex attraction, but they do, and they're looking for help.
And why shouldn't people have the right to seek that kind of help if they want it?
To use language that the left is familiar with, if somebody desires to be straight, then why shouldn't we affirm that desire?
Why shouldn't they receive affirmative care in that context?
I mean, that's their lived experience, right?
That's their truth.
Their truth is that they want to be straight.
Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they can or should want?
Who are you to come in between a patient and his medical provider?
You know, this therapist who's suing in Washington State, and he has clients.
Who are you to, who's, how could Washington State come in between the client and the therapist?
Now, the argument from the other side, well, there is no argument, really.
I mean, these people are just shameless, soulless, hypocritical con artists who will say whatever they need to say in any given situation.
So you can't really use their own arguments against them, as I've just done, because their arguments are not real arguments.
Nothing they say means anything.
But to the extent that we can use a word like argument, the argument from the other side is that sexual orientation is immutable and unchangeable.
We already talked about this yesterday.
And first of all, there was never any reason to believe that.
Okay, this idea that you're born gay or whatever.
We know that a person's sexual preferences and tastes Can absolutely be affected by all manner of things.
Trauma, abuse, exposure to pornography from a young age.
Many things can impact a person's sexual preferences.
I mean, this is not really disputed by any serious person.
There is no gay gene, no matter how hard they look for one.
And the idea that people are born gay has always been incoherent because, you know, if people are born gay, like born gay, you're gay from birth, right?
That's what that would mean.
And that means that there are, what, homosexual infants out there?
Again, no sane person thinks that.
So, there's no reason why a person can't seek and receive successful counseling to overcome same-sex attraction.
But, as we talked about yesterday, The real point is that by the left's own logic, sexual orientation cannot be ingrained.
It cannot be immutable.
If sex can change, then obviously sexual orientation can change.
Because how your sexual orientation is defined depends entirely on what your sex is.
So if I just say that someone is gay, Someone, you don't know who.
Someone is gay.
You don't know, based on that description, whether that person is male or female.
So, if someone is attracted to women, and then changes his sex to be a woman, and is still attracted to women after that change, then he has gone from straight to gay, by the left's own testimony.
Now, we know that he can't really change his sex, and that once he becomes a woman, he's still a man.
But if it's true that he changed his sex, which they tell us that it is, and if he's attracted to women both before and after making this change, changing who, you know, what he identifies as, then he's gone from straight to gay.
He's gone from a straight man to a gay, to a lesbian woman, a gay woman, and there's no way around that.
There's just no way at all.
In fact, the left tells us that Even if we're attracted to women, you know, they will say that if you're a straight man attracted to women, then you should still be open to dating women with penises, also known as men.
They'll insist that sexual orientation is a sacred, unchangeable, unmoving thing set in stone, and then they'll turn around and make a TikTok video demanding that straight men sleep with other men to prove they aren't transphobes.
So they attempt conversion therapy all the time, it's just that their method is lecturing and emotional blackmail.
But really, if the term conversion therapy means anything at all, then there is only one real kind of quote-unquote conversion therapy happening, and it's very common, and it absolutely should be banned, and that is when medical professionals Be they surgeons, or endocrinologists, or pediatricians, or even therapists and counselors, if we can call them medical professionals.
When any of them try to convert a boy into a girl, or a girl into a boy, that is what we should really call conversion therapy.
And that should be banned.
Because that actually is impossible to do.
And any attempt, it's not just that when you try to convert a boy into a girl that it will result, you know, that it could have bad side effects or down the line it may result in harm.
It's the very act of doing it is harm.
By doing that you are harming the boy.
Psychologically, physically, emotionally, in every way.
So, you know, I made this point before that this is what That when we are calling for the ban on transing of kids, we should be referring to it like this is a conversion therapy ban.
Because that's the actual conversion therapy happening.
Of course, the left, in their twisted view, what they'll say is that if a boy supposedly is confused and thinks that he's a girl, if you don't Try to change him into a girl, then that is conversion therapy.
And also keep that in mind with all these conversion therapy bans.
They've already done this in Canada.
But when they ban conversion therapy, they also include, you know, to them, conversion therapy is also a refusal to affirm a child's gender confusion.
That counts as conversion therapy.
And should be banned as well, in their minds.
All right, this is from The Blaze.
As a former Olympian delivered an eye-opening remark comparing professional sports contracts to slavery during an appearance on ESPN's new series hosted by anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi, ESPN gave Kendi his own series titled Skin in the Game, which delves into and challenges racism in the sports world and will reveal how pervasive racism is in sports while challenging the thoughts and systems of various governing bodies.
The five-episode series features episodes subtitled, How Do Athletes Play a Role in Social Change?
Are Black Women Athletes Carrying the Weight of the World?
No.
I can answer that question.
I haven't even watched the episode, and I can already tell you, no, black women athletes are not carrying the weight of the world.
What is the cost of race norming, and what is the impact of racist ideas in sports media?
The first episode aired on September 20th, in which Kendi takes a look at black athletes who use public platforms to protest injustice and what it costs to speak up.
And during this episode, there was a conversation about sports contracts and why sports contracts are tantamount to slavery.
We've heard similar ideas already from Colin Kaepernick, who infamously declared in a Netflix special that NFL owners are slave owners.
You know, and NFL players are basically slaves out in the cotton field.
And then he turned around and this season was trying desperately to get back on the plantation, out into the cotton field again.
Even though he just said it's like slavery, he wanted to be in the NFL again.
Anyway, so similar idea.
Let's watch this.
The contracts are the new slave chains, right? So you have to sign this contract and sign this
document and sign this document. It's like you're binded to this. And then if you break that,
that's your livelihood, that's your life. So we're the new slaves. Athletes are literally
the new slaves because we need this. Our families, our friends depend on this contract to eat.
Yeah, athletes are the new slaves, she says.
And, I mean, first of all, not that it matters to anyone, but it's just amazing to see.
This, again, this is an ESPN special.
And the whole special, you know, they give the Ibram X. Kendi.
And the whole thing is just apparently all about athletes complaining about their persecuted lives and all the racism that they suffer.
This is appealing to nobody.
Like, who is actually going to sit down?
That's what I want.
I want to know what the actual, like, how many actual real world viewers is this series getting?
Because I find it hard to believe that if they tell us it's a number above zero, I'm not going to believe it.
What actual person is going to sit down?
It's one thing you watch the clip to make fun of it, sure.
But who's gonna sit there and say, oh yeah, I gotta, not only do I have to watch one episode, I gotta watch all five, I gotta watch five hours of this.
This appeals to no, nobody wants to see this.
Even the people who are ideologically aligned, they don't wanna, they're not actually gonna sit and watch that.
Because even most of them know, on some level, how absurd it is.
So this is ESPN, they are just determined to destroy themselves.
You know, they get woker and woker by the year, and they lose audience, and they lose ratings, and they're needlessly alienating whole swaths of their audience.
And they don't stop.
This just gets worse and worse.
They're determined to destroy themselves, which is fine.
The world won't be missing them at all, but it is amazing to see.
And of course, what we're actually seeing here is, you know, if you're on the left, as we've talked about so many times, this is that victimhood pathology.
And I think part of what it is, it's like they associate to them, as we know, the victimhood hierarchy.
All power comes from your victimhood.
It comes from the kind of emotional blackmail that you can wield by cashing in your victimhood chips.
And so victimhood is empowering.
And so no matter what happens in their lives, they still are grasping for that victimhood.
They don't know how to be satisfied in life.
They don't know how to be happy.
If you're a professional athlete, which by the way, if you're a professional athlete, to your credit, it means that you've worked very, very hard to perfect your craft.
You're very, very good at what you do, no matter what sport you're in.
And in most sports, especially if it's the major sports, you're making a lot of money doing it.
And so you would think, if you're a normal person, you would think just psychologically, You would want to say to yourself, well, wow, you know, I worked really hard for this.
And I've made it to this point.
I've made it to the mountaintop.
This is great.
I'm so grateful for this.
I'm happy.
But they don't know how to be happy or to be satisfied.
No matter where they end up in life, they still are grasping at that victimhood.
So that even now a multi-million dollar contract that they choose to sign is, it's not just, they're not just saying that it's like similar to slavery, they're saying it is slavery.
Notice that.
They're saying that this is slavery.
All right, let's move to this from the New York Post.
Playboy has cut ties with porn star and content creator Mia Khalifa after she emphatically expressed support for Hamas following its surprise attack on Israel and urged the terrorists to film their attacks.
The adult magazine announced its decision to part ways with Khalifa, who joined its Centrefold platform in February 2022, in an email to subscribers late Monday.
The Playboy team wrote, quote, we're writing today to let you know of our decision to terminate Playboy's relationship with Mia Khalifa, including deleting Mita's Playboy channel on our creator platform.
The email continued, Mia has made disgusting and reprehensible comments celebrating Hamas's attack on Israel and the murder of innocent men, women, and children.
And I think we talked about this yesterday, or mentioned it, that she had several posts while all this was going on celebrating the attack, and the one in particular where she recommended that the, quote, freedom fighters of Hamas turn their phones horizontally so she can see better footage of what they're doing.
And she said that at a time when the only footage There was a lot of footage online of this attack, and it was all of innocent civilians being slaughtered, elderly women at bus stops laying on the ground in pools of blood, women being dragged away and raped.
And Mia Khalifa responded to that by saying, oh yeah, I love this.
This is great.
I want to see more of it.
And there's a few things about it.
There are some who have defended her as, well, this is cancel culture.
If you support her being fired, it's cancel culture.
The whole point of the pushback on cancel culture, it was, just to be clear about this, we never said that nobody should ever be fired for anything, or that there's nothing a person can ever say about anything that should lead to consequences, including them losing their job.
Of course, that's not the case.
Of course there are things that you can say that absolutely you should lose your job over.
And when you're celebrating videos of elderly women being shot and killed and saying you want to see more of it, yeah, you should lose your job for that.
Of course you should.
Any sane employer is not going to want to be associated with you.
And just imagine what kind of monumental scumbag you have to be
to be too morally repugnant for Playboy.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
You work for a pornography company, and even they are looking at you and saying, that's too far for us.
Now, granted, they don't actually have any moral standards, they're just, this is a business decision.
But still, the message from Playboy is that you are too morally repugnant for them, which, again, you have to be quite a scumbag.
Which leads me to Two other quick points about this, just broadly about what's going on in Israel.
One is that I see a lot of people online saying that this is, that the whole situation is very complicated.
And yeah, granted, in any geopolitical conflict, you know, there's a lot of history, there's a lot of, there are many details that go into it.
But on a fundamental level, it's actually not complicated at all.
As you know, I'm a simple man.
I look at things in a simple way.
Guilty as charged.
And so, for this, I look at this and I say, well, when you attack a music festival and intentionally massacre Civilians at a music festival and you kidnap the women and you drag them away and rape them and kill them.
And when you drive by a bus stop with elderly people waiting for the bus and you gun them down and leave them bleeding to death on the sidewalk, then you're the bad guys.
It's actually very simple.
It's actually not complicated.
Like, there is no world in which the good guy does that.
So that's it.
You know, I could walk into this situation knowing absolutely nothing at all about any of it.
I just woke up, maybe I just woke up from a coma on Friday.
I have no idea.
I don't even know where these countries are.
And yet, if I turn on the news and I see that you have one side that just, that parachuted into a music festival and massacred everybody, I immediately know, well, those are the bad guys right there.
Because that's it.
That's it.
It's really as simple as that.
Which is not to say that any Country or any fighting force that has ever, you know, done something that resulted in the death of civilians is automatically the bad guy.
Because if that's the case, then everyone's the bad guy.
Then everyone on every side of every war is a bad guy.
Because civilians, unfortunately, tragically die in every war.
We all know that.
But there's a distinction.
Between, say, attacking a military target and civilians die in the process.
Again, very sad.
There's a distinction between that and just going to a place where there's only civilians and they're doing something like listening to music or waiting at a bus stop and gunning them down.
There's obviously a difference between those two things, which I think any Rational person should be able to see.
So, is that a simplified perspective?
Sure it is.
But it's actually pretty simple.
And also, too, the other thing is that I look at the reaction in this country and I see that all of my enemies are cheering for either cheering for Hermas or they're trying to mitigate the evil, make excuses for it.
It's like everyone that I despise.
Okay?
The radical left, the LGBT left, all them.
They're all on that side.
And so that's another thing that leads me.
It's like, I don't think I've ever been on the same side as those people on any issue at all.
And it's not inconceivable that we could end up on the same side of an issue.
I don't know.
It could happen.
But I'll tell you one thing.
You know, if I look and I see a whole bunch of people out on the street chanting for a cause, and I see all of the worst people in the country who are on one side, all of the absolute worst people, the people who support murdering babies in the womb, people who support sterilizing and castrating children, I see all those people on one side of it, that's going to make me stop and go, It's extremely unlikely that they ended up on the right side of anything.
And I think they certainly didn't on this case.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Everyone here at the office loves the GenuCell Dark Spot Corrector, and I love it too because now everyone around me has faces that I can stand to look at, sort of.
You might be asking, what does it even do rather well?
If you have sunspots, dark spots, discoloration, or dry skin, the GenuCell Dark Spot Corrector will help those blemishes disappear in front of your very eyes.
Kimberly from Youngstown, Ohio says, My appearance has improved so much since using GenuCell.
I love all my GenuCell products and my skin looks younger.
Well, now it's your turn to feel just like Kimberly, but hurry because this sale is ending very soon.
Take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package, which includes the beloved Dark Spot Corrector.
This package also includes the GenuCell Classic Under Eye Treatment.
You'll get all these products for almost 70% off.
Genucel is so confident in their products that you can try them for yourself completely risk-free.
If you don't see immediate results, you'll get your money back.
Go to genucel.com/walsh and start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.
Say hello to the best skin you've ever had at genucel.com/walsh.
That's genucel.com/walsh.
Okay, so some comments about Christopher Columbus and Indigenous People's Day,
which we talked about yesterday at the end of the show during the daily cancellation.
I'll just read a few of his comments and then I'll respond broadly to them.
Stephen Nathan says, Christopher Columbus and his men enslaved, mistreated, and killed many Indigenous people in the Americas, leading to significant population declines.
He also initiated the transatlantic slave trade and set a precedent for the brutal colonization of the New World by Europeans.
Matti says, what did Columbus achieve, actually?
Wendy says, Columbus was a slave trader.
Silo says, why celebrate him?
He wasn't the first European to discover America.
He shouldn't have a day dedicated to discovery of America if he didn't do it first.
That's my only thing.
Well, oh, he was only the second.
Only the second.
Now, I guess you're referring to Leif Erikson, who that would have been, what, 500 years
or so before, made it to North America, except that there were never any, you know, there
were never any settlements set up, and it didn't lead to the civilizational expansion
that it did for Columbus.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And so that doesn't negate His discovery at all or what he did at all, I just don't see how that's the case.
Just like, you know, there are always these pedantic people who say, well, he didn't discover anything because there are people that were already here and they knew that it was here.
Well, first of all, the people that lived in this hemisphere, I mean, they obviously knew that the land existed.
They were on it.
But they didn't know anything about the rest of the world.
And they knew very little about their own hemisphere.
They knew about the plot of land where they lived, and not much else.
But that, again, that doesn't change anything.
It doesn't change the fact that for the rest of human civilization, and really for civilization itself, this whole part of the world was unknown.
All the stuff about Columbus being a slave trader, Columbus engaging in slavery, Yeah, yeah, he did.
And slavery is bad, we all know that.
It's not any kind of bold assertion.
It's also true that at that time, in the 15th century into the early 16th century, slavery was widely practiced everywhere on the planet.
It was an institution everywhere on the planet.
In particular, especially in the Americas, among the so-called native tribes.
They all practiced slavery.
Every single one.
From North America down to South America, everywhere.
The nomadic tribes, the bigger civilizations, Aztecs, Incas, you know, all of them practiced slavery.
It was par for the course.
It was completely normal.
It was expected.
It was just that no one even questioned it.
There's no record of any kind of abolition movement or sentiment or thought among native tribes.
They didn't even think about it.
So, to hold that against Columbus in particular is ridiculous.
Okay, the fact that everyone did it doesn't make it okay, but it does mean that it doesn't make any sense to single him out as some sort of unique villainous figure.
And if you're going to say that the fact that he practiced slavery means that he can't be celebrated, then what you're saying is that no historical figure at all, period, who existed before, say, the 18th century, at the most recent, what you're saying is no historical figure that existed before around the 18th century should be celebrated, remembered, honored at all, period.
That all of them should be discarded as barbarians.
Because that's the implication.
Because I got news for you.
Again, every historical figure, every person on the planet, everywhere, accepted slavery as just a par for the course, as a rather normal institution, and that was the case for thousands of years.
There's also one other comment I wanted to read.
This is a longer comment from Carl Benjamin, who says, To my argument, you seem to be conflating worthiness with technological progress, which strikes me as rather materialistic and seems to rest on a whiggish presupposition of progress as an intrinsic good.
One thing that history tells us about tribal people is that they seem to generally be of good character.
Tacitus speaks of the good morality of ancient Germans as making law superfluous.
And there are many accounts of the virtue of the average Native American and many Europeans and Africans being welcomed into their tribes.
Moreover, these people would have led much more rich spiritual lives than the average modern, keeping both their religions and traditions alive by living them rather than reflecting upon them and making an ideological choice.
They existed in a living and spiritual world that moderns can never truly understand because our experience Because our level of knowledge has deprived us of a kind of innocence and love of the world, which is simply not possible now.
Ancient people knew they were losing something through technological developments.
In the Iliad, for example, they knew that Greeks of Agamemnon's time used bronze mainly, while after Homer they mostly used iron, and yet considered the Bronze Age to be more spiritually worthy than their more developed Iron Age.
Okay, so that is a quite eloquent way of restating, really, the noble savage myth.
That's basically what you got there.
It was also to the point where the golden age was also the most technologically and politically primitive age in which
men Conquered monsters and lived their truest and best lives,
okay?
so that is a quite eloquent way of Restating really the the noble savage myth. That's that's
basically what you got there well, these were simple people with rich spiritual lives
and Also was the word he used a virtuous
[BLANK_AUDIO]
These were largely virtuous people as well.
And so the only thing that made Western civilization superior is our technological progress.
That's the argument.
But that is just not true.
I mean, what you're getting here, even though it's...
Obviously from an educated, intelligent person, this is still a Disney cartoon version of Native history.
And I use the term Native, and we talked about it yesterday, I don't really like using that term to specifically refer to so-called indigenous people, but just using that term for the sake of argument.
This is Pocahontas, okay?
This is Disney's Pocahontas, is what you're getting.
Because the reality is that, sure, were there virtuous Indian tribes?
Were there virtuous Indians?
Sure there were.
But, broadly speaking, these were brutal and savage people.
And I don't just say that because they hadn't invented the wheel and most of them didn't have a written language and a lot of them were wearing loincloths and all the rest of it.
It's not just a lack of technological development and a lack of infrastructure that leads me to that conclusion.
I'm talking morally as well.
The moral code of the Indian tribe was inferior.
If we can even call it a moral code, it was inferior to the moral code that governed Western civilization at the time.
And that was not perfect either, but it was certainly inferior.
I mean, these are people who oftentimes, as we've discussed, practiced human sacrifice, practiced, in some cases, ritualistic cannibalism.
These are people who, yeah, they practice slavery like everybody else in the world, but there was no discussion about it.
There was no thought that it might be wrong.
And it was quite a brutal kind of slavery that also might involve, you know, cutting your slave's heart out as a sacrifice to the sun gods.
These were people that lived in a constant state of war.
There was no peace.
Constant state of war all the time.
And if they invaded a neighboring tribe, an enemy tribe, they would just kill everyone.
As a matter of course, they would just kill everyone.
It wasn't some kind of unique atrocity when they did that, which is what they always did.
Kill everybody, take the children as slaves, rape the women, kill the women, or take them as slaves as well.
Oftentimes, the males would be tortured just for fun.
You know, not to extract information from them or something, but just for fun.
And it was just kind of this casual savagery and barbarism that the early European settlers witnessed and many of them commented on.
And even though many of these were violent and harsh people, what they witnessed here was just shocking to them.
They couldn't even, they couldn't wrap their minds around it.
And the way that war was conducted.
There was no dignity or honor in it.
The Indian tribes, they weren't fighting pitched battles, for the most part, out on the battlefield, the way that the Europeans conducted war.
There was very little of that.
Instead, what they would do is they would send raiding parties out, and they would go into your village while you're sleeping, most of the time, and they would just kill you while you're sleeping.
And they would carry your children away and make them slaves.
And again, the point is that there was no discussion of it.
There was no one even questioning whether it's the right thing to do.
It's just what they did.
I don't call that virtuous.
And I do call that, you know, so that there's a moral inferiority there.
I think that is a morally inferior way of conducting yourself, in my opinion.
Faith Moore, Andrew Klavan's talented daughter, has written a new rendition of the age-old Christmas classic, A Christmas Carol, except this time it's with a K. It's a modern twist on the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, except with a female protagonist.
In a world where boss babes so-called are championed at the expense of family, Faith is making the case that having what matters is far better than having it all.
A Christmas Carol is now available for pre-order.
Order yours on Amazon or wherever you get your books today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
As we know from experience, cultural attitudes and priorities very rarely shift in the right direction, and I would say they have not in this case either.
As the New York Post headline reveals, most Americans don't judge adults who still live with their parents.
Now, I'm not going to get hung up on this point, but to be clear, Americans Do judge adults who still live with their parents.
It's just that they make positive as opposed to negative judgments.
It's actually impossible for a sentient conscious human being to not judge other people.
We make judgments all the time about everyone and everything and every situation we encounter.
The ability to make judgments, to discern, is one of the most crucial things that separates us from fish and lizards and mice.
Now, this is not really relevant to the topic at hand, but it's worth stating for the record that there is nothing wrong with judging other humans.
In fact, it is what makes you human, your ability to do that.
In any case, here's the article.
Living with mom and dad well past childhood has become socially acceptable, according to a new survey.
The vast majority of Americans believe moving back in with your parents as an adult is an understandable decision, not meriting judgment, according to a new survey by Harris Poll for Bloomberg News.
Well, except that understandable decision is a judgment.
But again, not the point.
Continuing.
Indeed, almost 90% of the 4,106 adults surveyed felt that amid so much student debt, such an insecure job market, and record-breaking inflation, there shouldn't be stigma around the decision to live at home and save.
It's a good thing, because almost half of young Americans are currently doing just that.
While no longer quite at the record highs reached in the early days of the coronavirus lockdowns, When nearly 50% of 18 to 29-year-olds live with their family, about 23 million, or 45%, are currently cohabitating with relatives.
That's the same rate as the one that followed the Great Depression.
While there used to be a strong stigma against grown children not living on their own and being seen as them having failed to launch, U.S.
residents empathize with the larger financial fallout impacting the housing situations of millennials and Gen Zers.
So, in summary, lots of grown adults are living at home with their parents, and our culture now generally finds that arrangement acceptable.
And it should be said that our culture, in this case, shockingly, is not entirely wrong.
There are a few important caveats when we talk about the adult living with their parents.
In fact, historically, in most societies, including our own, it used to be standard practice for grown children to live with their parents.
Families would remain together in the same home or on the same homestead.
And that's how they would live.
The nuclear family existed alongside of and with the extended multi-generational family.
Multiple generations living together, helping each other, working together to survive.
There is not only nothing wrong with that sort of arrangement, but it is, to my mind, clearly superior to the modern setup.
You know, having families break up into smaller units and fan out across the country, losing touch with each other, growing distant.
Not being around to help and support each other.
This is all very modern.
And it's hard to claim that it's an improvement.
The idea that kids should leave the house at 18 and be gone forever from the family home, cut off from parental support, that is a recent innovation.
The baby boomers may not have entirely come up with this idea, but they are the ones who helped to make it the default setting for a while.
Parents were determined to get their own kids out of the house as quickly as possible, in many cases for no other reason than the simple fact that they didn't like having their kids around and they didn't much enjoy being parents, and so they were eager to be done with it.
They emptied the nest, which often included getting divorced either before or after the kids left home.
A house which was once home to mother and father and children, now was home to only the mother, as the family and the marriage broke apart.
And eventually both parents end up living in separate apartments on different sides of town, and the kids take turns begrudgingly hosting one parent or the other on holidays.
I mean, this is the modern Western approach to family life, and it is deeply sick and totally wrong in pretty much every conceivable way.
So if we are seeing a shift away from that failed approach and back to a more traditional, more family-centric way of life, that's a very good thing.
But unfortunately, that's not exactly what's happening in many cases.
It's true that some of the adults living with their parents, they do fall into this traditional category.
These are functional, well-adjusted, mature, contributing adults who choose to live with their parents, or have their parents live with them, either so that they can take care of their parents, or because they want to have this multi-generational family living together set up, or they want to be close to each other, like the old days.
And the adults in that category, they're doing nothing wrong.
In fact, I would like to adopt their approach with my own kids.
I am personally not eager to send all my kids off in six different directions, hundreds of miles apart, so that I only see them and my grandchildren, you know, in the future a few times a year at best.
I mean, if that's what ends up happening, I can't stop them from moving away, obviously, but, you know, I would prefer if that didn't happen.
I like the idea of having my family all together and close to each other.
But the problem is that this only describes a certain fraction of the adults who live with their parents.
And I suspect it is not a majority of that fraction.
On the other end of the spectrum are the adult children who live at home as children.
They don't work.
They don't contribute.
They watch TV.
They play video games.
They sit around on their phones all day.
They live in a state of perpetual adolescence.
And so that is really the crisis.
That's the problem.
It's not simply living with your parents.
It is being a perpetual adolescent.
That is the issue.
And there are some people who pull that off, even living on their own.
They might live on their own, but their parents pay for the apartment, their parents pay the phone bill, their parents pay everything.
And so, they're not living in their parents' house, but they might as well be.
They're still living under their parents.
And for people like this, if they're at home, and they're not at home because they want to be close to their families, but rather because they want to avoid responsibility, and they want to avoid work and sacrifice.
Adults like this, for example, watch.
Welcome to the day in the life of a 24 year old that still lives with her parents.
I often get asked why I don't move out if I can afford to and the truth is I am lazy.
And honestly your Toronto prices is just cheaper to be nicer to my mom.
So I made these protein waffles for breakfast for everyone.
They're so good.
They're like 220 calories for the whole thing.
And then I got ready to bully my parents into buying things that I want.
Then I noticed that my mom decided to copy my outfit.
How rude.
Look how cute this camera is.
Okay, so that is a 24-year-old living like a 4-year-old, and she is obviously far from alone.
Here's just one more example.
'cause they never know what to feed their allergy child.
Then I got to play with my new toy, made some dinner, and that was my day.
K, bye.
Okay, so that is a 24-year-old living like a four-year-old and she is obviously far from alone.
Here's just one more example, watch.
A realistic day in my life as an unemployed 26-year-old Today I woke up at 3 p.m because these days I'm just too depressed to wake up and I just go back to bed because I feel like it.
And then my mom made me, made us dinner because I live with my parents.
This is all the panchan we had and we had my birthday cake because it was my birthday last week.
And the little heads are on fire, which is so cute.
And then I got myself kind of together and sat down on my desk and got myself to do some coloring, which only lasted about five minutes.
And then I decided to do my skincare because I thought it would make me feel better.
And first I flossed because I love flossing because I think it's really important.
Then I did my double cleanse because I had sunscreen on from the morning, even though I went back to bed after putting on sunscreen.
Then I did my skincare, which is like a toner pad, an ampoule, Oh, okay.
So she woke up at 3pm, ate some food, did some coloring, did her skincare routine, and then went back to bed.
I can't even say she's living like a 4-year-old because even my 4-year-old has more responsibility around the house than this 26-year-old woman.
Like, my 4-year-old would not be allowed to live that way.
This is a 26-year-old living a life so sedentary that she may as well be an infant.
She is a 26-year-old living like a 26-week-old.
When we think of adults who live with their parents, you know, this is who we're thinking of.
Which admittedly isn't fair to those in the first category we talked about, but the fact is that this other category exists, and there are probably millions who fall into it, and it is a severe problem in our society.
If the idea of kids leaving the home and moving far away and effectively severing themselves from their extended family is a modern and mostly negative development, then kids staying at home and doing nothing and contributing nothing and remaining in a state of adolescent limbo is even more modern and significantly worse.
What you just saw in those TikTok videos was a kind of decadence that could have only been enjoyed by the children of pharaohs and emperors in earlier times.
The idea of living every day, not doing anything, and just lazing around the house, and yet you can still survive and eat.
In earlier times, you would have had to have been insanely wealthy to live that way.
But now we have a generation of people who have the vices of the uber-wealthy, but without the wealth.
It's like the worst of all worlds.
You're as lazy and decadent As we imagine maybe the child of an extremely wealthy person might be, except you're not wealthy.
And this is the case for lots of 20 and even 30-somethings living with their parents.
They say that the economy is tough and job opportunities are scarce and all that, and yet they're doing almost nothing to improve their situation.
They're putting in no effort at all.
You know, when you don't have a job, finding a job is supposed to be a full-time job.
You should be putting in eight to nine hours a day, every single day, finding a job.
Why wouldn't you?
You got nothing else to do with your time.
And if you're living with your parents, then you don't even have to worry about feeding yourself or anything like that.
Everything's taken care of.
You got nothing but time.
And so why are you not spending eight, nine, ten hours a day finding a job?
And guess what?
If you put that kind of effort into it, you'd find a job in like a week.
These are not poor and desperate people scrounging to get by.
They're lazy and stagnant, content to remain attached to their parents like barnacles indefinitely.
Their relationship with their parents has become parasitic.
And worst of all, they don't even want anything better for themselves.
The struggling economy is a smokescreen for them.
They use it as an excuse, but the truth is that they lack even the desire to provide for themselves.
They have no ambition.
They have no drive.
Again, this does not describe every adult living with their parents, but it does describe a certain large preponderance of them.
And for those in that group, the only remedy at this point is for their parents to cut the umbilical cord finally and completely.
Kick them out of the house.
Let them really struggle for the first time in their lives.
Give them the chance to sink or swim.
Because you know what?
Either option would be better than floating like human driftwood through life.
As I'm always preaching, every human life depends on work.
No human being can remain alive without work.
But if you will not do any of the work for yourself, then you are living off of the work of others.
But nobody, especially no young adult, should have that luxury.
It is not even a luxury.
It's a curse.
It dooms you to a mediocre, unimpressive, uninteresting, pointless, meandering life.
And that is why, ultimately, the parents who let these kinds of kids live at home with them are the ones who are, deservedly, cancelled.
