Ep. 1277 - Hell No, We Will Not End The Bud Light Boycott
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a sudden push by some prominent voices on the Right to end the Bud Light boycott and support the company again. I think this would be a massive mistake. I'll explain today why the Bud Light boycott needs to remain in place. Also, a satanic altar has been set up inside the Iowa statehouse. What the hell is going on there? And a controversial abortion case in Texas has Ann Coulter siding with the Left. What the hell is going on with that?
Ep.1277
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the NEW series End of the World: https://bit.ly/485EYqm
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get a FREE Moto-G 5G phone when you switch to PureTalk at https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
Genucel - Limited Time Holiday Sale! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, there's a sudden push by some prominent voices on the right to end the Bud Light boycott and support the company again.
I think this would be a massive mistake.
I'll explain today why the Bud Light boycott needs to remain in place.
Also, a satanic altar has been set up inside the Iowa Statehouse.
What the hell's going on there?
And a controversial abortion case in Texas has Ann Coulter siding with the left.
What the hell's going on with that?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
The Real Talk has you covered for the holidays with a free Moto G 5G phone.
No gimmicks, no trading necessary.
Just sign up for Pure Talk's unlimited talk, unlimited text, and 15 gig data.
You can get all this for $35 and you get the Moto G 5G phone for free.
But here's the deal.
You need to move fast because these phones are almost gone.
So if your current phone is on life support, upgrade for free with PureTalk.
The new Moto G 5G phone boasts a two-day battery life, an exceptional quad-pixel camera, and a whole lot more.
PureTalk gives you America's most dependable 5G network at half the price.
So make the switch today.
It's an easy choice to make.
Just go to puretalk.com to get this exclusive offer and select the plan that's right for your family.
Remember, Pure Talk gives you America's most dependable 5G network at half the price.
So make the switch today.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh to claim your free Moto G 5G phone with a qualifying plan.
Pure Talk, simply smarter wireless.
Well, if you're on the right, then you know that the phrase, this is why we lose, has become something of a cliche these days.
Anytime anyone on our side does anything we don't like, we're bound to declare, this is why we lose, as if that person is now a symbol for America's cultural decline.
And in many cases, the this is why we lose charge can be off base, or at least overwrought and overstated.
But not always.
And so today, we begin with an actual case of this is why we lose.
So over the past few days there has been, seemingly out of nowhere, a full court press by some on the right to rehabilitate Bud Light and to convince conservatives to drop the boycott of the company.
Now, we know that some notable figures on this side of the aisle were never on board with the boycott in the first place.
Famously, Donald Trump Jr.
defended the beer maker from the very beginning, saying that Bud Light is on our side, despite appearances, and we shouldn't punish them for their brief foray into trans propaganda.
But Trump Jr.
and others in that orbit were alone, originally, in their pro-Bud Light stance, at least for many months, until just now.
This week, both UFC President Dana White and Kid Rock have both appeared in interviews with Tucker Carlson to declare that they have renewed support for Bud Light.
And some other prominent voices, like Tim Pool, have come out to defend that position.
Now, in fairness to those guys, we're going to go through these clips one by one so that you can hear their arguments for yourself before I explain why they're totally wrong.
But first, here's Dana White.
If you consider yourself a patriot, right?
You're a patriot.
You should be drinking gallons of Bud Light.
Believe me when I tell you.
Wait, wait, wait.
I should be boycotting Bud Light.
Gallons of Bud Light.
You should have Bud Light drums stacked up in your garage and drinking it right out of the keg.
They are way more aligned with you than most of these other beer companies are.
That I guarantee you.
Take it from somebody who's in the know, who does business with beer companies, you are way more aligned with Bud Light than you are with any other beer company.
So I'm assuming, I mean, they didn't come into partnership with you by accident?
No.
Obviously.
We had multiple bidders on the table.
Did they seek you out?
We had multiple bidders on the table.
They were one of them.
And as I, you know, history has shown me with relationships that I've had with other beer companies, I, who lean more this way.
Yep.
I, who consider myself a patriot.
I don't go crazy over the whole patriot thing, but I consider myself a proud American.
I'm happy to be an American.
I love this country and you are way more aligned with Anheuser-Busch than you are with other beer companies.
Now, I'll have plenty to say about the thrust of Dana's arguments after we play all the clips, but I do want to point out one thing right away.
Bud Light is a brand owned by a foreign conglomerate.
So, putting everything else aside, it's very hard to make the case that it's patriotic to support a foreign company.
Now, I'm not saying that we can't support foreign-owned brands.
After all, that's most brands.
I'm just saying that it's hard to cast your support for a Belgian multinational corporation as patriotic.
But we'll get back to Dana's point in a moment.
First, here's Kid Rock, also with Tucker, a day later, agreeing with Dana and echoing a lot of the same sentiments.
Watch.
I think it could be.
I think they got some work still to get, you know, some of that base that they lost, I think, to get them back.
Like, you know, I've said a few times I'd love to see them get triple fratty in the rubber band.
Hit it head-on, kind of make light of the situation, self-deprecation, you know, but Um, you know, at the end of the day, when you step back and look at it, like, yeah, they deserved a black eye and they got one.
They made a mistake.
How did you know you moved so fast on that?
I mean, a lot of things going on.
It was like a lot of people just pissed me off.
I was, and I kept, you know, I keep a lot of beer on the property, a lot of light beer.
Bud Light was one of them.
And, uh, I was like, I know who my consumers are.
So I was just doing a little marketing to my folks.
You know, it was spot on for me, but also a fun excuse to get my machine gun out and have some fun, but also to make a statement like, hey, a lot of us aren't cool with this.
You know, I believe a lot of people fought and died for people's right to be whoever they want.
But when you're that type of brand, you know who your consumers are?
You know how this kind of started, I think?
I thought about it.
So they moved part of their corporate offices from St.
Louis to New York City.
Yeah, they did.
Okay.
Then they start hiring these Ivy League progressive, you know, people to work for them who don't know s*** about working class people or middle America in this country.
Unhappy women, yeah.
And so somebody wasn't watching the hen house, they're riding high and mighty as number one and a fox gets in.
Yes, it was a mistake.
So, do I want to hold their head underwater and drown them because they made a mistake?
No, I think they got the message.
Like, hopefully other companies get it too.
But, you know, at the end of the day, I don't think the punishment that they've been getting at this point fits the crime.
It's like, I would like to see people Get us back on board and become bigger, because that's the America I want to live in.
Now, many people, myself certainly included, have found that Kid Rock's reasoning here is less than compelling.
But Tim Pool thinks that we're all missing the point.
And here's the way that he sees it.
Listen.
We find ourselves at a crossroads.
Do we lament Kid Rock and Dana White in their support for Bud Light?
I mean, Kid Rock coming out and saying this, he's effectively ending the boycott.
At least as it pertains to him, not to you.
And my position, we talked about this a great deal yesterday, is that we should take a PR victory, declare victory, and that's it.
We won.
But there are many people who are calling for the destruction of Bud Light as a brand.
They say, never again.
Others say, I will drink a Bud Light, but only when they apologize.
Now, my argument, I would say, is substantially more tactful and less emotionally satisfying.
But I agree with Kid Brock, and I agree with Dana White, but more importantly, I agree with Sean Strickland.
The big move came when Dana White accepted a massive sponsorship deal from Bud Light to the tune of $105 million.
Many of us were very upset about this.
We said, why are you accepting money from this company that got woke, went broke, and continues to sponsor Pride events?
Well of course, Dana White said, you know, we're gonna take the money, it's the best deal ever, blah blah blah.
Sean Strickland, MMA champion said, Bud Light is now sponsoring everything I say.
And then he went off to say a whole bunch of anti-woke things.
I like it.
I think he's right.
At first, I thought he was wrong.
I thought these people were all selling out.
But then I listened to what Sean had to say, and I realized he flipped the script.
He inverted the narrative on Bud Light, and Bud Light has not condemned him.
And that is, my friends, a tremendous victory.
Okay, now before I explain why this is all horribly wrong, let me begin by stipulating that I like all these guys.
I like Dana White, Kid Rock.
Tim Pool's show is great.
I like him personally.
I'm obviously a huge fan and supporter of Tucker Carlson.
I think he's one of the most important voices in the country right now.
But the Bud Light boycott is still on.
And let me explain why.
Bud Light, the foreign-owned brand, Tried to push trans ideology.
It spat in the face of its own customers.
And for once in our lives, for once ever, in modern American history, conservatives fought back in an organized, competent, effective way.
We organized a boycott.
We stuck with it.
We actually made the woke company feel the pain.
We imposed our will in a way that conservatives have never been able to do ever.
The Bud Light boycott is by far, and it's not close, the most effective conservative boycott of a major company ever, of all time.
There isn't even a close second.
What's second place?
There isn't a second place.
In fact, I think it's fair to say that it's not just the most effective, but actually the only successful boycott we have ever staged.
So, we'd have to have a very compelling strategic reason to end this one single successful boycott campaign ever.
We would have to have extracted some kind of major concession.
But what concession have they made?
They gave Dana White $100 million.
So what?
That's not a concession.
That's not an apology.
That's a marketing ploy.
Are we going to end the Bud Light boycott and start giving them our money because we like their new marketing plan?
That would not be us ending a boycott victoriously.
That would be a retreat.
It would be the very definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Something that the right does very often, but never as egregiously empathetic as this.
And by the way, if they gave $100 million to some kind of detrans fund, that would be one thing.
But why would giving $100 million to Dana White, why would we consider that to be sufficient?
Oh, you push trans ideology, and we're mad at you for that.
But you gave $100 million to the guy who owns the UFC, so therefore, it's okay.
What?
What's even the connection?
Dana White is not a victim of trans ideology.
He's not affected by it.
If you give $100 million to the actual victims of this insidious, insane, depraved ideology that you were pushing, give them $100 million, then I would say, yeah, okay, that's an apology.
A big one.
Giving it to UFC?
Who gives a damn?
Why would that matter to us?
Why would we find that to be an acceptable substitute?
Now, I do agree that any boycott campaign, you know, with any boycott campaign, you need to give companies an out.
You have to give them a way to get back into your good graces.
The whole point of a boycott is that you're withholding support in order to extract some kind of concession.
So at least in theory, there should be like something that they can do that would make you not mad anymore.
And if you get the concession, then you win.
And if you don't get the concession, and the company is just destroyed, then you win that way too.
And so far, we're winning the second way.
Bud Light betrayed its customers.
It has not conceded defeat.
It has not apologized at all.
And so at this point, the entire company is basically in shambles.
So be it.
What can Bud Light do to get out of this?
What is their out?
Well, they would need to apologize for pushing transgenderism.
They would need to apologize specifically and explicitly.
They would need to grovel at our feet in humiliating fashion and disavow gender ideology entirely.
They would need to say, we are sorry for pushing trans ideology.
We shouldn't have done it.
It's a terrible thing.
Please forgive us.
That's what they would have to do.
They have not done that.
They refuse to do that.
Instead, they're hoping that they can simply change the subject.
But a change of subject is not a concession.
It's not an apology.
It's a trick, a gimmick, a diversion tactic.
If we fall for it, then we deserve to lose.
We deserve everything that's coming.
Here's the point.
If you're boycotting a company and demanding some kind of concession, and you don't get the concession, And then you back down anyway?
You lose.
You have taken your victory and traded it in in exchange for a defeat.
You have said, no thanks, I'd rather not win.
I'll take a loss instead.
That's what it would be to start supporting Bud Light now.
They haven't apologized.
They haven't conceded.
So screw them.
Let them wither and die.
Let their brand destroy itself.
Let it burn.
I don't care.
What, are we feeling sorry for them?
Oh, but I feel so bad for that poor multinational foreign conglomerate.
No, I don't.
They get what they've chosen.
It's what they've chosen, it's what they get.
Unless we decide to bail them out because we don't have the stomach to fight the culture war like wars need to be fought.
You know, this is part of the pitch from guys like Dana White and Kid Rock.
Seems to be a call for some sort of weird sort of mercy.
And I've even seen some on the right arguing that we're called as Christians to forgive Bud Light for their transgressions.
And yes, that's an actual argument I've seen from more than one person.
But fighting back against culture rot, fighting back against the people who are deliberately injecting perversion and moral insanity into our culture, fighting against the corporate overlords, Behind all of this?
Okay, that's not a time for mercy.
These are not homeless, starving people on the street who need a helping hand.
They are mega-billion-dollar corporations who are selling degeneracy for profit.
And if you manage to get your foot on one of their necks, you keep it there.
You have no mercy until they grovel and beg and do exactly what you demand that they do.
Just like the left.
That's how the left responds in situations like this.
And again, if we are not willing to do that, if we are not willing to be ruthless, if we will allow ourselves to be paid off, then there's no hope.
I mean, we'll never win this war.
And we won't deserve to win it anyway.
Keep in mind that the significance of the Bud Light boycott and the whole strategy behind it Is that we have made this company into a cautionary tale.
You know, the whole point was to put its head on a spike on the edge of town as a warning to others.
It's a trophy for the mantle.
We want to show corporate America that this is what we will do.
This is what we are capable of doing and willing to do if you spit in our face the way that Bud Light did.
But if we just put a dent in their sales for a couple of quarters, get no apology or concession at all, then go back to supporting them?
We'll have taken their head off of the spike and put our own on it instead.
Because we will have sent a very different kind of message to corporate America.
We will have shown them that we're not willing to go for the kill shot.
That ultimately we'll always come crawling back pathetically with our tails between our legs.
That ultimately all we care about is, more than anything, is being consumers and we'll always be loyal You know, trained puppies as consumers will always come back.
Will always come back to the feeding bowl.
But you know, what's happening now is even worse.
Because this is not just an effort to end the Bud Light boycott, this is an effort to actively rehabilitate their brand for them.
Because the truth is that, you know, the boycott, this is not really even a boycott anymore.
It's worse than that for Bud Light.
The problem has metastasized.
We didn't just boycott the company, we rebranded it.
So the brand itself now is seen as lame, effeminate, embarrassing.
Even people who don't care about the boycott or are only dimly aware of it, even they avoid drinking Bud Light just because they don't want to get made fun of by their friends.
That's why Bud Light is in such a dire situation.
So even if we officially ended the boycott, it wouldn't necessarily matter because the brand is lame now.
Customers don't want to be associated with it.
Which means that to really end the boycott, we would have to revitalize and repair Bud Light's brand for them.
Which is what the Dana Whites and Kid Rocks of the world seem to be trying to do.
So this is like declaring victory in a war, accepting your enemy's surrender, and then proceeding to give them back all the land you gained.
You're not just ending the war in that case.
You are actively forfeiting your own gains.
You aren't just letting your enemy bow out.
You're helping them repair the damage they caused themselves.
Why would we do that?
Why should we?
What do we gain?
I know UFC gains $100 million.
Good for them.
But what about the rest of us?
What about the movement?
What about the culture?
What do we get out of this mercy?
All the conservatives I see online, and there's plenty of them, who are saying, oh no, they gave $100 million to UFC.
What the hell do you get out of that?
What does your family get out of it?
What about your children?
That's what this is really about, isn't it?
The people that are pushing this insanity onto a culture that our children have to live in?
Does that become better now because UFC got some money?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Have some self-respect!
And on top of it all, you know what?
It has to be said, Bud Light sucks anyway.
It's a bad product.
It tastes like stale rainwater scooped out of a murky puddle on the pavement.
This is not just the most effective conservative boycott in history, it's also the easiest.
Because nobody with functioning taste buds has any desire to drink that sludge anyway.
So, that's what it comes down to.
We can do what is effective, what is right.
And also what is, at the very same time, easy?
Which is to not drink this s***.
Or we can go out of our way to kneecap ourselves and turn an easy victory into a laborious, cumbersome defeat.
Those are your options.
And really, you should not have any trouble making the right choice here.
here. Now let's get to our five headlines. Of course the October 15th tax deadline has long since come and gone.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process to say the least, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on your tax debt, and that's why you need to 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 a $10,000 or a $1,000,000 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 towards resolving your tax issues by visiting TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh today.
The Daily Mail has this report.
The Satanic Temple has set up a display of a sparkling demonic ram's head in the Iowa Statehouse as an expression of religious freedom.
Alongside more traditional menorahs and Christmas trees, the group has erected an altar topped with candles, a large banner, and a ram figure with a skull covered in mirrors, a red cloak, and a wreath.
The temple reportedly went through all the correct administrative channels for the display and only had their original request to use a real goat skull denied.
So there was no attempt to turn them down or anything like that or to fight over this.
They were just given exactly what they wanted.
Aside from putting, you know, the carcass of an actual animal in the state house, but everything else they got.
Founder of the Satanic Temple, Lucian Graves, told KCCI, we're going to really relish the opportunity to be represented in a public forum.
We don't have a church on every street corner.
This display will be up for 14 days and is protected under the First Amendment.
Supposedly, but not everyone is pleased with it.
Iowa resident Shelly Flockhart is extremely concerned, organized a group prayer near the display on Wednesday.
She told KCCI, I hope that people realize spiritual warfare is real, that there are evil satanic forces that are trying to infiltrate our state.
She said Christians must spiritually fight against it and added, it's a very dark evil force and I truly hope people know how to battle that.
So, That's what's happening in Iowa.
Iowa's Governor Kim Reynolds is not happy about this and she's spoken out about it.
Let's watch.
Governor Kim Reynolds is denouncing a satanic holiday display at the statehouse.
The Iowa Atheist and Free Thinkers Group and the Satanic Temple set up the display.
It says that all religions should be represented in a public forum.
But Reynolds said in a statement this morning she finds this display objectionable.
She says the best way to respond is to pray over the Capitol and to recognize the nativity scene on a display there instead.
Now, I think there are other ways to respond.
We'll get to that in a second.
Yesterday, in sort of an interesting detail here, during a town hall, Ron DeSantis was asked about this, and he said that some of this traces back to the Trump administration.
Let's listen.
So it's interesting.
I heard this and then I was like, well, how did it get there?
Is that even a religion?
And lo and behold, the Trump administration gave them approval to be under the IRS as a religion.
So that gave them the legal ability to potentially do it.
So I don't know what the legislature, how they analyzed it, but it very well may be because of that ruling under Donald Trump.
That they may have had a legal leg to stand on.
My view would be that's not a religion that the Founding Fathers were trying to create.
But I do think that IRS ruling, I was really surprised to see that they did that.
Okay, obviously this is a disgrace.
Just, I mean, obviously it should not be allowed.
You simply don't allow satanists to set up a satanic altar inside your state capitol building.
I mean, that's the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be said.
And I don't give a damn what argument you make.
I don't care about whatever right you're trying to supposedly claim.
Oh, but we have a right to.
I don't care if you think that.
Like, that should be the response.
When they go through the administrative channels and say, we have a right to do this.
I don't care what you think your rights are.
It's not happening.
You just don't do it.
And let them take you to court?
Take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
But you don't just do it.
You don't just do it without putting up a fight.
And that's what happened here.
There was no fight.
The only fight was, okay, you can't put an actual goat skull, but everything else is fine.
Now, consider a few things here, a few points in no particular order.
First, it should go without saying, what Ron DeSantis said there is correct, obviously the founding fathers Would have never tolerated this.
They obviously never intended to give Satanists the right to set up satanic temples inside government buildings.
And anyone who tells you otherwise is a moron or a liar or both.
Probably both.
Not only would they not have tolerated this, but they would have arrested anyone who even attempted to do something like this.
Okay, so they were not the live and let live hippies that they're made out to be for the most part.
Second, Satanism is not a valid religion in the theological sense of the term.
Okay?
It's an anti-religion.
I mean, it's designed to be the opposite of a religion.
And for most of these self-professed Satanists, it's meant to be nothing more than a troll of religion.
Like, they don't even consider themselves to be worshipping Satan, really, and they'll be the first to tell you that.
They are worshipping Satan, even though they don't consciously think they are.
But they'll be the first to tell you that that's not what they're actually doing.
They don't think.
It is a mockery of religion.
The whole thing, all of it, is set up to be, and not just of religion, by the way, but of Christianity specifically.
The whole thing is set up to be kind of the inverse of Christianity.
It is a parody, a mockery of Christianity.
Okay, so Satanism is not like some other world religion.
It's not like Hinduism or something.
Satanism is a mockery of Christianity specifically.
It is not a valid religion unto itself.
And third, it's interesting that atheists are behind this.
You know, atheist groups are the ones who have pushed this.
And atheists are on extremely shaky ground here, really non-existent ground.
Because they're claiming that Satanists have the right to set up, you know, the satanic altar in the Capitol.
But, I mean, what is a right?
Where do rights come from?
I'm always harping on this point, because it's an important point, and it's a question that's never answered in these conversations.
But if somebody is saying, oh, I have the right to do that.
Says who?
What do you mean you have the right to do it?
Who says you have the right to do it?
What do you mean you have the right to do it?
And what if the government just said, what if Iowa just said, no, you can't.
You don't have that right.
We don't recognize it.
Because, you know, there are only two possibilities.
Rights are things that are invented arbitrarily by people, or they are, as the Founders believed, endowed by a higher power, by the Creator, by God.
It's one or the other.
But if rights are endowed by God, then we have to ask whether God endowed us also with the right to practice Satanism in government buildings.
Does anybody want to step up and say we have a God-given, endowed right to practice Satanism, you know, inside the state capitol?
That's going to be a very difficult case to make.
But that, of course, is not even the case that atheists would make.
They can't talk about God-given rights.
So they would say that rights are human inventions, that they're arbitrary human constructs.
They don't have any real reality.
They're just ideas that we came up with.
There's no fundamental innate reality of a human right.
It's a concept.
It's a system that we have invented.
Well, if that's the case, then you wouldn't be able to complain if Iowa had simply said, no, you don't have the right to set that up here.
Because if government decides your rights, and then if the government says you don't have that particular right, it's incoherent to insist that you do, because insisting that you do is to appeal to a power higher than the government.
But on the atheist view, there is no power higher than the government.
They're the ones who decide this.
And so if they say you don't have that right, then you don't.
It's idiot.
It doesn't exist.
So then your argument would be, you know, then if the government is saying you don't have a certain right, It's totally incoherent for you to say, oh, but I really do have that right, and you should recognize it.
Instead, what you would be saying is, I should have that right.
You'd be saying, you're right, I don't have that right, because rights are arbitrary human constructs invented by the government on my worldview because I'm an atheist, because rights can't be anything but that.
So I don't have that right, but I should.
That's a right that we should invent for me.
But that's not what the Satanists and the Atheists are arguing, because they recognize that's a much weaker argument.
I mean, you say, yeah, I don't have it, but I should.
Because then everyone could say, no, you shouldn't.
I mean, or maybe you think you should, but we don't care.
And finally, to return to a theme from yesterday, and really from every other day on this show, you know, as conservatives, we do not have to tolerate Everything, okay, may come as a shock.
But we don't have to tolerate everything.
In fact, we shouldn't.
In fact, our whole thing is supposed to be that we don't.
Because we're in the business of conserving.
Conserving what?
The right to practice Satanism?
The right to turn state houses into satanic temples?
Is that what we're trying to conserve?
No, we're conserving God-given rights.
We're conserving truth, sanity, common sense, tradition.
And this flies in the face of all of that.
Which is why we should say no.
And we can say no.
Conservatives have to get finally past this juvenile, adolescent, libertarian thing.
This live and let live, well, we can't tell people what to do, you know, just do, you do your thing and I do my thing, let's not bother each other, we'll stay out of each other's way.
We gotta get past that.
That childish, half-baked way of viewing the world, we gotta get over it.
And that means that in situations like this, you can do what you know is the right thing, Like anyone who looks at a satanic temple being set up in a state, like anyone looks at that and is like, that doesn't seem right.
Okay, that just doesn't seem, that does not seem, it doesn't seem like that should be happening.
That's common sense, that's just a basic moral intuition.
We all know that that shouldn't be happening.
But conservatives for so long have convinced themselves that they have to defy their own moral intuition For the sake of liberty or whatever.
But that is based on a very mistaken, very, as I said, juvenile, sort of childish idea of what liberty is.
And the juvenile, childish idea of liberty is that liberty means everyone can just do what they want.
which is like what your teenager might think freedom is.
So, I think that's the most important thing.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Some of the Founding Fathers thought that freedom is.
All right.
Speaking of things you shouldn't be afraid to do, I want to move to this story.
And here's another case where I'm going to be disagreeing with someone that I otherwise appreciate and like and agree with.
So we're on a roll today.
Ann Coulter.
I'm a big Ann Coulter fan.
She's one of the greats.
She's brilliant, I think.
She's also very wrong about something.
And before we get to what she said, let's set this story up.
This is from the Daily Wire.
A woman who denied an abortion, who was denied an abortion in Texas for her unborn baby with a fetal anomaly, has left the state to obtain an abortion elsewhere, her attorney said on Monday.
The Texas Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Kate Cox, 31, saying that a lower court was wrong to rule that she was entitled to a medical exception for abortion.
By then, though, Cox had already left Texas.
After a week of legal whiplash and threats of persecution from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Kate Cox has been forced to leave Texas to get health care outside of the state, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox.
Cox's legal team had argued that the baby has a fatal condition and that continuing the pregnancy threatens Cox's future fertility.
Cox, who has two other children, was more than 20 weeks pregnant with a baby who had a condition called trisomy 18, which involves having an extra chromosome 18 and can cause abnormalities like heart defects.
About 95% of these pregnancies result in a miscarriage.
However, some babies do survive past birth and can live into their toddler years, teen years, or even longer.
A woman believed to be one of the oldest people with the condition lived to 40.
And Texas denied this request for this exemption, and then she went to another state.
Now, so that's the story.
Here's what Ann Coulter said about this, and she was trending yesterday for saying this.
She tweeted in response to this story yesterday, quote, the pro-life movement has gone from compassion for the child to cruelty to the mother and child.
Trisomy 18 is not a condition that is compatible with life.
Okay, so Anne is very wrong here on a few levels.
And first of all, she should know that pro-lifers are never motivated by cruelty to mothers, okay?
Even if you disagree with some of our conclusions on these issues, obviously we aren't looking to be cruel to mothers.
It's the abortion industry that exploits mothers, charges them hundreds of dollars to kill their children, consigns them to a lifetime of regret and guilt.
Okay, that's cruelty.
And does all this, again, simply for profit?
That's one thing you notice about the pro-life movement that, yeah, there are a few people that are in the pro-life movement sort of professionally.
In any movement, you have people that this is their calling, this is their lives.
But this is not a profitable business, okay?
There's not money to be made in being a pro-lifer.
The abortion industry is a billion dollar industry.
And so it is always logical to say that at least a big part of their motivation is that they make a lot of money on this.
It's not like that for pro-lifers.
So anytime, that's why it never makes any sense when people are looking for like sinister motivations behind the pro-life movement.
What the hell do you think we get out of this?
We don't profit off of this.
We don't get anything out of it.
Even people, yeah, I mean, you've got crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy resource centers, that, but do you think that the people that work there are raking in the dough?
Do you think they're making millions of dollars, you know, living in seven-bedroom houses and stuff?
No, these are people that, like, they rely on fundraising banquets once a year to even keep the lights on.
So, the pro-life movement, it is motivated entirely by love for the mother and child.
And by a moral sense of what is right and wrong.
There is no, like, other cynical... What even would be the sort of cynical grift here?
Because no one is benefiting from it.
You know, from a material perspective.
It's not like that with the abortion industry.
So that's the first point.
Second, this condition, as mentioned in the article, is not always incompatible with life.
Babies can live for days, they can live for months, years, even decades in some cases.
Now, that is rare.
And the prospects of a long life are tragically small, but not nonexistent.
So, if you abort a child with this condition, you are killing him.
You're directly killing him on the assumption that he's going to die anyway.
And that assumption could be false.
It also, when you look at it another way, is incoherent.
Because when you look at it another way, the assumption is self-evidently always correct.
I mean, everyone is going to die.
And I don't say that to be dismissive of the severity of this disorder.
I say it because it's true.
Any child can die young.
Everyone is going to die.
You know, all of our children.
It's a tragic fact of reality that life is fleeting.
And your children will experience the pain and suffering of death, both their own and those closest to them.
Everybody has a comparatively short life, so if you start justifying murder based on the fact that someone is going to supposedly die anyway, you've opened up Pandora's box and you've set a precedent that justifies really any murder of anyone.
And that's not some far-flung, slippery slope hypothetical.
That's where this leads.
It's already led there.
When you start saying, okay, we can directly kill people if we know they're going to die anyway.
We see this on the other end of the spectrum with euthanasia.
And it starts with the really hard, terrible cases, people terminally ill, people that are going to die within the week or in the next few months anyway.
And it starts there.
And you always have some people that are like, I don't really feel good about this, but they're going to die anyway.
It never stops there.
We're seeing this right now.
It never ends there.
And then, because pretty soon it goes from there to Well, this person might not die in the next few months, but they might have an illness that might kill them in five years.
Then you go from there and you say, well, they may not die in the next five years, but they're dealing with something where they're suffering greatly and they're very uncomfortable.
And so they should also be eligible for this.
And then you go from there to say, well, they may not be suffering physically, but they're suffering emotionally and mentally.
And so they should be eligible to be killed and put down like dogs.
And then once you're there, you're at the point where, okay, so that's just everybody.
Like, everybody is suffering.
So, so... The floodgates are open entirely at that point.
The only way to get around any of this, really, when it comes to this issue, is by arguing that the child in the womb is not a human person.
But, but he is.
That'd be the one way to get around it, is to say, yeah, killing a person because they're going to die anyway is obviously wrong, but the child in the womb is not a person.
But if you're pro-life at all, then you know that that's not true.
And if you believe that children in the womb are people, then your position, even on these hard cases, must follow logically from that premise.
And so we have a very logical position.
You know, why would this be necessarily any different?
Like, there are born infant children and toddlers who sadly and tragically and unfathomably are diagnosed with terminal illnesses that are probably going to kill them pretty soon.
You know, that happens every day in this country.
It's a terrible tragedy.
And yet, I'm going to assume, I'm going to hope and pray That most people in this country would not be in favor of euthanizing a two-year-old who's probably going to be dead within the next couple of years because of leukemia.
Like, I'm going to assume that most people would say that that's hard.
You cannot do that.
And yes, this child's tragically going to die anyway.
Yes, their life for the next two years will be very, very difficult.
You cannot just put down a child because they are horribly sick.
But if you're a pro-lifer, you don't draw any moral distinction between the child outside the womb and the child inside the womb.
Your whole position is that they're both people.
They're just in different stages of development.
And so you have to admit, again, even if you don't agree with it somehow, you have to admit that it's just, it's a logical, sensible position.
And then if you think about it a little bit longer, you realize it's the only logical and sensible position.
It's certainly the only consistent one.
All right.
Well, we spent a while on both of those topics, so we'll leave it there.
We've got to get to the Was Walsh.
I've got a Christmas gift idea that's sure to make you the hero of the season.
Now, we all know the holidays can be a bit hectic.
The shopping, the 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.
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.
Treat yourself and your loved ones to the absolute best skincare 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.
Plus, included in every most popular package is your free Hyaluronic Acid Serum for skin hydration to restore your youthful appearance.
GenuCell sent out a ton of products for the entire office, and I can't even put into words how much better their faces look because of GenuCell.
Everybody disgusts me just a little bit less now.
It's like Christmas came early.
You deserve to look and feel your best this holiday season.
Go to Genucel.com slash Walsh to get this incredible holiday discount.
Every order today is instantly upgraded to free express shipping.
That's Genucel.com slash Walsh today.
Okay, first comment says, not sure about the banning of digitized pornographic images.
As usual, I'm looking for the principles at work here.
What if the images are licentious but not nude?
What if the nude image of someone was created from scratch using paintbrush?
Is it a matter of degree or principle?
Well, you know, I think what you're doing is, again, something conservatives often do as well, where, not just conservatives, people in general, where you're afraid to arrive at a conclusion that I think you know is pretty self-evidently correct.
Because you can't quite work out how all of these gray area, difficult kind of cases that are on the line will, you know, you can't quite work out what to do about all those.
But my point is, you can arrive at the correct conclusion and then deal with those issues as they come.
I just, I don't see it as an impediment.
Like, we cross those bridges when we come to them.
This is something that's like probably my favorite That's a phrase that I use in my house all the time, especially with my kids.
I'm saying, we're going to do this.
Any time I declare anything that we're going to do, there's always, well, what if this happens?
What about this?
What about that?
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, okay?
Let's put one foot in front of the other, and if something happens that is unexpected or that's difficult to deal with, we'll deal with that when it comes.
And so, I think right now it's pretty easy, like, there are websites and apps that exist right now specifically to use AI technology to take pictures of real people without their consent and turn them into pornographic images.
Okay?
That is a thing that exists.
And it's even being advertised on social media platforms.
I don't see why we can't say, like, obviously you cannot have that company.
That's illegal.
You cannot have a company like that.
You cannot do that.
Your whole, your stated intent is to take pictures of people without their consent and turn into pornographic images.
That's the whole point.
And obviously you can't do that.
So that is, that's the degree and the principle that we're dealing with.
And once we've agreed on that, which we all should be able to agree on it, because to me it's just basic common sense, then you get in, you know, and then if you have a, I'm not even sure what a hard case exactly would be here.
I think, like, somebody painting a picture in their house is obviously different in kind, in both degree and kind, from using, taking someone's actual photograph and using AI To pornographize it, to make up a word there.
So I don't even see that as a hard, like that's clearly a different kind of thing.
Now I think if you're at your house making, drawing nude pictures of some random people, it's like, it's creepy and weird, but that's a different kind of thing.
The only way you get into the gray areas, I guess, is what you mentioned about What if the images are sexually suggestive, but they're not nude?
That's where you're going to have to go in with a finer brush and start drawing some of the lines.
But the basic idea here is that you should not be allowed to have an app or a company where the stated whole intention is to take people's actual photographs and use technology to turn them into nude pictures.
That will also, by the way, and especially as technology improves, look exactly like real nude pictures.
And so you're spreading pornography of someone, some real person, that you have invented and you're doing without their consent.
Like, clearly, that should not be allowed.
And another comment says, we'll just do one other.
Nobody feels bad for white people, Matt.
They have had every advantage in our society forever.
No matter how much you scream and cry, white people are never going to have sympathy in this country.
And for good reason.
Anyone would gladly trade places with white people.
First of all, I'm not sure if that lasts.
What do you mean trade places with white people?
You want to trade place with an entire race?
What does that even mean?
I think there might be individual white people that you would want to trade places with.
Like, maybe you'd want to trade places with Jeff Bezos or, I don't know, Elon Musk, even though he's African-American.
Would you want to, really, would you want to trade places with, you know, a 10-year-old kid living in a trailer park in West Virginia with an absent father and a mom who's addicted to meth, living on food stamps?
Would you want to trade places with that person, with that white person?
Is the fact that they're white gonna be like a consolation prize that you would find acceptable?
Probably not.
But anyway, I'm not looking for sympathy.
See, that's where the confusion comes in.
So maybe you as a person who's always looking for pity and sympathy, when you hear me talk about anti-white racism that exists in this country, Doesn't just exist, but is promoted by our most powerful institutions.
And you hear me talk about that, you assume that I'm angling for pity and sympathy because that's all that you want in life.
But that's not what I want.
I don't want your pity.
I don't give a shit about your sympathy.
That's not what I want.
First of all, I'm just trying to establish the facts about what's happening and who the victims of systemic racism actually are these days.
And then I want that bigotry and racism to stop, because it's wrong.
And if it stops, I don't need the sympathy to go along.
In fact, I prefer this.
I'd rather not have the sympathy.
Let's just stop with the anti-white racism and bigotry, and then move on with our lives.
I'm fine not having the sympathy.
I'd prefer not to have it, actually.
Grand Canyon University is an affordable, private, Christian university based in Phoenix, Arizona.
They are dedicated to making education fit into your already busy schedule, which is why they offer 270 of their academic programs online.
From scholarship to academic support, GCU's graduation team provides you with the personal support you need to obtain your goals.
GCU's online programs offer you the freedom to earn your degree on your own time from wherever you are.
GCU is praised for its culture of community giving and impact.
They integrate the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview into their academic programs.
Achieve your goals with a personalized plan and a supportive team behind you.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Also, it's no question that we're living in a clown world.
The characters in Power are straight out of a carnival.
Basic notions of right and wrong, justice, truth, even reality itself have been thrown out the window.
The world is coming to an end.
How are we to make sense of it?
Well, you can join Jonathan Pagot in the new four-part series, End of the World, as he explains why the world as we know it is ending, how to survive it, and how we can plant the seeds for the next world today.
Jonathan Pagot is an icon carver, public speaker, YouTuber, And good friend of Jordan Peterson, you might remember him from his profoundly illuminating comments in Jordan's series on Exodus.
Now he's back and will draw upon his deep knowledge of Christian tradition, stories, mythology, and history to explain the contradictions in our society, the wacky phenomena, and how this pattern will reach its conclusion.
In End of the World, you will receive a thoughtful framework to make sense of these confusing times and a roadmap to lead us out of the clown world and restore order.
Pago draws upon historical stories in the latest episode to explain the cycle of beginnings and endings across societies.
The first two episodes are out now exclusively on DailyWire+.
If you haven't become a member yet, this is the perfect time.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Unmask the Carnies.
And see beyond the end.
Watch End of the World today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
And for that, I want you to imagine a scenario that, in light of recent events, you'd think would generate some attention among the national news media.
So picture a black student walking to the front of a study lounge at a major university and loudly announcing that there are too many Jews in the room.
The study lounge isn't a place for the Jews, the student explains.
They should leave immediately.
And then there's a round of applause from other non-Jews in the room as the Jewish students make their exit.
Now, if something like that happened, How many congressional hearings do you think would be held?
How many impassioned monologues would we see on CNN declaring that bigotry on college campuses has simply gone too far?
How many university administrators would be forced to resign?
Probably a few.
And honestly, we don't know the answers to those questions for sure, because as of now, despite the widely reported outbreak of anti-Semitism on college campuses, this particular scenario hasn't unfolded as of yet.
But if you replace Jews with white people, then we do have the answer to those questions clear as day.
That's because a few years ago at the University of Virginia, a black student did exactly what I just described.
She stood up and told white people to get out of the student center.
And she said because of their skin color, that these white students were not allowed there.
And indeed, some white people got up and left, and it was all recorded on a cell phone.
Let's watch that again.
Excuse me!
If y'all didn't know, this is the MSC, and frankly there's just too many white people in here, and this is a space for people of color.
So just be really cognizant of the space that you're taking up, because it does make some of us POCs uncomfortable when we see too many white people in here.
It's only been open for four days, and frankly there's the whole university for a lot of y'all to be at, and there's very few spaces for us.
So keep that in mind.
Thank you.
So, somebody films that racist, anti-white rant.
Nobody says anything.
No one laughs at this racist or condemns her in any way.
It's just silently filmed because everyone's too afraid to challenge this, and the only reaction is applause as the white people make their exit.
Now, after this incident, it goes without saying, there were no congressional hearings.
No administrators at UVA were forced to resign.
Nobody was even calling for that.
There were no primetime CNN monologues about what's wrong with American universities.
As upsetting as it may be, we shouldn't be surprised by that non-response because systemic anti-white racism on college campuses is open and blatant.
The specifics are rarely discussed, but they're not hard to find.
And it's been going on for decades.
You know, I vividly remember all the way back In 2007, when it was revealed that the University of Delaware was running a mandatory re-education program that forced thousands of students living on campus to affirm that all whites are racist and that non-whites can't be racist, among other things.
And RAs in the dorms were put in charge of monitoring students and reporting any of them who harbored unapproved opinions on race or sexuality or related topics.
The university system, the University of Delaware rather, they referred to these struggle sessions as treatment for white people.
And when the free speech group FIRE brought all this to light, the university hastily shut the program down.
But nothing changed in the university system because nobody forced any kind of change.
Those kinds of things continue to happen.
They've been happening ever since.
Even on University of Delaware, they were just repackaged.
There was no moral panic about the scourge of anti-white racism on college campuses.
Instead, in the years since that episode, and for a while before it, the university system continued to impose a radical anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-truth doctrine on millions of students nationwide.
Literally millions of college students have been taught, and many have come to believe, that white people are inherently bigoted and evil, along with all manner of other insidious left-wing myths.
Like that whole thing about how men can give birth and women can have penises.
And that's why the current burst of outrage over anti-Semitism on college campuses, it's more than a little bit conspicuous.
People in corporate media and even some prominent figures in Democrat Party are finally speaking out against discrimination in the university system, but the years and years and years and years and years and years of rampant anti-whiteism, including the mandatory brainwashing sessions where whites were told to hate themselves for their skin color, never garnered an ounce of outrage from these people.
Right, from the corporate media, the Democrat, from the mainstream.
There are plenty of conservatives who spoke out against it.
The university system as a whole has been up until now mostly exempt from criticism by the corporate media and its ideological allies.
Now that has changed in the last, like, five minutes.
Yesterday we played a clip of the Fareed Zaharia, Zachariah, whatever it was, monologue on CNN blasting the university system for its political and ideological bias, and many conservatives have celebrated that monologue, as we talked about, and, you know, they've celebrated other similar glimmers of sanity from the corporate media on this issue, but there's not much to celebrate here.
The criticisms of the universities are the safest possible criticisms to make.
They still aren't touching the third rail.
Now, all of this is not to say that anti-Semitism isn't a problem.
It is.
No serious person can deny that.
But the very selective nature of this accountability tells you that the people calling out the system today aren't willing to go down and inspect the roots of the problem.
It also shows that only certain groups are allowed to be viewed as victims.
That kind of reminds me of when Nick Cannon went on that rant claiming that white people are bloodthirsty savages and that blacks are the real Hebrews.
Now, he was forced to apologize for the Hebrews bit because it was anti-Semitic, which arguably it wasn't even anti-Semitic, it was just crazy, which sometimes those two things go together, not always.
But either way, the much more aggressively bigoted and racist stuff About how white people aren't even human?
How they're subhuman savages?
That was glossed over.
There was no apology for it.
This is why I'm kind of glad to see, you know, as we talked about yesterday, Harvard circling the wagons around Claudine Gay, because maybe it will show people that the rot in academia runs deep.
This week, as part of his effort to oust Claudine Gay, From office, the Harvard alumnus Bill Ackman highlighted some of this rot.
He published messages that he received from anonymous Harvard faculty members.
And one faculty member told Ackman, quote, "Whiteness at Harvard is deemed fundamentally oppressive.
Indigenous people are represented as in need of justice and reparations.
Jews are presented as white people. It's therefore okay to hate Israel and Jews
as they are deemed to be oppressors." You know, that kind of reminds me of someone
who made this connection when everything first happened with the war in Israel.
But, you know, the reason why the left is circling around Hamas is because they're the less white group.
I think there was someone who made that point.
I think it was actually me.
More on that in a second.
Another faculty member explained, quote, Israel is the rare case where we have a hot conflict between people that are deemed white versus people of color.
A third professor put it this way, quote, it's about whiteness versus people of color.
Now, putting all this together, Ackman concluded that, in his letter to Claude Englais, that, quote, Now, that's a realization that's been a very long time coming.
And yet, even now, the only members of Harvard's faculty who are willing to talk about it are also insisting on anonymity.
in recruitment and advancement at Harvard.
Now that's a realization that's been a very long time coming.
And yet, even now, the only members of Harvard's faculty who are willing to talk about it are also
insisting on anonymity because they're afraid.
Even though these professors work in an academic institution
that's supposed to value free thought and dialogue, and even though many of these faculty members have tenure,
they're too scared to say anything on the record.
At one of the world's best universities, supposedly, faculty members have less freedom of speech than a random person on Twitter.
And by the way, this is not a whataboutism argument.
If anything, this is a what-is-it argument, or maybe a where-does-it-come-from argument.
Yes, we should be highly critical of anti-Semitic language on college campuses, but where does it come from?
What is it rooted in?
The problem is that the current backlash against the university system is only surface level.
We're not digging deeper to see what the problem is rooted in.
That's also why so many people seem to be surprised that college campuses around the country have rallied around Hamas.
It's not surprising if you understand what's actually going on.
For most of these college kids, as I have argued from the beginning, they see the conflict overseas as a conflict between the colonized and the colonizer.
As those university officials themselves were saying, the colonizer is always the whiter group in any dispute.
The colonized are the less white.
It's a simple formula.
And this ideology of decolonization, it is indeed genocidal.
They truly believe that the colonizers, wherever they are and whoever they are, deserve to be killed.
That's what they believe.
That's the context for this anti-Semitism issue on campus.
It's where it comes from.
It bubbles up from the depths of the very rotten core of the American university system.
It's so rotten that it cannot be salvaged.
It cannot be reformed by getting rid of a few administrative officials.
And it especially cannot be solved, or even really addressed, if we're treating the pro-Hamas stuff as if it's isolated and new and happening in a vacuum.
It's a bigger and much deeper problem.
And until we face that fact, as long as we're celebrating scraps that CNN tosses our way, then nothing will get better.
The Claudine gays of the world will keep their jobs, and white and Asian men, alone among all other groups, will have to fight for theirs.
That is until we can all agree that the entire system, which is rotten to its core, is cancelled.
