Ep. 1252 - The Unexplored Connection Between Psychoactive Drugs And Mass Shootings
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a question that very few people are asking about all of the mass shootings that have been happening all over the country. What psychiatric drugs are these killers on, and are the drugs actually helping to cause these violent episodes? There's a very good reason to think the answer to that question is yes. Also, Jamaal Bowman gets a slap on the wrist for pulling a fire alarm on Capitol Hill. But now that we have the full video of the incident we can see for sure that his story is a lie. And the American Academy of Pediatrics has been hit with a major lawsuit by a detransitioner. Is the flood gate finally opening? We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1252
- - -
DailyWire+:
Check out Bentkey here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
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 - Fall Classics Package – Exclusive discounts! 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 Walsh Show, there's a question that very few people are asking about all the mass shootings that have happened all over the country.
What psychiatric drugs are these killers on, and are the drugs actually helping to cause these violent episodes?
Very good reason to think the answer to that question is yes.
Also, Jamal Bowman gets a slap on the wrist for pulling a fire alarm on Capitol Hill, but now that we have a full video of the incident, we can see for sure that his story is a lie, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has been hit with a major lawsuit by a detransitioner.
Is the floodgate finally opening?
Talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Our friends at GenuCell have launched a new product called GenuCell 3 which works fast
on your under eye bags and puffiness.
GenuCell 3 is smoother, more luxurious, and it uses advanced technology to deliver complex vitamins and minerals directly to your face for instant hydration.
It's like Gatorade for your skin.
The new GenuCell technology keeps your skin looking young and healthy for years to come.
GenuCell Fall Classics package also includes a jawline treatment for a more firm neck and jawline.
It also includes GenuCell's anti-wrinkle moisturizer and deep firming serum.
Get your skin ready for the cold and dry weather. If you don't look and feel your absolute best,
you'll get your money back, no questions asked. Go to GenuCell.com/Walsh or you can call 800-SKIN-211 for extra discounts on this
amazing fall package.
Get results in 12 hours or less. The immediate effects are included for free.
That's GenuCell.com/Walsh or by calling 800-SKIN-211.
When an off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot tried to sabotage a passenger plane's engines in flight this week,
it took less than 24 hours for us to learn that the pilot had recently taken shrooms.
He was allegedly high out of his mind when he attempted to activate the fire suppression system on the engines, according to officials.
Authorities released that information for obvious reasons.
For one thing, they wanted to assure the public that this incident was not part of some broader terrorist plot, given the events in the Middle East.
And more importantly, the authorities understood That they needed to provide some kind of explanation for why an Alaska Airlines pilot would decide out of the blue to try to kill 83 passengers on one of his company's planes.
After all, when a senseless act of attempted mass murder happens, the news media and the American public are usually very interested in the details.
They want to know, for example, what drugs were in the system of the would-be killer.
And in the case of the Alaska pilot, those details were provided right away.
Even an incident, in this case, where nobody died.
We got some transparency and we got it immediately, as should be the case.
And all that makes sense.
What doesn't make sense, by contrast, is how the media has reported on Robert Card, the 40-year-old petroleum specialist in the U.S.
Army Reserve who, according to authorities, just went on a shooting rampage in Maine.
Card allegedly killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar.
He wounded many others.
And here's how various news organizations described Card's potential motivations.
Watch.
We have more breaking news regarding the mental health history of the man suspected of killing 18 people in Maine.
I want to bring in Ken Delaney, NBC News Justice and Intelligence correspondent.
Ken, what have you just learned?
Chris, it's become increasingly clear that there were major concerns about this suspect Robert Card's mental health over the summer and as recently as a few weeks ago, both from his military commanders and members of his family.
I've got two pieces of information to share with you.
Two senior law enforcement officials tell me that Card's Army Reserve commanders referred him to inpatient psychiatric treatment over the summer after they became concerned about his comments that he had been hearing voices and about threats that he had made to the base.
And we're told that he spent about two weeks inside a psychiatric facility, was treated there, was released.
It's unclear what happened after that.
He's a firearms instructor and is known to have mental health issues, particularly had
reported hearing voices in his head, had previously threatened to shoot up a military base before,
and as recently as this summer, spent two weeks in a mental health facility, then was
released.
Now those details there are going to raise all sorts of questions and red flags as to
how he's got that rifle that he's holding in these photos right now.
With those kind of mental health issues, going into a mental health facility this summer,
there are going to be all sorts of questions asked as to how this guy was able to possess
a firearm like that.
If we look at the suspect, Robert Card, certified firearms instructor, member of the U.S. Army
Reserve, made threats to carry out a shooting at National Guard facility earlier on, according
to authorities, and reporting mental health issues, including hearing voices.
If you look at all of that, you combine it with that information you just reported there,
the idea that this is somebody who may know the outdoors very well, who may be very
So Robert Card, all these news outlets tell us, suffered from serious mental health problems.
There were major concerns.
He was inpatient at a psychiatric facility just this summer for at least two weeks.
Everyone from his military commanders to his family knew about this, and therefore these outlets, all of them including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Have the same questions, such as how was he able to access firearms?
The laws in place are already supposed to prevent somebody like Card from having guns, so why weren't those laws followed or enforced?
And those are very good questions.
They need to be answered.
We also need to know why Robert Card was ever released from that inpatient psychiatric facility, especially when the U.S.
military apparently knew that he wanted to shoot up the base.
Several commentators have raised that question as well.
But there's another question that is important to ask, which none of these media outlets have been talking about.
It's the same question that the media answered very quickly in the case of the Alaska Airlines pilot, which is, what drugs exactly were in the shooter's system?
And along those same lines, what drugs has he been taking recently?
So, if he was hearing voices in his head and talking about suicide, there's a good chance that he was on anti-psychotic medication.
He might have been on SSRIs as well.
Could those drugs have made him even more violent than he already was?
These are questions that most of the national news media actively discourage you from asking.
You're called a conspiracy theorist if you try to bring up this topic.
In fact, you'll probably be censored on major social media platforms.
Earlier this year, for example, USA Today ran a fact check claiming that antidepressants are not linked to school shootings.
And if you try to claim otherwise on Facebook, there's a good chance that USA Today's fact check will appear alongside your post.
So, what's the evidence that antidepressants are not, in fact, linked to school shootings?
As part of this fact check, USA Today linked to a study from Columbia University on mass shootings, and here's what the study found.
Quote, we identified 1,315 mass murders, 65% of which involved firearms.
Lifetime psychotic symptoms were noted among 11% of perpetrators.
These results suggest that policies aimed at preventing mass shootings by focusing on serious mental illness characterized by psychotic symptoms may have limited impact.
Now, if you just read those statistics and accept the framing of USA Today and Columbia University, they're pretty convincing.
You might come away with the idea that psychoactive drugs can't possibly be causing mass shootings, since only 11% of the perpetrators have lifetime psychotic symptoms.
Therefore, there's a good chance that many of them are not taking SSRIs and other medications.
But if you read the fine print, you might notice something that explains these figures.
Here's how Columbia defines a mass shooting.
The unlawful killing of four or more individuals excluding the perpetrators within one event in one location.
In other words, gang violence counts.
Drive-by shootings targeting rival drug dealers count, etc.
So...
What we're seeing here is a statistical sleight of hand.
Of course, we should be doing everything we possibly can to stop mass shootings, as Columbia University defines them.
We should enforce laws that are already in the books.
We should stop releasing criminals as soon as they're arrested.
At the same time, the fact that all these mass shootings are occurring in the absence of SSRIs doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the role of psychoactive drugs in causing violent behavior.
Columbia's researchers don't address the core question.
How many people who aren't gangbangers, who aren't career criminals, are taking SSRIs and then going on to commit mass shootings that they would not have committed otherwise?
Now, not too long ago, some media outlets were willing to broach that question.
Here's the BBC, for example, in a report that aired seven years ago.
Watch.
I was an absolute mess, wanting to take my life, like, continually.
I got, I read the leaflet and I was getting exactly what it said, you know, I was getting kind of seizure-like symptoms where my muscles were kind of dolting around of their own accord and I felt disorientated and sick and had digestive problems and infections and, I mean, it's really, really extreme.
One in four people become more anxious rather than less.
And they can become extraordinarily anxious, so that some people become very agitated and some go on from that to become suicidal.
Okay, so roughly a quarter of people taking these drugs, according to that report, are actually experiencing increased agitation.
It's not just that the drug failed to solve their problem, the drug actively made their problem worse.
Now, none of this is really a revelation.
If you look at the labels on these drugs, you'll often find that drug companies come right out and admit it.
So here's the label of Prozac, word for word.
Quote, all patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior.
The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, and mania Have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder, as well as for other indications.
The label goes on to say that no causal link has been established between these symptoms and the drug, but it obviously doesn't rule it out.
That's why they put it on the label.
Okay, and if you look at recent mass shootings going back for the past few decades, you begin to see why they put it on the label.
Antidepressants, as well as other psychoactive drugs, have been a common denominator in many of these killings.
Too many to even recount, but we'll recount a few of them.
Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, was taking two separate SSRIs, Zoloft and Luvox.
Kip Kinkle, who murdered his parents before shooting 25 of his classmates, killing two of them, was taking Prozac, which is another SSRI.
Jeff Weiss, the 16-year-old who murdered nine people in Minnesota, including his grandfather, before killing himself, was on Prozac.
One of his family members told the New York Times, "They kept upping the dose for him,
and by the end he was taking three of the 20-milligram pills a day.
I can't help but think it was too much, that it must have set him off."
Another relative said, "I do wonder whether on top of everything else he had going on
in his life, on top of all the other problems, whether the drugs could have been the final
straw."
The 27-year-old who killed six people at Northern Illinois University in 2008 was reportedly
on Prozac as well.
So was Joseph Westbecker.
In 1989, he killed eight co-workers at a printing plant in Kentucky while taking the antidepressant.
In 2001, Christopher Pittman was taking Zoloft when he killed his grandparents.
And at trial, his lawyers blamed the drug.
Kenneth Seguin's lawyers made a similar argument.
He brutally murdered his wife and two children after his doctor prescribed him Prozac.
Now, I could go on and on and list dozens of other examples.
The Navy Yard shooter in 2013, Aaron Alex.
Alexis was on antidepressants.
James Holmes, who shot 82 people in that movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was on Zoloft.
Dylan Roof, the white supremacist church shooter, was on SSRIs as well.
The trans-identified shooter who killed men, women, and children at the Christian school in Tennessee this year was Under care for a, quote, emotional disorder.
But you're not allowed to know any details about that.
You're also not allowed to read the killer's manifesto in that case.
A couple of months ago, a mental health watchdog called the Citizens Commission on Human Rights pointed out that the mass shooter at a Kentucky bank who killed five people and wounded many others was taking medication for depression.
The group called for an investigation into possible links between psychoactive drugs and, quote, senseless violence.
But no investigation would be forthcoming, of course.
Corporate media organizations have no incentive to undertake any kind of investigation like that, because they make hundreds of millions of dollars a year from Big Pharma.
And honestly, they may not be the only ones who are being paid off.
Nobody ever talks about this, but a couple of years ago, it emerged that Eli Lilly, which makes Prozac, was accused of paying money to the victims of a mass shooting in order to protect their brand.
Quoting from the USA Today, quote, the drug maker that produces Prozac, the antidepressant that Joseph Westbecker's victims blamed for his deadly shooting rampage 30 years ago, secretly paid the victims $20 million to help ensure a verdict exonerating the drug company.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly vigorously shielded the payments for more than two decades, defying a Louisville judge who fought to reveal it because he said it swayed the jury's verdict.
Now was there a link between Prozac and that deadly rampage?
We can't say.
Seems like the company was worried that there might be.
We do know two things for sure.
First, the most powerful forces in media and big pharma do not want you to ask these kinds of questions.
And second, we know that a lot of people who are taking these drugs are killing people in ways that are utterly horrifying.
These are not just mass shooters either.
The Daily Wire just reported on the case of a Massachusetts mother who methodically strangled her three children, including a five-year-old, a three-year-old, and an eight-month-old, to death before trying to kill herself.
She took four minutes to complete each murder.
She strangled each of them with an exercise band.
Then she cut her own throat and jumped out the window.
Now, according to the woman's lawyers, she, quote, suffered from postpartum depression and was over prescribed medicine.
Now, this is the kind of crime that demands an explanation.
Why in God's name would a mother, seemingly normal and law-abiding until that moment, suddenly decide to methodically murder all of her children?
Postpartum depression is not an explanation.
That's what the media has been telling us.
She has postpartum depression.
Okay, lots of women get postpartum depression.
Almost none of them have ever done or would ever do something like that.
This mother did.
Why?
We need to know why.
At this point, inevitably, some people will point out that correlation is not causation.
That's true.
You know, the fact that a bunch of people on SSRIs and other drugs like Ritalin are committing mass killings does not necessarily prove that these drugs are causing those killings, but it certainly suggests that it's a possibility.
The drug makers themselves acknowledge that it's a possibility.
And every effort to debunk this hypothesis has been misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
Drug makers are being accused of paying off victims.
Corporate media outlets are burying the statistics by citing gang killings.
Meanwhile, the bodies are piling up.
You know, as much as leftists dream of solving this problem by seizing all the guns and jailing everybody who believes in the Second Amendment, that's not going to happen.
I mean, there would be bloodshed on a scale never seen before in human history if the government attempted anything like that.
So, there's really only one option that could potentially save lives instead of bringing down the entirety of our constitutional republic, and that option is to determine conclusively why mass shootings and suicides are becoming more common over the past few decades, during which SSRI use has soared by roughly 3,000%.
It was just a couple of years ago that the pharmaceutical industry admitted that it has no idea how these SSRIs are even supposed to work.
Their basis for prescribing them, the chemical imbalance in the brain bit, that was a myth.
And that has been admitted.
So what that means is that the people giving these drugs to people, they don't even know exactly how they work, or why they work, or if they do.
So you would think that everybody would welcome an investigation into this.
If you have these drugs that more and more people are taking, and at the same time, more and more violent, heinous crimes like these are being committed, you would think that lots of people would be asking questions.
But right now, no one, seemingly, is asking the question.
They're just talking about new laws to take away people's guns, even though Maine already had a so-called yellow flag law that should have ensured Robert Card didn't have access to firearms, but he did.
They're offering non-solutions that will expand their power while limiting your rights.
They're confident about their ideas, even though none of them has done anything to stop mass shootings since Columbine.
They've only become more common.
So, maybe it's time for a new approach.
Maybe it's time for the one solution they don't want you to talk about, which is investigating what role psychoactive drugs are playing in these killings.
Now, I don't know what that investigation might find.
All I know is that as more and more people are put on the psychotropic drugs, we seem to end up with more and more psychotic mass killers.
At a minimum, this would indicate, it would seem, that the drugs are not effective in stopping these tragedies from occurring.
Best case for the drug makers is that they're pushing an ineffective product.
Worst case, and a very plausible case, is that they're pushing something that is actively contributing to the very thing it's supposed to prevent.
We don't know for sure, because very few people are interested in finding out.
What I do know is that if any real investigation ever took place, then Big Pharma and its media clients would stand to lose a lot of money.
And for that reason, there will be no investigation.
Instead, there will be a lot more Robert Cards, and Dylan Roofs, and Kip Kinkles.
And when you tune in to the NFL, or Fox News, or CNN, You'll continue to be bombarded with advertisements from the companies that were prescribing those killers their medications.
The media will continue to make money on both ends.
They get the ratings from their breaking coverage of mass shootings, and they get the ad dollars from Big Pharma.
And unfortunately for people in bowling alleys and bars and schools all over the country, the cycle will continue.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, if that's really the case, you need to be giving your dog Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens bring your dog's 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 wheat, 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.
Get a free Jumpstart trial bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com/mat or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens.com/mat or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
ABC News has this report.
Representative Jamal Bowman pleaded guilty on Thursday after being charged with falsely pulling the fire alarm at a Congressional office building, a misdemeanor, before the House voted on a stopgap spending bill to fund the government last month.
In a statement, Bowman said, I'm thankful for the quick resolution from the District of Columbia Attorney General's Office on this issue.
Grateful to the Capitol Police, which agreed I did not obstruct nor intend to obstruct any House vote or proceedings.
I'm responsible for activating a fire alarm.
I'll be paying the fine issued.
I look forward to these charges being ultimately dropped.
So that's what he's going to get.
A $1,000 fine.
He has to write a letter of apology to the Capitol Police Chief, Tom Manger.
And then he's going to have three months of probation, which is basically nothing.
And then, according to Bowman himself, part of the whole deal is that after that point, his record is expunged and it's like, this never happened.
Here he is explaining that.
You know, pay the fine, three months from now it'll be dismissed and I'll be able to just continue to serve my district.
You mean it'll be dismissed, like it'll be expunged from your record?
I believe so, yes.
That's the deal?
Yes, yeah.
With Capitol Police?
Uh, ACD, the DCAG.
Okay.
Yeah.
Very nice for him.
Nice, nice deal.
Very, very good for him.
He also explained to reporters that he was in a rush that day and there was, quote, a lot going on.
And that's why it all happened the way that it did.
Let's watch that.
A lot of folks want to know why you didn't tell anybody when you pulled it.
Yeah.
I mean, you remember that day, right?
It was like, it was a lot going on.
It was the vote to keep the government open.
There was a motion to adjourn.
So I was just in a rush, man, you know, trying to get down the street.
I was actually running to the Capitol at one point.
Um, so I was just in a hurry and didn't get a chance to do it.
And you know, yes, that was all my bad.
That was all my bad.
My bad.
He was in a rush.
That doesn't, of course, explain anything.
You pull the fire alarm and someone asks you, why did you do that?
Well, there's a lot going on.
I don't know.
There's a lot going on now because you just pulled a fire alarm.
The fire department's showing up.
But why did you do that?
We know what his excuse was all along.
His excuse was, it was not intentional.
He wasn't trying to set off the fire alarm.
He was not trying to obstruct the proceedings on Capitol Hill.
He did it because he was trying to open the door, and for some reason he thought this was the way to open the door.
Well, along with this nice sweetheart deal, we also now finally have the full video of Bowman pulling the fire alarm.
Keep in mind, that video was not released initially.
Instead, we got a screenshot of him pulling the fire alarm.
We didn't get the full video.
Because they didn't want to show us the video until the deal was made.
And once you see the video, you see why that's the case.
So let's put that video up.
Here's Bowman walking up to the... You see him grab both signs, pull the alarm and walk off.
Okay.
So, you clearly see Bowman walking up to the doors, making no attempt to open them, pulling down the signs, pulling the fire alarm, and then walking briskly away.
Remember that his asinine excuse was that he was trying to open the door.
His excuse was that he'd never in his life ever encountered an emergency exit before, he didn't know how it worked, so he pulled the fire alarm because he thought that it would make the door open.
And then he went and hit the smoke detectors because he thought it would make gumdrops fall from the ceiling or something.
He has no idea how anything works.
But that's what we're supposed to believe.
Except that, you know, first of all, that was never even close to believable to begin with.
It was obviously a nonsense claim from the start.
Anybody who pretended to believe it should be embarrassed.
Anyone who actually did believe it should be, I don't know, lobotomized and deported to Jupiter.
But either way, we now have the video which 100% absolutely conclusively proves That he lied about this incident.
He never tried to open the door.
He took down the signs.
So why is that part of the... If you're trying to open the door, why would taking down the signs be a part of that process?
And then, most importantly, he pulled the fire alarm lever and walked away.
He didn't even turn around to see if it opened.
Allegedly, he did that to open the door, but he never turned around to see if the door opened.
So, this was an intentional act, 100%, absolutely.
I mean, there's no way around it.
You can see it in the video.
There's like no other.
It's really, it's 100%.
And why did he do it?
Well, there's no other reason that he would have done it other than to delay the vote.
He was trying to obstruct the proceedings on Capitol Hill.
Now, how could he have been so unbelievably stupid as to think that he could do this and nobody would find out?
Was he not aware that they have security cameras in those buildings?
Who knows?
Like, there is no scenario here that doesn't end with Jamal Bowman having the IQ of a hermit crab.
So we know that's the case, no matter what.
But that was always guaranteed.
But he's also a liar, we can see.
And he should have been charged with a felony and he should be expelled.
And you know what?
Even though he's a moron, this is the worst part about it, he's a moron, but in the end he was basically right because he figured that he could do this and face no consequence.
The only thing he was wrong about is that I think he figured that they would not, that even if they had security camera footage, they wouldn't release it because he's a Democrat and so they wouldn't want to embarrass him.
So he was wrong about that.
But everything else, he was right.
He figured there'd be no consequence beyond that.
There'd be no legal consequence, and in effect, there isn't.
He's got to pay a $1,000 fine.
That's it.
And after three months, it'll be like this never happened.
Because we live in a two-tiered justice system, and it is a two-tiered justice system that he benefits from, and he is fully aware of that.
All right, Daily Mail has this report.
A woman from Florida who claims she was rushed into taking hormone-warping drugs is suing the doctors who gave her testosterone as a child.
Isabel Ayala, now 20, claims the doctors ignored the fact that she has autism, ADHD, and suffers from PTSD, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression when she was prescribed the drugs which used to transition her to a boy.
Not really to a boy, but to transition at the age of 14.
She was given the hormone injections after just two appointments, after discovering the concept of being trans on Instagram, which led her to believe that she was born in the wrong body.
Very familiar story here, 14 years old, is not even aware of the concept of being trans until she sees it on Instagram and Tumblr and sees it and says, well, that must be me.
Goes into the doctor and apparently two appointments is all it takes before she was given hormone injections.
She's now left in daily pain, including vaginal dryness, burning and itching, which usually occurs after menopause, and is unsure about her ability to have children in the future.
Ms.
Ayala is suing the doctors who treated her and the American Academy of Pediatrics and Association of Children's Doctors that she claims knowingly misled The public in publishing and disseminating a fraudulent policy statement on affirmative care that has been perceived by many as an authoritative guide for the treatment of gender-confused children in the US.
Michelle Forcier says over six months into taking testosterone, Isabel saw Dr. Michelle Forcier at the Hasbro Children's Clinic and told her that she had been increasingly depressed and anxious over the past several months, but Dr. Forcier did nothing to slow the transition process.
Dr. Forcier is among the country's most prominent figures on gender-affirming hormones and care plans.
Now, if this all sounds familiar, it's because this is the second lawsuit we've talked about over the past week.
The last one was from a woman in similar circumstances who's also suing over her quote-unquote transition.
And the chicken lady, Michelle Forcier, is named in both of those lawsuits.
So, similar cases, but two different cases.
The big detail here and the big difference is that the AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, is being sued in this case, which is great news that they're being sued.
These medical organizations adopted this radical gender ideology wholesale, and they made this change practically overnight.
And they knew, they absolutely knew, that what they were doing What's harmful is harmful to kids.
They knew that.
And they deserve to be sued into bankruptcy for it.
They deserve to go to prison.
A lot of AAP officials and these individual pediatricians should be hauled away in handcuffs because they sterilized and castrated thousands of kids for no valid medical reason.
And again, they know it.
They all know it.
They all know what they've done and why they've done it.
And the why is money, politics, ideology, definitely not medicine.
You know, as I said about the last lawsuit, this is the next necessary step.
It's a necessary thing for these people to be held accountable in court where they will not be able to defend themselves.
I mean, they'll have the opportunity to defend themselves, but they're not going to be able to because what they've done is indefensible.
And I know you might say, well, activist judges, nothing's gonna happen, et cetera.
And you might be right in some cases, but you have to sue anyway.
And besides, I think, here's my prediction, and maybe I'll end up being wrong about this, I hope I'm not, but I think that you're gonna be surprised by how these detransitioners do in court, how well they do in court.
I think you're gonna be surprised by that.
I think that very soon we're going to see a massive judgment in favor of one of these detrans victims.
Like millions and millions of dollars.
I don't know if it'll be this case, but I think that will happen soon.
And I'll tell you why.
Because to begin with, they have an airtight case.
The doctors have no case.
They have no justification.
They have no defense.
And they know it.
Everybody knows it.
And what's going to happen is that The case for child mutilation will fall apart quickly.
I mean, it's already falling apart.
The whole house of cards has long since tumbled.
And so, I think you'll be surprised by the number of judges who want to get on the right side of this thing now.
So, that's what I would predict.
That gender ideology, as an ideology, is not going to go away anytime soon.
The fight continues.
But I believe that the transing of kids in particular, that particular form of barbaric evil, I think its days are numbered.
It's just unsustainable.
It is unsustainable to do this to kids on such a massive scale with no coherent justification for it.
It's just simply, it cannot continue.
And I think you're gonna find, and again, we already are seeing More and more people who are not conservative, who are trying to get on the right side of this thing now, because they see what's happening.
And they don't want to be left as the last person holding the bag, still defending the castration and sterilization of kids.
So that's my, if we can call it, optimistic take, I suppose.
As optimistic as you can be, given the circumstances.
All right, so this is interesting.
I've given Gen Z a bit of a hard time on the show this week, so it's only fair to end the week with a positive note about the generation.
And for some reason, researchers at UCLA have conducted a study To find out how Gen Z feels about sex scenes in movies.
And it turns out, perhaps surprisingly to some, that they actually seem to prefer a bit of modesty in their cinematic entertainment.
The Daily Wire reports, a new poll found that Gen Z isn't very interested in steamy sex scenes in their entertainment.
The survey of 1,500 respondents was conducted by researchers at UCLA.
It found that almost half of Gen Zers aged 13 to 24 said sex isn't needed for most TV shows and movies.
Now we should step to the side here to note that it is, to say the least, creepy that they're asking 13-year-olds this question.
I don't know why this couldn't just be a question for the adults in Gen Z.
But, continuing on, a significant amount, 44%, also said romance is overused as a plot device, so what do they want instead?
A majority of respondents, 51%, said they would like to see more stories about platonic friendship.
While it's true that adolescents want less sex on TV and in movies, what the survey is really saying is that they want more and different kinds of relationships reflected in the media they watch.
Now, of course, romance and sex scenes are two different things.
You know, you can have the former without the latter, as the early years of Hollywood can attest.
But the desire for more platonic relationships displayed on screen is interesting.
You know, it's pretty widely understood that people who've grown up in the Internet age struggle to connect with other human beings.
They struggle to make actual Uh, real friendships in real life, so it's no surprise that they would like to see those kinds of relationships modeled by the media they consume.
Now, whether those relationships are modeled correctly or in a healthy way is a different question, but that's what they want to see.
And Gen Z also revealed surprisingly good taste in other areas as well.
It also says this, the study also asked about other facets of entertainment material.
Researchers found that most participants, 56%, preferred original content to franchise projects or remakes of pre-existing content.
So, Gen Z gets this absolutely right.
You know, across the board, really.
And they're certainly right about we need more original content.
And this is, you know, it's unfortunate for the movie studios because they, you know, I don't think that they have, there isn't the artistic talent right now in Hollywood to create compelling original stories.
I mean, there's a little bit.
Part of the reason why they just churn out the same thing over and over again is because there's a real talent drain that went on.
But people are sick and tired, and young people especially, are sick and tired of the same stories being recycled.
And when it comes to sex scenes in movies, sex scenes in movies are always gratuitous and unnecessary.
And I think that almost everyone hates them.
At some point over the last few decades, they started putting sex scenes in movies.
And I think that pretty much the entire audience has always agreed that we don't really want this.
They're incredibly uncomfortable to watch, especially with company.
I mean, like, we've all been in situations where you're watching a movie with your parents or something, and then suddenly a sex scene starts.
And there's no way to respond in a way that isn't, like, you don't want to sit there and watch it.
With family members, but at the same time, if you fast forward it, then you're sort of acknowledging what's on the screen, plus now you're watching it faster.
So no matter what you do, it's awkward.
And either way, it's uncomfortable.
And even if you're watching the movie by yourself, the scene may be less embarrassing if there's no company, but it's still unnecessary.
Like, if we see the characters go into a bedroom and shut the door, we get it.
We get the picture.
We understand.
We don't need to see it happen.
And I don't know, is there anyone?
And you can have, look, as I said, you can have a full romance story and not show a single sex scene.
That's what they did in the 40s, and it worked just fine.
I'm not sure who in the audience wants to see this kind of thing.
Who is the person who really loves sex scenes in movies?
What weird loser really just needs to see that stuff?
Is there anyone who is less likely to watch a movie if it doesn't have a sex scene?
Because I know there's a lot of people who are less likely to watch it if they hear, and I'm one of them, You hear, it's a good movie, but there's, you know, there's a bunch of gratuitous sex scenes.
It's like, okay, now I don't, I'm not as interested in watching it anymore.
Is there anyone who hears that, oh, there's a bunch of sex, oh, now I have to watch that?
Maybe there are, but that's not the audience that you need to appease anyway, or should want to appease.
So again, Gen Z is right.
Now, with that said, Most likely the reason why Gen Z, or part of the reason why at least, they don't want the sex scenes in movies is unfortunately that they are saturated with graphic sexual content all the time already.
I mean, many of them have been tragically exposed to hardcore pornography since they were young kids, right?
The average age of first exposure to pornography is now, I mean, it was 10 years old a few years ago, so I don't know what age it is now.
And they're just totally jaded by it.
They're way overexposed to it.
It's way oversaturated.
That's a big part of the reason why they don't need or want to see it in a film.
It's the same reason why Gen Z as a generation is actually less sexually active than previous generations were at their age, early 20s.
You know, that's a pretty well-known phenomenon.
And as much as I would like to say that it's a sign of traditional values being restored in that generation, and there might be some of that, but I think more than that, it's that many of them are isolated, staring at screens, surrounded by pornography all the time.
The reason for this change and this shift in preferences is far from ideal.
The reason is actually terrible.
Terrible for that generation.
And it speaks to how society truly has failed these young people completely.
But ultimately, they're right about the sex scenes in movies anyway.
And I think, again, this is just...
Almost everyone feels this way.
I think we'd all be fine if it's just we don't need that in movies anymore.
Let's all move on with our lives.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Colleen Hoffman says, I think working at the DW has skewed your perception of
financial reality, LOL.
What Gen Z woman is going to find a man close to her age who makes enough money to support a family?
SPG for life, but really Matt, the solution isn't always become a stay-at-home mom just because your wife is able to do it.
It's so unrealistic to think in this economy that a woman could just find a man who can pay her bills.
Can we get some stats on this at least?
It seems like these rich guys are out here hiding and Matt knows where they are.
What makes you think she's in a relationship?
She said she doesn't have time to date, so how would she have the option to become a stay-at-home mom?
She doesn't.
Okay, first of all, referencing that video from yesterday, the viral video of the young lady lamenting her 9-to-5 job.
Like I said, she talks about how she gets home at 6.30.
Well, that's a ton of free time, especially if you don't work on weekends.
And you go to bed around 10, 10.30.
Let's say, as I said, that's four hours of free time a day, a night.
It's 20 hours a week, just during the week, and then you've got your whole weekends to yourself.
That's a lot of free time.
That's almost as much free time, that's on like the upper, very much on the upper end of the spectrum of free time in terms of like what you can expect as an adult.
How much free time do you expect to have as an adult?
I think a lot of young people as they become adults and they get acquainted with adulthood And they're very sad to find out that they're losing free time.
It's like they expect to have 10 hours a day of free time.
That's just not how adulthood works.
It doesn't work that way.
It can't.
So the idea that you don't have time to date or whatever when you've got your evenings and weekends to yourself, what else can you expect?
That's it.
That's the best you can hope for, really.
Now, in terms of everything else you said, I went through a number of options that a young woman could choose if she doesn't want to do the 9 to 5.
Stay-at-home mom was one of those options, not the only one.
So, I don't know, are you suggesting that no young woman can do this?
I mean, why are you upset that I mentioned it as an option at least?
Also, you do not need to be rich to have a single income household, okay?
And I don't care what anyone says.
There's this idea now, you hear this all the time, you need to be rich to do that, you need to be rich.
No, you don't.
That is false.
Okay, I can give you billions of examples, literally billions of examples of people who have lived this way and not been rich all through history, including today.
Okay?
You don't need to be married to a rich guy to be a stay-at-home mom.
We were not anywhere close to rich when we became a single-income household when we first got married, and don't tell me, oh, that was a long time ago.
We've only been married for 12 years, okay?
We didn't get married in the 1940s.
And I know very many examples of families today that are single-family households and are not rich.
But it's just, yes, it does require sacrifices.
And it requires a sacrifice of lifestyle.
You probably have to live in a smaller house.
You're going to have fewer things.
You're not going to have, you know, you're going to have one TV rather than five.
You're going to, you know, that kind of, you're not going to drive as nice of a car.
You're going to have to get used cars.
You're going to, you know, like things like that.
But you can still live a perfectly comfortable life.
And you're not going to be out on the street living in a box.
So it is possible.
People make their own decisions, but stop telling me that these basic family arrangements that billions of people have managed to pull off, including poor people, people who are much more impoverished than any of us, stop telling us that it's impossible now.
It's not impossible.
Stop telling me that things that I have done are impossible.
I know that it's not impossible.
I'm not that amazing of a person.
I'm not amazing at all.
So, it's just, it's, you know, it's not, it requires sacrifice, but you don't have to be rich.
Okay.
Sonia Marks says, I thought that's what they wanted, freedom from the traditional woman's role, abandoned family life, be equal to men, equal pay for equal work.
Well, that's it.
With nine to five, an hour of commuting, she's one of the lucky ones.
Isn't it quite, it's not as quite as great as the feminists imagine.
Yeah, well, this is an example of the feminist ideal failing to live up to its billing.
But it's also why, you know, we talk about young people who are unsatisfied with the nine to five grind.
You know, we cannot have a productive conversation about that until we begin by acknowledging, first of all, that men and women are different.
And so that is a lot of what we're seeing now.
It's this delusional claim that men and women are the same and they want the same things out of life.
And so women should have just as much of a capacity to be fulfilled and satisfied by going out and working.
And that's just not the case.
Many women are not, that's just not what they want.
It's not how they're wired.
Because we're wired differently.
Beachcomber says, no way being a stay-at-home mom is harder than working outside the home.
It's taxing in the early years, granted, but when they're school age, come on, Matt.
Women at home have it very easy compared to working women.
I've done both, I know.
Look, I'm not interested in getting into a contest about who has it harder, okay?
I'm not interested in that.
Some jobs outside the home are harder than others, so there's no way to really... Working outside the home is harder, what do you mean?
Doesn't it really depend on what you're doing outside the home?
It depends on the job.
What I will say is that, and even with parenting, it depends, right?
I mean, in a lot of ways, in a lot of ways, parenting is as hard as you want to make it.
And what I mean is that there's a relatively low effort option for parenting, especially in the modern age.
And that's when you plop your kids in front of screens all day, basically from birth.
And you give them phones and iPads, like as soon as they're able to move their fingers.
And you just have them looking at screens all day.
And then as soon as they're three years old, you ship them off to the government education facilities, you know, starting in pre-pre-K or pre-pre-pre-K, whatever it is.
And so basically, you're keeping them occupied and distracted and out of your hair when you have them, and you're sending them away as often as you can to other people.
Now, you can do that.
And if you do that, that's going to be the easiest option for parenting.
Um, it's also going to be the worst for the kid, but it's going to be easy for you.
And yes, I will say that, sure, there are some stay-at-home moms who have, like, two kids or whatever, and they're both in school from seven to four.
And, uh, and when they're home, they're just on their iPads and on their, uh, playing video games all the time.
And, uh, and the moms, you know, and there's even some stay-at-home moms, they do all that.
They have all this free time.
They don't do much around the house.
They don't even make dinner for their families very often.
Like, sure.
Those kinds of stay-at-home moms exist in the world.
I don't think anyone would deny that they exist.
But again, if you actually If you want to do what's best for your kids and for your family, then you're not going to take that easy option.
And you're not just going to shuffle the kids away to spend all day on screens.
You're going to try to interact with them, and actually raise them, and do things with them, and teach them, and do all this.
And if you do that, and that's how you decide to raise your kids, then it is much more difficult.
That is parenting, and that is being a mother on a much higher difficulty setting.
It's also a lot more fulfilling, and it's certainly much better for the kids.
And so that's why you just can't—you can't say, well, working woman versus stay-at-home mom.
I mean, we can't judge that.
I need a lot more information about each person and what it is they're doing exactly.
And this low-difficulty setting sort of arrangement, you know, that's not my wife, for example.
Like, just one example.
I left for work yesterday.
As I'm leaving for work, my wife is sitting around our massive dining room table, which needs to be massive because we have eight people.
And she's sitting around, and she's got all the kids in homeschool, and she's holding one of the babies.
And that's what was happening when I left for work.
I came home from work, and there's ribs cooking in the slow cooker, right?
And a lot happening in between with all those kids and homeschooling and everything else.
That's a much higher difficulty setting, and doing things like that every day, I would say, in fact, much more difficult than a lot of jobs you can get outside the home, for sure.
And beyond the difficulty, it's also, you know, with parenting in general, whether you're the mother or the father, there's the pressure, you know, there's what's at stake.
And there are a lot of jobs that you can get where there's not a lot at stake.
Like, it doesn't even really matter what you're doing.
And those jobs are kind of draining in their own way.
That's the video yesterday we played of the young woman who's just felt, like, soul-crushed by the 9-to-5 corporate job.
And a lot of that, you know, the reason why it's so soul-crushing is it feels like it's pointless.
There's just, you're not doing anything that matters, and you're very aware of the fact that you could easily be replaced by anybody and it wouldn't matter.
And so there's a certain kind of, like, Psychological difficulty that comes with that, but when it comes to parenting, you're doing something where you cannot be replaced, and there's immense, there's a lot at stake, and the implications are immense.
You know, you are shaping the lot, you are shaping human beings who are going to go out into the world and have their own lives, and I mean, the impact you're having on them is, is, cannot even be quantified.
And sure, you could be a parent and not care about that, and not think about it.
And again, yeah, that's going to make it easier for you.
But if you care about that, and you think about it, that adds incredible amounts of pressure, makes it more difficult.
Also, again, much more fulfilling.
You've been asking us for an alternative in kids media, and now it's finally here.
The Daily Wire just launched BentKey, our brand new kids entertainment platform.
We're all sick of Hollywood pushing leftist propaganda on our kids, and now there's finally an answer for those of us looking for children's shows that we can trust our kids to see.
BentKey is brand new, ready, and available to download right now.
It's an entirely new company from The Daily Wire, dedicated to creating the next generation of timeless stories that transport kids into a world of adventure, imagination, and joy.
This is exactly what parents have been waiting for, and I don't just say that as someone who works for The Daily Wire.
I say that because I'm one of those parents who wants to protect their kids from corporate media agendas that don't align with the values that I want to teach them.
The content is absolutely amazing.
I can say that for sure.
It's high quality.
It's fun.
My kids really love it.
Totally exceeded my expectations, and my expectations were already very high.
I could have never imagined that Daily Wire was going to provide all of this for its members without increasing the price of an annual membership.
It's the greatest value add that we've ever given.
It's a $99 value that you get completely free.
And that just goes to show that we don't just talk about changing the culture.
We put it into action.
We really believe in what we're doing.
Like I said, if you're already a Daily Wire Plus member, you already have Benkey.
Just download the app to start streaming now.
If you're not a member, there's There's never been more value to join than right now.
You get all the Daily Wire Plus content that you know and love, plus BentKey at no additional cost.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now to start streaming the next generation of kids' entertainment.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So we've discussed a lot of serious topics on the show this week.
And here we are at the last segment on a Friday.
And this would be a good time to lighten the mood and talk about something a bit more fun and humorous.
But unfortunately, we can't do that today.
Not after our intern Holly informed me of a recent trend on TikTok, and it may be the worst one of all.
It's a trend called girl math.
There are a bunch of videos explaining this concept.
Here's one that I think lays it out pretty clearly.
Watch.
So for example, if you spend $100 and you get a $10 reward, you just made $10.
That's, that's, that's, that's not accurate.
That's, that's not how that works.
Yeah, because now in a future purchase, you just saved yourself $10.
If you return an item at the store, you just earn money.
So if you return something and buy something at the same time, it was free.
No, no, no, because you had to spend the money the first time.
No, but then the second time it's free because it's no extra money.
Or, like, if you pay for cash with something, it's free because it's not coming out of your bank account.
I just... I feel like... Or, this one's so good.
Like, if you go to Starbucks or Dunkin' and you use your app, you scan and pay, it's free.
Because that money was already there.
I'm never gonna have money.
Never.
What do you mean?
This is your mindset when you go to a store?
This is just how girl math works.
GIRL MATH ISN'T A THING!
Alright, so that's girl math.
And as you can see, as you already expected, girl math is just bad math.
It's not math.
It's anti-math.
And now, in this age of egalitarianism, it won't surprise you to learn that apparently there's also a boy math trend.
But we don't need to watch any of those videos.
We already know what boy math is.
Boy math is also known as math.
It's just regular math rooted in the basic principles of arithmetic and other fundamental mathematical concepts.
Whereas girl math is rooted in wishes and dreams and magic fairy dust.
And I'm very familiar with girl math myself.
My wife uses this form of calculation all the time.
And I can't tell you how many times I've had a conversation quite similar to what you just heard in that clip.
Very often I'll come home from work and there'll be a new piece of decor in the living room that my wife decided we desperately needed.
And of course, I won't notice the item.
She could remodel the entire living room and I would not notice.
This is one of the great many stereotypes that is nearly 100% accurate.
As a man, I will fail to notice major physical changes made inside the house.
But I will notice if somebody changes the setting on the thermostat by one degree in either direction.
And these are cliches for a reason.
Anyway, invariably my wife will call attention to the new item and she'll say something like, didn't you notice the new lamp?
I got a new lamp.
It really ties the room together.
Now I thought the room was already tied together.
It certainly didn't seem in any way untied before this.
So I'll look at the lamp and I will say, tell me how much you spent on it and then I'll tell you how great it is.
Because the lamp's beauty entirely depends on how expensive it was.
There's an inverse relationship between how expensive it is and how beautiful I think it is.
Tell me the lamp was $3 at a garage sale and I will admire it as the most beautiful lamp ever crafted by human hands.
That'll be my response, or words to that effect.
But then my wife will tell me that the lamp was not $3, it was like $85.
And I'll inform her that I could have bought her five lamps at Walmart for that price.
Okay, on that budget, I could get a lamp for every room in the house.
You want lamps?
I'll get lamps.
I'll get you all the lamps you want for less than that.
I have nothing against lamps, but why do you need to spend $85 on one?
That's when the girl math kicks in, and she'll inform me that the lamp was originally $185, so she saved $100.
In fact, she'll tell me she actually made us $100.
She came away with $100 in profit by finding this sweet deal on this lamp, which would kind of be true in a certain way.
If somebody had put a gun to her head and demanded that she buy a lamp worth $185, in that scenario, And you're forced to buy a lamp, and you found a lamp marked down from $185 to $185, then we might be able to say, in essence, that you saved $100.
But fortunately, there's no lamp-obsessed gunman forcing us to make a lamp purchase.
So the other option, instead of the $85 lamp, was no lamp at all, which means that we didn't save $100, we lost $85.
The fact that in some theoretical universe this lamp would have cost more than it does doesn't help us.
It doesn't put money back in our bank account.
Besides, I'm not convinced that we need any lamps at all in the first place.
Nobody had lamps for thousands of years, and they survived.
They may seem extreme, but I believe in being frugal.
Unless we're talking about fishing tackle, which I need a lot of, and the highest quality spare no expense.
That's different, though, because if society ever collapses, and we're back in the Stone Age, and we need to survive off of fish and wild forage, that lamp will do us no good.
The fishing tackle will save our lives.
Think about it.
Anyway, this isn't about me.
It's about complaining about women.
So back to girl math.
Think about it this way.
Here's a helpful illustration.
Imagine if somebody burned down half of our house.
Imagine that we came home and found that some guy was standing there with matches and a can of gasoline.
And half of our house was reduced to smoldering ash.
Now imagine that we ran up to that guy and we shouted, you burned down half of our house.
We're very upset about this.
The dialogue isn't realistic, but that's not the point.
The point is, imagine if the guy responded by saying, no, no, no, you see, I was gonna burn down your whole house, but instead I only burned down half.
So really, I just gave you half a house.
You're welcome.
Now, I think we would find that logic quite unpersuasive, given the circumstances.
And that's basically girl math.
Which also, by the way, applies not just to money, but to time.
Girl math for time, it's a bit more simple.
You know, this one everyone knows.
Anytime a woman gives you a time estimate for something, multiply it by at least two, sometimes three.
It varies a little bit by woman.
Classic example, of course, if she says it's going to take her half an hour to get ready, budget for an hour.
If she tells you that it'll take 20 minutes to drive somewhere, assume that it'll be 45 minutes.
But this at least is slightly more justified because time is relative.
So on planets where the force of gravity is stronger, time passes more slowly.
Do women experience gravity more than men somehow?
Could that explain it?
Further research is needed.
I don't know.
But while your wife's time estimates may not be accurate on this planet, there are planets in the universe where they would be accurate, theoretically.
The lamp, on the other hand, the lamp is too expensive on every planet.
