Ep. 1270 - Elon Musk Tells Our Corporate Overlords To F Themselves
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Elon Musk delivers an unmistakable message to our corporate overlords who try to suppress free speech. Donald Trump thanks BLM for their support. What's going on there? We'll talk about it. A school in Florida kicks out a bunch of administrators for letting a boy play in girl sports. And the New Yorker asks a tough question: should we stop having kids and embrace our own extinction in order to stop climate change? We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1270
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the official Lady Ballers movie trailer now: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Hillsdale - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation. Text WALSH to 200-300
Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
Genucel - Exclusive discounts 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, Elon Musk delivers an unmistakable message to our corporate overlords who try to suppress free speech.
Donald Trump thanks BLM for their support.
What's going on there exactly?
We'll talk about it.
A school in Florida kicks out a bunch of administrators for letting a boy play in girl sports.
And the New Yorker asks a tough question.
Should we stop having kids and embrace our own extinction in order to stop climate change?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Are you a few years or decades out of school and wondering, "What the heck did I even learn?"
What was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone, and it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses right now.
You can learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and Its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson in this eight-lecture course.
Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats that it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever you want.
Start your free course of American citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu/walsh to enroll.
Hillsdale.edu/walsh.
By now you've probably seen footage of Elon Musk's remarks at the New York
Times Dealbook Summit last night.
This is an annual summit that brings together business leaders, and several of them are interviewed on stage.
Now normally it's not very newsworthy, certainly not anything that I would pay attention to, or you would probably pay attention to.
Anytime you gather together a bunch of corporate CEOs and business owners, you typically get a lot of carefully choreographed language.
It's all very brand safe by design.
nothing interesting is happening, sort of designed so that nothing interesting will happen.
But this year's DealBook Summit was unique mainly because of this one moment.
It came during Elon Musk's interview with CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Sorkin began by asking Musk about the ongoing advertiser boycott of X, formerly known as Twitter,
and whether Musk is desperate to win those advertisers back.
And he was certainly expecting to hear some kind of response about what Musk is going to do to get those advertisers to come back.
But instead, here's what Musk said in response, watch.
You're clarifying this now.
But there's a public perception that that was part of an apology tour, if you will.
That this had been said online, there was all of the criticism, there was advertisers leaving.
We talked to Bob Iger today.
I hope they stop.
You hope?
Don't advertise.
You don't want them to advertise?
No.
What do you mean?
mean? If somebody's gonna try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with
money, go f*** yourself. But go f*** yourself.
Is that clear?
I hope it is.
Hey Bob, if you're in the audience.
Well let me ask you then... That's how I feel.
Don't advertise.
Now there's more to that clip, which we'll play in a little bit, but for now, what you just heard is Elon Musk telling the CEO of Disney and many other CEOs, in no uncertain terms, to go F themselves.
And as far as Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney goes, this is the head of You know, one of the most powerful entertainment companies on the planet.
And Bob Iger was apparently in the audience when Musk said that, which is awesome.
But Musk wasn't just talking to him, of course.
He was delivering the same message to every other corporate advertiser that has suspended advertising on X as a way to force him to restore the old censorship regime of Twitter.
And as of now, the list of advertisers boycotting the platform includes more than 100 companies, including some of the largest corporations on the planet.
And Musk was telling all of these corporations, which are now clearly trying to destroy him for political reasons, to go to hell.
Now, it goes without saying that nothing like this has really happened before, especially not at a summit like that.
And that's why Andrew Ross Sorkin, the journalist on stage with him, was completely shell-shocked.
He could barely get a word out.
In the business world, what Musk did is, like, unthinkable.
The owners of major corporations aren't exactly known for standing on principle, even when that principle could destroy the business model of their entire company.
It doesn't happen very often.
That's what Elon Musk did.
And also, mainstream journalists like Sorkin certainly cannot conceive of anyone actually standing up to corporations like Disney, because these are all subservient, masochistic little weaklings who bow to our corporate overlords every day, and they are shocked to see anybody do otherwise.
At the same time, what was even more interesting than Musk's remarks, and what ultimately proved his point, was how the corporate news media responded to what Musk said.
They were universally outraged.
They didn't even try to hide their disdain, even though Musk was not addressing them specifically.
But they were offended on behalf of all the corporate advertisers, the dear, poor corporate advertisers that were just insulted in this way.
And that's kind of odd when you think about it, or at least it should be odd.
After all these media outlets claim to be interested in reporting the news, they claim that they're not simply vessels for corporate messaging, that's what they claim, but last night they couldn't help themselves.
One after another, these outlets unloaded on Elon Musk in the most disparaging possible terms.
It was clearly personal for them.
Watch.
Just moments ago tonight, Elon Musk, in an interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times Dealbook Summit, saying this to advertisers who've left X over his endorsement of anti-Semitic content.
If somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go f*** yourself.
But, go f*** yourself.
Is that clear?
I hope it is.
Seems pretty clear.
Out front now, Dana Hall, Bloomberg senior reporter who covers Elon Musk.
So, Dana, The New York Times reporting that this anti-Semitic post could possibly cost X up to $75 million in lost ad revenue this year.
Meantime, Musk is warning that the advertising boycott could kill the company.
He's not happy about it.
It's fascinating for him to say that, of course, based on why the boycott happened.
Now, a number of advertisers have fled Twitter recently.
Not just Disney, but also Paramount, NBCUniversal, Comcast, Lionsgate, Warner Bros.
Discovery, and a host of others.
Nobody wants to be around this toxic landscape at the moment.
And now you have Musk stepping up with this.
It's just a phenomenal thing for him to say considering that advertising represents the bulk of Twitter's revenue still.
Moreover, Musk's plan is to move away from all of that revenue and try and get into more of a subscription model in which he'd have an everything app.
Yeah, like people are going to trust him now.
And moreover, people would pay regular fees for different services.
Yeah, like people are going to give him their credit card numbers at this point.
You've got to wonder what he was thinking.
Caleb Silver and this is so interesting because this is one of the first times that Musk has very directly taken on this issue that has built and built over the last several weeks about these advertisers, these big companies, these big corporations saying, wait a second, I don't want my content next to this anti-Semitic stuff that Musk has allowed to be on the platform.
Yeah, and if you listen to the entire quote from that deal book interview, he said that several times.
Go after yourself several times.
And then he said, hi Bob, we could only assume he was talking to Bob Iger.
Bob Iger, head of Disney.
The head of Disney, which was one of the big advertisers that pulled.
But you mentioned other advertisers.
We're talking about some of the biggest advertisers out there, including Comcast, the parent company of this network, Warner Brothers, Apple, Coca-Cola, others have pulled their ads.
And he also said in that interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin, I wish they would stop, I wish they would stop advertising, and then he dropped the F-bomb.
So clearly putting his finger in the eye of the people that pay the bills to run X, which is an advertising delivery mechanism, or was until he bought it, and now we don't know really what he's trying to do with it.
At the end of the clip, there's a disclosure that Elon Musk was calling out Comcast at the Dealbook Summit.
And Comcast, incidentally, is the parent company of NBCUniversal.
And then NBC News just so happens to accuse Elon Musk of hating Jewish people.
And then there's the deranged segment from KTLA in Los Angeles, the flagship station of the CW television network, in which the analyst explains that no one will ever trust Elon Musk ever again because he's such a horrible person.
He's created a toxic landscape.
They even suggest that Musk is going to try and steal customers' credit card numbers because he told off Bob Iger.
So not just attacking him for what he said, they're saying preemptively that if he pivots X to a subscription model, that you shouldn't trust him because he's going to rip you off.
And this kind of demented coverage has been relentless.
It's been coming from every single corporate media outlet.
Fox News accused Musk of anti-Semitism last week, for example.
Just a couple days ago, ABC News ran a segment in which the anchor and panelists took turns trashing Elon Musk and the platform.
And the segment ended with ABC News urging the White House, as well as everyone in the ABC News audience, to abandon the platform.
They could not have been more explicit about their activism.
Watch.
Now, Musk facing some backlash here after he called a post on X repeating a common conspiracy theory about Jewish people.
Musk called it the actual truth.
And then that post prompted some major advertisers to pause their ads on X. And also today, the mayor of Paris deciding to quit the platform, which she called a gigantic global sewer.
So, let's bring back our panel.
Yes, you have freedom of speech, but there are consequences for your freedom of speech when your freedom of speech causes harm.
And what we saw was that today when he landed, he said a quote on X where he says, quote, action speaks louder than words.
For me, this is just a crisis management stunt, crisis management 101.
We can see clearly the reason why that he's doing it is to really assure advertisers If action speaks louder than words, I would actually challenge Elon Musk to really reevaluate and to bring back the content moderation department in full on X. And by the way, we've asked the White House if they'd get rid of their X accounts, like the official accounts, and they said nothing to announce.
But on that same day, the president did launch a Threads account, so you know, it's always worth asking the questions, I guess.
I was going to add, this is something the everyday person is just doing themselves.
They don't need a coordinated attack to go through corporate America to break out.
If you're upset about what Elon Musk is doing, just get off of X. Right, you take a little personal responsibility.
You have your own power, right?
What's extraordinary about that clip, beyond what you just saw, is what they didn't talk about.
If you watch all seven minutes of the full segment, at no point did ABC News disclose that the parent company of ABC News is the Walt Disney Company.
Somehow they didn't mention that their boss, Bob Iger, had suspended his company's ads on Twitter.
The conflict of interest that's really evident there never came up somehow.
They were too busy telling you to abandon Twitter at all costs because it's a quote-unquote sewer.
And for good measure, they're begging the White House to do the same.
Now it goes without saying that ABC News never once mentions what Media Matters did in order
to smear X as a, quote, "suer."
They don't talk about Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters for misleading the advertisers
on the platform about this.
ABC News doesn't tell their audience that Media Matters went to great lengths to engineer
a scenario that would put corporate advertisements near this objectionable content on their timeline.
So this is something that Media Matters engineered.
This is all invented by them.
You're just supposed to take it on faith that X is somehow the only platform where you could engineer a scenario like this, even as Instagram's algorithm has been shown to connect pedophiles with child pornography.
Which is something that, by the way, you would think would provoke quite a bit more outrage.
And advertiser boycotts and all the rest of it, but really it provoked none of that.
Now what you can gather from the sheer dishonesty of the clips I've showed, and many more like them, is that the corporate news media understands, for good reason, that Musk's criticism of megacorporations is also an attack on them.
In some cases, that's because these media companies are directly owned by the corporations that Musk is attacking.
In other cases, it's because these media companies are completely beholden to these corporations for their own advertising dollars.
That's why what Musk said at the Dealbook Summit was important.
It wasn't just a cathartic declaration of war against corporate censors.
It also exposed many of the so-called journalists and news organizations that are completely beholden to these censors.
Which is why they're telling you not to trust Elon Musk anymore because, you know, he was mean to Bob Iger.
Meanwhile, they're running endless advertisements for Big Pharma.
And yet, despite that, you're supposed to trust them when they report on Ozempic or on the 10th version of the COVID booster.
You're also supposed to blindly trust their experts on disinformation whom they've hired directly from the FBI and the CIA.
These are people who have lied to your face for years about everything from Russiagate to the pandemic and everything in between.
And now they're trying to destroy Elon Musk for one tweet out of tens of thousands of tweets that he clarified almost immediately.
And he also apologized at the Dealbook Summit for his remarks being poorly worded.
Not that these people care about that, not that he owed any kind of apology at all.
In fact, if there's any real issues with anything that Elon Musk said at the summit, it's that he apologized, which he shouldn't have done.
Well, the truth is, they were never upset about what Elon Musk said about the ADL and other left-wing groups like it.
They're not even really pretending he's anti-Semitic anymore.
They seem to recognize that, you know, that would be an odd charge to make after Israel's prime minister rolled out the welcome mat for Elon Musk the other day.
So, now they're back to old-fashioned mafia tactics.
They're not hiding the fact that they despise him for exposing how corporate control of the media works.
That's why they're smearing him as someone who's gonna steal your credit card.
That's why they're smirking about some random mayor in Europe leaving X as if that matters.
Their tactics are desperate and also obvious.
Now, a little while ago I told you that I'd play some more of Elon Musk's remarks, and this is the part of his comments that didn't get as much play on social media, but it's just as important as what he told Bob Iger and the other advertisers.
Watch.
I mean, if the company fails because of an advertised boycott, it will fail because of an advertised boycott, and that will be what bankrupts the company, and that's what everyone on earth will know.
What do you think, then, of the idea of trust, though?
Then it'll be gone.
And it'll be gone because of an advertised boycott.
But you recognize that some of those people are going to say that they didn't feel comfortable on the platform.
And I just wonder and ask you, and think about that for a second.
Tell it to the judge.
But the judge is going to be... The judge is the public.
And you think that the public is going to say that Disney is making a mistake?
Yes.
And they're going to boycott Disney?
They already are.
Well, there are some that are for lots of different reasons, but you think that this is going to... That you have the... This goes to actually the interesting of power and leverage.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Well, it's not a moment that the major media outlets are going to play on loop.
They're going to fixate on the big F-bomb and try to portray Elon Musk as some kind of unhinged lunatic.
But this part of Musk's conversation with Sorkin was just as important, if not more important, than what he told Bob Iger.
Disney does not create anything of value.
In fact, they create negative value.
More people than ever recognize that now.
At the very same Dealbook Summit where Musk spoke, Bob Iger made that very clear.
As if to prove that point, here's a CNN headline summarizing what Iger said, quote, Disney CEO Bob Iger says number one priority is turning around Marvel, acknowledges too many sequels after box office misses.
So that's Disney's top priority.
They're going to work on cranking out more Marvel movies, flooded with left-wing propaganda that nobody's going to watch.
They're not attempting to launch rocket ships to Mars like Elon Musk is.
They're entirely focused on Marvel films and putting as much gay propaganda in children's content as they can.
And people are rejecting it.
Movies are bombing.
Disney Plus recently lost more than 10 million subscribers.
By contrast, here's what Elon Musk has been doing.
Watch.
And Tesla's gotten to where it's gotten with no advertising at all.
I understand that.
Tesla currently sells two, twice as much in terms of electric vehicles as the rest of electric car makers in the United States combined.
Tesla has done more to help the environment than all other companies combined.
It would be fair to say that, therefore, as a leader of the company, I've done more for the environment than any single human on Earth.
How do you feel about that?
How do I feel about that?
Yeah, no, I'm asking you personally how you feel about that, because we're talking about power and influence and... I'm saying what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it.
And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil.
F*** them.
Okay?
I mean, he's right about that, even by the left's own logic.
I mean, he's done more to save the planet than any other person.
That's hard to dispute.
And given that these people would say that climate change is like the number one issue in the world and the fate of the world hangs in the balance, if they really believe that, then you would think that they would say, you know, it doesn't matter what Elon Musk says or what he tweets.
He's saving the planet.
We should all support him, support everything he does.
None of Elon Musk's critics have an answer to that.
He's accomplished things that help humanity, again, even by their own logic.
They're not doing that.
They're doing the exact opposite.
And these are the people that Elon Musk can't stand.
They're the people that we also should not tolerate.
What Musk did yesterday was to declare war against the executives responsible for debasing our culture, force-feeding us a stream of lobotomized garbage while they play the role of censor.
He made the simple and obvious point that a CEO who's fixated on Marvel movies should not be in charge of free speech in this country.
Entertainment executives shouldn't be telling everyone else what hate speech is or demanding censorship.
No corporate CEO should have that power.
They should be worried about their own products.
That's it.
They shouldn't spend a second thinking about what you can say online.
This is not their role at all.
But for a very long time now, CEOs have had that kind of power to censor you.
They simply apply pressure to media organizations and social media companies, and they get what they want.
They use coercion and blackmail to effectively destroy the First Amendment.
And they can always claim that it has nothing to do with the First Amendment, because these are private companies imposing these speech restrictions, you know, on their own platforms or with their own money.
But the truth is that the distinction between the corporate world and the government has become increasingly irrelevant.
The Democrats use corporations to impose speech restrictions that they could not impose legislatively.
That's the way this works.
But Elon Musk has challenged the whole regime as explicitly as he possibly could, and now, as he said, the chips will fall where they may.
If people don't want free speech, if they want the Marvel guy to tell them what to think, then free speech will die.
Twitter will collapse shortly afterward.
Your ability to say what you think on the Internet will go away as well.
Now, this is preventable, but it takes some work.
It takes people standing up and saying what they know is true, regardless of the personal cost they might face.
And that's been happening more and more.
It's happened with the gender debate.
It's happened with Target and Bud Light.
It's happened with affirmative action, which is now broadly unpopular in this country.
It's happened with Ukraine funding and all kinds of issues.
And now, as Elon Musk said, people need to turn on these corporate censors who have silenced them for so long.
These companies need to suffer real consequences for what they are trying to do.
And for that to happen, Americans need to do what Elon Musk did last night, and tell all these would-be overlords, in no uncertain terms, that they need to go F themselves.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something that they've done before.
And for many, it isn't something that they want to do, but rather something they have to do.
Well, if you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news for you.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and a free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer service experience possible through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable, quality, affordable windows or patio doors for $0, zero payments, and zero interest for a year.
All you gotta do is text WALSH to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 on every window and $750 on every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Texting Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message and data rates may apply.
Reply stop, topped out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
Daily Wire has this report.
Former President Donald Trump touted an endorsement from a former leader of Black Lives Matter on Wednesday, saying that he was very honored to have his endorsement as well as BLM's support.
Mark Fisher, who Fox News reports is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Rhode Island, told the network that the Democrat Party was not for black people and that they were hypocrites.
Fisher said Trump had done more for black people than the Democrat Party has recently.
The activist also said earlier this month that he endorsed Trump because everybody else sucks.
Trump responded to the BLM activist praise by praising him on social media and floating the possibility that he has done more for black people than any other president in history.
Trump said, quote, spoke with Mark Fisher yesterday, a great guy, very honored to have his and BLM support.
I've done more for black people than any other president.
Lincoln, in quotes, question mark.
What does that mean?
Including 10-year funding for historically black colleges and universities where they had none, opportunity zones, criminal justice reform, and much more.
Thank you to Mark.
Okay, so that's basically the story that Trump is thanking BLM, but BLM didn't really endorse him or support him.
In fact, Newsweek reached out to BLM Rhode Island and asked about this, and they said that Mark Fisher is no longer affiliated with them, that he's been terminated.
So the BLM group is saying, we have not endorsed Trump.
And that has been the defense by Trump fans of this statement by Trump.
They're saying, well, BLM doesn't actually support Trump, so this is a non-issue.
Okay, except that Trump is claiming that BLM does.
He's thanking BLM for their support.
Which, whether they gave their support or not, that's not the point.
The point is that he's thanking them, which legitimizes them.
There's just no circumstance, there's no situation where it could ever be okay to thank BLM for anything.
It's like thanking Planned Parenthood or NAMBLA.
Okay, that's what it's like.
And obviously it goes without saying that if Ron DeSantis ever thanked BLM for anything, Trump fans would never stop talking about it.
I mean, they would never, ever, ever let DeSantis live that down.
Nor should they.
Because it's insane.
It's an insane thing to do.
You do not legitimize Marxist terrorist organizations like BLM.
And if you're an honest person and a Republican thanks BLM, you'll start to ask yourself questions about what this person really stands for.
And here's what you should also ask yourself.
Is there any evidence, is there any reason to believe that Trump is going to fix the things that he did wrong in his first term?
I mean, that's the argument, right?
If you're supporting Trump in the primaries, you can't deny that there are some things he did in his first term that were bad.
But the argument is, well, give him another chance.
Everybody makes mistakes.
He's learned from those mistakes.
Okay, true.
Everyone makes mistakes.
Nobody's perfect.
It's hard to be president.
People make mistakes.
Fine.
I could buy that.
But is there any reason to believe that any of this has changed?
Like, has there been any indication that he even recognizes what things he did wrong, much less intends to fix them?
You tell me.
And one of the things he did wrong was trying to pander for the black vote by doing things like releasing criminals from prison.
And he's still bragging about that.
It's amazing.
He's still bragging about criminal justice reform.
It was a disaster.
Releasing criminals from prison was the last thing that needed to happen.
We need to do the opposite.
Criminal justice reform that puts more criminals in prison, not fewer.
And so it's one thing if you say, yeah, that was a boneheaded move.
Shouldn't have happened.
Trump gets in there again.
It's not going to happen.
He's going to go criminal justice reform the other direction.
The kind of reform we need.
Which is putting more people in prison for longer.
And, I mean, that's a good argument, if it was true, that Trump is—but except that he's still—I mean, forget about—this is my thing.
In that tweet—well, that wasn't a tweet—in the Truth Social post, thanking BLM is egregious.
But to me, that's not the most concerning thing.
To me, it's still going on about criminal justice reform, as if it's still something that you should, you're still touting that as some major achievement.
That is what troubles me.
You know, releasing criminals from prison, consulting with Kim Kardashian, giving pardons to rappers, you know, like that sort of thing.
I would love to believe that those are mistakes that will be fixed.
But you can't fix a mistake until you first admit that it was one.
And I don't even need you to admit it out loud.
I mean, that would be nice.
Even if you recognize in your own head that, okay, we're not going to do that again.
There's no indication that he recognizes that because he's still out there saying, well, we accomplished criminal justice reform.
It is troubling.
Okay, from the Daily Wire, a Florida high school principal and other school officials have been reassigned amid an investigation into whether they allowed a trans-identifying male player to play on the girls' volleyball team.
The alleged incident occurred at Monarch High School just north of Fort Lauderdale.
Principal James Cecil Assistant Principal Kenneth May, Athletic Director Dion Hester, and Volleyball Coach Jessica Norton were all transferred on Monday, according to local news, and they were transferred out apparently because of this incident where male players were allowed on the female team.
Now, obviously, it's great that these administrators were kicked out of school for allowing boys to play in girls' sports.
And this is also something that even like three years ago, it would have been fairly unthinkable.
Not unthinkable that boys would play in girls sports three years ago.
That was certainly happening three years ago and had been happening for a while at that point.
But the thing that would've been unthinkable is that school administrators would suffer consequences for allowing that to happen.
But this just goes to show how much we have won on this issue as conservatives.
That this is an issue where we have, I mean, we are fully winning on this issue.
And we're winning on the issue, you know, I think on the issue of gender ideology broadly, but especially when you look at these sort of narrow lanes, something like women's sports, we're winning Not even necessarily because we've convinced people that actually it's a bad idea to let boys who pretend to be girls compete against girls.
I don't think we've convinced that many people.
Because most people didn't need to be convinced.
They always knew that this was wrong.
Because it's like obviously wrong.
Intuitively you recognize that it's wrong.
So the vast majority of people never needed to hear an argument that would convince them.
The vast majority of people have not had a moment where they said, oh, you know, that's a good point.
So it was never about convincing most people.
It was about, well, it wasn't about convincing them of the rightness of our claim, that boys are boys and girls are girls, because the rightness of the claim is self-evident.
It was about convincing them to not be afraid to speak the truth and to acknowledge the truth.
It's about mobilizing people, all these people who always recognize the truth, but we're too afraid.
It's about mobilizing them and empowering them.
And that's where our success has come.
And I think we'll see more evidence of that when our new daily wire comedy, Ladyballers, premieres tomorrow night at 8 o'clock.
And the response to the film has already been huge.
I think it's on its way to becoming, you know, one of the most successful and talked about comedies in years.
Or, I mean, really, the most.
And that's also partly because there haven't been any real comedies in years.
And that's partly because people are starved for good comedy, and also partly because people are sick of this gender ideology madness, and they're ready to laugh at it and ridicule it, which is what this film does.
And speaking of which, I did finally see the movie last night at our red carpet premiere.
It was my first time seeing it.
As I think I've already complained about that they wouldn't let me see it ahead of time.
And in fact, most of the scenes in the film, I wasn't even there when it was filming because
my character only shows up a few times here and there.
So I went into this almost like any other member of the audience.
And I also, except that, I went into it ready to rip it apart in my mind and be hypercritical
because that's how I am with any creative project that I'm involved in.
But I'm happy to report that it is, um, the movie is very funny.
It works as a satire of gender ideology, of course, but it also stands on its own as a comedy.
And that was one of the things I was watching for.
It's like, yeah, it makes the point, makes the point very effectively.
So we want to do that.
You want to make the point satirically, which the film does.
But aside from the message, aside from the point, is it just funny on its own?
And I'm happy to say that it certainly is.
And it also, and I mean this as a compliment, but the movie is much weirder than I thought it would be.
Some very weird and kind of random elements in the film, which I like because I have a kind of absurdist, dark sense of humor.
So I love that about it.
Really, I think the whole movie comes across like we were trying to entertain ourselves while making it.
And entertaining everybody else is kind of a byproduct of that.
Which is sort of how it went.
So you can tell that we're having fun making it and I think that that makes it more enjoyable for the audience as well.
And speaking of weird stuff that we did mainly to make each other laugh, there's my character and I actually have been given permission to play for you an exclusive, a world premiere exclusive clip of my character's introduction in the film.
And in the film I'm playing a character named Chris who is the woke boyfriend of Jeremy's character's ex-wife.
So it's a whole thing.
I told you it's weird.
Anyway, here's how that is first introduced in the film.
Let's play it quick.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Love, love, love, love.
Love, love, love, love.
[GUNSHOT]
[TIRES SCREECHING]
[GUNSHOT]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[COUGHING]
Hi.
How are you?
You have a good time?
Yeah?
Daddy was okay?
Was he late?
Okay, okay.
Hey, hey, hey!
We need to talk.
Thank you for picking up Winnie, Robert.
We're married for 15 years, Darby.
You can call me Rob.
Darby.
And Robert will do just fine.
Coach Rob!
Oh, good.
My lover's former lover.
Okay, I got it.
Yep.
Look at us.
One big, unconventional family.
Lover, I think your transition into divorce would be smoother if Coach moved in with us.
Absolutely not.
Never gonna happen.
Coach, now that we're basically co-dads, I was wondering if you'd like to help me train for the Nashville Runs.
$5,000 prizes?
My body's a sacred temple.
I'm all about physical fitness.
Bug-based foods, mRNA vaccines, equitable and inclusive hiking.
There it is.
My lover says you were a great coach back in the day.
Honey, why don't you go help Winnie with her homework?
Light and love, coach.
Light and love.
[Music]
Lady Ballers, streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus December 1st.
There it is.
There's the Oscar-winning performance.
Not the last hug that I give in the film, I can tell you.
And there's a working theory here at the Daily Wire that Jeremy conceived of this whole film just as an excuse to get me to hug him.
I don't know if that's true or not, but I've already said, you know, if this movie costs $7 million to make, I would have just given the hug for like $3 million.
Half that is all you had to pay.
So there it is.
The whole film is very much worth watching, and you can watch it tomorrow when it premieres at 8 o'clock.
And I don't want to give anything away, but, you know.
Anyone that you've ever seen associated with The Daily Wire will show up in this film at some point.
I can tell you that.
Very much a team group effort.
Okay, I want to mention this.
This is from Yahoo.
It says, diabetes and obesity are rising among young adults in the United States, an alarming development that puts them at higher risk for heart disease, according to a study of 13,000 people between 20 and 44 years old.
The authors of the study published in March in a major medical journal warned that the trends could have major public health implications, a rising generation dying prematurely of heart attacks, Other complications, and black and Hispanic people, particularly Mexican-Americans, would bear the brunt.
Goes on to say that, of course, as always, so-called marginalized people are at greater risk of developing heart disease and of developing obesity, and then they tie that to poverty as well, so it's that whole thing.
Two points about this, really quick and simple points.
This idea that poverty inevitably leads to obesity, which is the explanation that we often get now.
But it's of course an absurd idea, because this is not something that you find outside of the Western world.
Outside of the modern Western world, you actually find the opposite.
That being underweight is something that you would associate with poverty.
You know, this issue of having poor people who are morbidly obese does not exist anywhere else outside of the Western world.
And so, I think that what that tells us is that it's not poverty.
In this country, it has nothing to do with poverty.
It has nothing to do with your financial situation, whether you become obese.
It's just, are you taking in too many calories and not getting enough exercise?
It's as simple as that.
Now, yeah, a lot of the cheap food options are not good for you and are going to make you fat, but eating at home is always cheaper.
Even with inflation and grocery prices.
Like, you can still make food at home, and it's going to be cheaper than eating out all the time.
It's just that you have to take the effort.
Because, and this is really the second point, which is that obesity is not a complicated problem to solve.
Right?
There's a... Now, it's not complicated.
It is simple.
But that doesn't make it easy.
And these are categories of things that we often get confused.
We see that solving a problem is hard, and then we immediately assume that that means that it must be complicated.
But hard and complicated are not necessarily the same thing.
There are lots of problems that we face individually in our lives and also in society that are very simple problems, but they are also hard.
And eating healthy and living a healthy lifestyle and losing weight if you're overweight, that is a difficult, it's a hard thing to do.
It's difficult, but it is not complicated.
There's no, there's no comp, we don't need a whole bunch of studies about it.
There's no complicated formula.
It's actually very simple.
Just eat less food and exercise more.
Hard, hard, but not complicated.
That's how it works out.
Let's get to it.
to was Walsh wrong.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on top of your tax debt, and that's why you gotta check out Tax Network USA.
The team at Tax Network USA has a track record of success.
They've reduced tax debt for numerous clients totaling over a billion dollars.
Whether you're looking at $10,000 or a million dollar tax debt, they can help you with a settlement.
Doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, even a whole decade.
Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
The expert attorneys and tax professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax cases, no matter how they started.
Don't let tax debt control your life any longer.
Take the first step toward resolving your tax issues by visiting TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh today.
Caitlin says, I'm with you 100%, but a few weeks ago you were with Vivek on firing 50% of the FAA at random.
If we want to argue that we should fire diversity hires, I'm here for that.
However, most of the FAA does good work preventing airplane disasters and incidents.
Fair point.
Yeah, I think that the FAA should be exempt from the indiscriminate 50% cuts that I have endorsed.
That's a fair point.
Instead, I would do discriminant cuts.
So I think for most of the federal government, you can do indiscriminate cuts, 50%, just to start with.
And, you know, because you've got to start somewhere.
You know, we have to narrow this down quite a bit before you start making the surgical cuts.
There are a few areas of government, a few agencies where you might want to be a little bit more targeted in the initial cuts.
And somewhere like at the FAA and air traffic controllers?
Sure, I would agree with that.
Mr. Reality says, you have a lot more confidence than I do that the government will actually correct its diversity initiatives after people die in a plane crash.
More likely they will first cover it up, like the train crashes we constantly have, then they will say that there's nothing they can do, like the Blue City crime waves.
That's another one where I think you're right.
So I guess I have been corrected twice in this segment.
I think you're actually right about that.
So when we talked yesterday about the Obama administration lowering standards among air traffic controllers 10 years ago in order to diversify the ranks, One thing I said is that, well, number one, this is going to lead to a terrible disaster and a lot of people are going to die.
It's going to happen.
We've come very close many times recently.
And you don't hear about those things because the media has no interest in reporting it.
And also, you know, if it bleeds, it leads.
And a near miss means that nobody's bleeding.
So they're going to wait until it actually happens.
That is going to happen.
And then I said that only when that happens will there be any changes made, but you're probably correct that once it does, like, to make those changes would require them to admit that these diversity initiatives contributed to the disaster, which they probably will never do.
Finally, Rob says, everyone is qualified that is hired.
Everyone has to pass the exam.
Diversity has nothing to do with it unless you're trying to imply that non-whites aren't qualified.
No, I'm not implying that non-whites aren't qualified to be air traffic controllers or aren't qualified for any other position.
That's not me implying that.
I'm not implying anything.
Anyway, I'm stating that the Obama administration lowered the hiring standards for the FAA in order to get more non-whites involved.
That's what they did.
That's a fact.
And then it's also a fact that once they did that ten years ago, the number of near-misses has doubled over that span.
And by near misses, we mean, of course, planes that have almost collided into each other on the runway or in the sky.
So those are all facts.
It's not me implying anything.
It's just me stating.
If anyone's implying anything, it's, you know, the people who say that we have to lower standards in order to get more racial minorities involved.
They're the ones who are implying that racial minorities are not otherwise qualified, or are somehow deficient.
So they cannot be held to the standards that have been in place historically.
So if there is any insulting implication here, it's coming from the people who are lowering the standards, which is the whole point.
You've been hearing me talk about The Daily Wire's first ever full-length comedy, Ladyballers.
And yes, it's premiering tomorrow night at 8 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively on Daily Wire+.
You've probably heard me bring up the fact that I had not yet seen the movie, even though, yes, I'm in Ladyballers.
But lo and behold, after weeks of my pleas falling on deaf ears, the powers that be at The Daily Wire finally decided it was time for me to see the movie, along with everybody else.
They even rolled out a massive red carpet premiere last night.
Which I can only assume was done exclusively for me.
Even though walking on a red carpet and taking pictures is like my nightmare, so... But, anyway.
So after all this time, waiting to see myself on Lady Ballers, I took very valuable time out of my schedule to give my fans an accurate, unbiased review of my performance.
The first question everybody's mind, am I the star of Lady Ballers?
Short answer is, yes.
I am basically the star.
I'm the main attraction.
Long answer is, absolutely.
Yes, again.
To say that my performance is a masterclass in acting might really be an understatement.
The authenticity that I brought to this incredibly complex character, I mean, it'll leave you speechless when you see it.
In all honesty, I barely recognize myself on screen due to my chameleon-like acting abilities, my very method approach to the art of acting.
Will I be getting an Academy Award?
Most likely not.
Should I be?
Well, see for yourself tomorrow night.
The movie that Hollywood wouldn't make so we did.
It's Lady Ballers premieres tomorrow night at 8 p.m.
Eastern exclusively on Daily Wire+.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Well, I've got a holiday gift idea that's sure to make you the hero of the season.
of the season.
Now, we all know that the holidays can be a bit hectic.
The shopping, cooking, the never-ending list of things to do.
But fear not, because I've discovered a gift that's not just thoughtful, it's downright transformative.
It's the gift of GenuCell skincare.
From now until Christmas, GenuCell's most popular package has a special discount just for my listeners at GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
Treat yourself and your loved ones to the absolute best skin care in the world.
Those troubling forehead wrinkles, fine lines, skin redness, and yes, even a sagging jawline will disappear right before your eyes with GenuCell's most popular collection.
GenuCell promises immediate effects.
You'll see results in less than 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
GenuCell sent out a ton of products for the entire office.
I can't even put into words how much better their faces look
because of GenuCell.
Everyone now disgusts me a little bit less.
It's like a early Christmas present for me.
And you also deserve to look and feel your best this holiday season.
So go to genucell.com/walsh to get this incredible holiday discount.
Every order today is instantly upgraded to free express shipping.
That's genucell.com/walsh today.
Today for our daily cancellation, we turn to "The New Yorker"
and its recent write-up of two books that both, quote, "Consider the ethics of procreation
in the age of man-made climate change."
Now, the title of the article puts it in even more dramatic terms, quote, the morality of having kids in a burning, drowning world.
The question of how you can burn and drown at the same time is never answered.
Instead, what follows is a long meditation of the ethical quandaries of choosing to have children in a world that is supposedly hurtling towards ecological Armageddon.
The writer of the article, Jessica Winter, begins by Recounting the time when she read a newspaper article with a, quote, an apocalyptic 50-year climate forecast and resolved in that moment to never have any kids of her own.
But she soon confesses that she did end up having kids, two of them, who are now nine and six.
And she now seems to be plagued with doubt and guilt because of her choice to have kids, a decision that she insists is ethically complex.
She tells us about the two recent books revolving around this question.
One of them is called The Quickening, and it was written by a journalist who spent some time with scientists in Antarctica.
And she reports that the ice in Antarctica is melting, and we're all going to die soon, or something.
Reading from the article, quote, Antarctica is nature's egg timer, poised to tell us when we're fully cooked.
But for Rush, the author, the continent presented a different kind of threshold, a prologue to a personal transformation.
Quote, the year I go to Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica is also the year that I decided to try to grow a human being inside of my body, she writes, in the quickening.
The central paradox of the quickening is the private urge toward the creation of human life coexisting with intimations of its imminent destruction.
Quote, should I have a child, their greenhouse gas emissions will cause roughly 50 square meters of sea ice to melt every year that they're alive, Rush writes.
Just by existing, they will make the world a little less livable for everyone, themselves included.
Now, the idea of making your own life less livable by living in the first place is, of course, totally nonsensical.
But there isn't a lot of time to reflect on that bit of nonsense.
The article continues, quote, The author draws an implicit parallel between putting off having children and humankind's delayed reckoning with climate change.
All at once, she writes, I seem to have discovered myself sitting almost at the limit of a thing, wondering how much longer I had to act.
She juxtaposes the shattering of the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica and the bodily wreckage of childbirth.
Now, admittedly, this is something that you hear from women all the time.
I can't tell you how many times my wife, during her four pregnancies, said to me, you know, man, I feel just like the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica.
This is something women say all the time.
Now we go from there, we get more reflections on the moral complications of having children.
"Having a child is at once the most intimate, irrational thing a person can do,
prompted by desires so deep we hardly know where to look for their wellsprings,
in an unavoidably political act."
According to Meehan Christ, who wrote in the London Review of Books in 2020,
that essay, "Is it OK to have a child?"
The title paraphrases a question posed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a congresswoman from New York, in an Instagram livestream, is the lodestar of a growing body of commentary.
That debates the morality and ethics of procreation in this burning, drowning world.
Quote, it seems increasingly clear, Chris continues, that we are living in a time of radical destabilization of life on earth which complicates the act of bearing children in ways that society has yet to grapple with.
Activists have attempted equally radical responses to the moment.
The women of the short-lived Birthstrike movement, which garnered attention at the end of the 2010s, renounced having children on account of the ecological emergency, although their message was often misconstrued as a Malthusian appeal for population control.
Now, we're then told about the plummeting birth rates across the Western world, although the writer says that it's unclear, all in all, precisely how much correlation exists between rising awareness of the environmental crisis and steady declines in the U.S.
birth rate, which dropped for six consecutive years through 2020, reaching a historic low.
This is a question taken up by the other book, The Parenthood Dilemma, in which the author, quote, portrays her own ambivalence towards becoming a mother and the ambivalence among millennial and Gen Z women, more generally, as the result of a complex and extremely familiar interplay of factors.
Now, one of the major factors for the author, Gina Rushton, is climate anxiety, although there are other concerns that have led her to be, quote-unquote, child-free, including the, quote, persistent imbalance and division of domestic and emotional labor in heterosexual partnerships.
Now, by the end of the article, we're not given any final, clear verdict on whether we should have kids or not.
I read all the way to the end, eagerly hoping that I would find out for sure whether I should feel wracked by guilt for having six kids and perhaps single-handedly melting what remains of the Thwaites Glacier, whatever that is.
Instead, we're left with uncertainty and doubt and a lot of ruminating about the complexities and nuances of producing our own little carbon dioxide machines.
It's a very complicated question, we're told.
Very difficult to discern.
Who can say for sure whether we should have kids or whether we should stop having them and voluntarily embrace the extinction of our own species?
Well, maybe New Yorker writers and feminist authors can't say for sure, aren't able to answer that question, but I can.
And the answer is that we should have kids, and we should have lots of them.
I don't think we need to spend a lot of time here pointing out how climate alarmists have been prophesying the apocalypse for decades, and yet every forecasted doomsday has failed to materialize.
What they're claiming about the climate is not fundamentally true.
Whether global temperatures are going up or staying the same or going down, it doesn't matter.
We are not heading towards the apocalypse.
The world is not ending anytime soon.
Or, I mean, I guess I can't say that for sure.
Who knows when it's going to end.
If it does, it likely won't be because you drive an SUV to work.
The world will end when it ends.
And there probably isn't anything you can do, one way or another, about that fact.
What should concern you more, what you should spend more time thinking about, is that your world, you yourself, will definitely come to an end in a relatively short amount of time.
The Earth and the human species will most likely still exist 100 years from now, but you will not.
And that's something you should consider.
And as I've argued in the past, I think paradoxically that people focus on the climate apocalypse because they don't want to think about their own personal death.
They're taking the anxiety over their own mortality and kind of funneling it into this broader concern about the fate of the planet, and then they start advocating for policies and laws and various political and economic solutions that might prevent this apocalypse.
And they do that because there's no political solution to your own mortality, and that's what makes it scary to think about.
But there are political solutions to the climate apocalypse that they've invented in their heads, which is why they prefer to think about that instead.
But this is all somewhat beside the point, because no matter what's happening with the planet, we should still have kids either way.
And it's not a complicated question.
The other option as an alternative to procreation is extinction.
If we did all make the ethical choice to not have kids, that would be the end of all things.
It would be the death of humanity itself.
We will have allegedly saved the planet by removing the reason that the planet exists.
Because what makes this planet special, makes it unique in our entire solar system, is that it is host to advanced, rational, self-aware creatures who are capable of creating civilization.
The planet has value because we value it.
We cannot preserve that value by getting rid of the people who give it value.
And more than that, having kids is what we're made to do.
You know, it's always funny to me that the people who are always trying to quote-unquote problematize procreation, these are almost always liberal atheists.
And yet, from an atheistic perspective, we are nothing but Darwinian biological machines And in that case, literally our sole purpose on Earth is to procreate.
That's the only reason we exist.
If you are an atheist and you decline having kids, then you have rejected the only reason that you exist on the planet.
So your life is now quite literally pointless by your own view of things.
It is only on a theistic view of life that you can find deeper purpose beyond the propagation of the species.
And yet, on that view, the correct view, still one of our deepest and most central duties as people is to bring up the next generation.
Be fruitful and multiply is the first command given in the Bible for a reason.
Which means that either way, no matter how you slice it, the idea that we shouldn't have kids is not only wrong, but it is so absurd as to be basically incoherent.
It's like saying that a tree has a responsibility to not grow, or a bird is duty-bound to not fly.
That's what they're made to do.
And of course they should do what they are made to do.
That's not even a question.
Certainly it's not a useful or worthwhile question.
So yes, go have kids.
Add more human life to the planet.
Eventually you'll die and your kids will die.
Probably very long after that, the planet will die.
That's the way of human existence.
Which should not be seen as an argument against human existence.
Which should be pretty obvious.
And that's why really anyone worried about the morality of having kids in a burning, drowning world is today cancelled.
