Ep. 1335 - The Mayor Of Baltimore Attacks White People As The City Deals With Bridge Collapse
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Baltimore is dealing with a major crisis after the bridge collapse this week. Still, the city's mayor took the time to go on MSNBC to complain about white people. We'll discuss. Also, a school board comes up with the worst imaginable solution to the trans bathroom debate. Philadelphia puts out a tourism ad featuring drag queens. And one of the most popular shows in the UK promotes something called "eco sexuality."
Ep.1335
- - -
DailyWire+:
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month when you make the switch! https://www.puretalk.com/Walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
- - -
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, Baltimore is dealing with a major crisis after the bridge collapsed this week.
Still, the city's mayor took the time to go on MSNBC to complain about white people.
We'll discuss.
Also, a school board comes up with the worst imaginable solution to the trans bathroom debate.
Philadelphia puts out a tourism ad featuring drag queens.
And one of the most popular shows in the UK promotes something called eco-sexuality.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know, $20 barely gets you anything these days.
You can't get a burger and fries for less than that, but what about at the gas pump?
I mean, you could get maybe a quarter tank of gas, but do you know what $20 will get you?
From the cell phone company I use, PureTalk.
You can get unlimited talk text and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost, the average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
You can switch to Pure Talk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use, or you
can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their US customer service team can help you join Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes.
Choose to spend your hard-earned money with a wireless company that shares your values,
supports our military and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on
fake news networks.
Stop spending ridiculous amounts on your phone plan.
Go to puretalk.com/walsh.
Right now my listeners can get an additional 50% off on their first month.
That's puretalk.com/walsh.
Well, I'm sure that I have canceled MSNBC talking head Joy Reid before on the show.
I can't remember specifically at this moment.
All of the ignoramuses discussed during the Daily Cancellation segment blend together in my mind, forming one big, loud ball of stupid.
I can only assume that Joy has been featured multiple times because she is so aggressively, obnoxiously terrible in every way that a person can be terrible.
You know, there are evil people who think they're virtuous, there are dumb people who think they're smart.
Joy Reid falls into both categories.
She even looks the part, with the bleach-blonde, short-cropped hair and the permanent scowl.
She, you know, looks like the kind of middle-aged woman who yells at the pizza delivery guy because the pizza doesn't have pepperoni on it, even though it's not the delivery guy's fault, and even though she didn't order pepperoni.
The point is, I'm not especially a fan of Joy Reid, and I'm sure that has come through in the past, but today we have to pay her some special attention once again, unfortunately.
And, in fact, we're covering this in the opening monologue rather than the closing because the Joy Reid segment in question that we'll talk about takes a certain turn that makes it even more relevant and, in fact, disturbing.
Joy took to her low-rated cable news show last night to call out the alleged racist conservatives who have been engaging in alleged racist conspiracy theories surrounding the Baltimore Bridge collapse.
We talked about the conspiracy theory angle yesterday, but Joy takes this in a different direction.
It would probably be easiest just to play the segment and walk through all the many ways that she gets things wrong, so here it is.
Shame on those people who want to make something out of this that isn't there.
They have this boogeyman philosophy, and if it's black or brown, it's something that they've got a target on.
I just think that is just totally uncalled for at a time like this.
That was Maryland Congressman Kweisi Nfume last night on this very show, talking about the rampant conspiracies being hawked by the right about Tuesday's tragic bridge collapse in Baltimore.
It has been a grab bag of right-wing grievances, barely coded racism, and flat-out lies.
Noted Jewish space lasers and QAnon conspiracist Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested the disaster was the result of an intentional attack, perhaps by the space lasers.
Well, actually, she didn't suggest that it was an intentional attack, and even if she did, that's not a conspiracy theory.
Intentional attacks on infrastructure are a well-known threat.
There's nothing outlandish about suggesting that it may have happened, but she's not even suggesting.
The tweet that Joy briefly flashes on the screen says, quote,
"There should be a serious investigation into the horrifying tragedy of the Francis Scott Key
Bridge in Maryland. Is this an intentional attack or an accident? Praying for the victims,
survivors, and families." Now, which part of that tweet is conspiratorial or outlandish?
In fact, I can't imagine a more measured and normal way to respond in a situation like this.
Is Joy Reid suggesting that it's inappropriate to even wonder whether the incident was intentional?
Well, that's odd, because the people investigating the crash also wondered about that.
Now, so far, they're saying that they don't think that it was intentional, but that's obviously an angle they pursued immediately, because that's a normal thing to wonder about.
So are they conspiracy theorists, too?
Joy doesn't say.
Let's continue.
But the most idiotic and racist theories had to do with their newest boogeyman, diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI.
A Republican congressional candidate in Florida tweeted that DEI did this.
And a right-wing blue check account that's been boosted by Elon Musk in the past just blew straight past the dog whistling, tweeting to its 276,000 followers, quote, Baltimore's DEI mayor commenting on the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge.
It's going to get so, so much worse.
Prepare accordingly.
The post included a clip of Baltimore's black mayor, Brandon Scott.
I cannot believe I have to say this.
Brandon Scott was elected with 70% of the vote in 2020 in a city that is 61% black.
So by right wing logic, a diversity hire would have been a white man.
Which, of course, is what they want.
Only the white Christian men may have the things.
And at this point, it's evident what they mean by DEI, right?
Okay, it means black people.
It's the reason the right complained about critical race theory.
It's not fashionable to be openly racist anymore in America, unlike what they call the good old days.
So, referring to a black mayor as a DEI mayor gets the point across, right?
So, fellows, why not just say what you mean?
You can't stand black people.
We get it.
You've been heard.
Well, we can't stand you, specifically.
But you're an individual person, you're not an entire race.
Now, a few points here.
Number one, it is fashionable to be openly racist in this country, just not against black people.
But Joy Reid herself proves, and what comes next in this very segment that we're watching will again demonstrate, that racism against white people is indeed very fashionable.
And second, she's showing us tweets to prove whatever point she's trying to make.
As we've seen, the first tweet that she displayed from Marjorie Taylor Greene totally contradicted her point.
She wants to demonstrate that conservatives in the main are being wildly conspiratorial about this, so she showed us a tweet where Marjorie Taylor Greene was completely measured and utterly reasonable.
And next we see a tweet from some congressional candidate I've never heard of, and then we see one from an anonymous account called, I am yes, you are no, with a cartoon profile photo.
You know, that guy.
That world-famous conservative thinker named, I am yes, you are no.
Now, obviously Joy is correct that it doesn't require DEI to get a black man elected mayor in Baltimore.
Every Baltimore mayor for the past 30 years, except one, has been black.
They've also all been terrible, by the way, as the city has plunged into decades of crime, violence, and rampant drug use, but that's a topic for another day.
But she is right that, you know, the joking nickname given to this guy by an anonymous cartoon Twitter account is not technically accurate.
Now, as to the suggestion that DEI might have something to do with the bridge collapse itself, bet.
May also not be accurate.
We still don't know.
We may never know for sure.
There are many factors that played into this incident, factors that are still being investigated.
And at this point, it's just not possible to say for sure whether or not DEI policies played a part somewhere along the line.
But if people immediately speculate about the role of DEI in incidents like this, it's not because those people are so terrible.
It's because DEI is so terrible.
The fact remains that DEI policies have deliberately and systematically lowered standards across the board in virtually every industry, all in the name of making every industry less white.
That is a fact.
It has happened.
It is happening.
Joy Reid supports and promotes those policies.
And now we are witnessing the collapse of competence across the country because of it.
Now, that doesn't mean that every catastrophe is linked to this campaign of destruction in the name of diversity, but it does mean that it's perfectly reasonable to wonder whether any particular catastrophe is linked to it.
And it also means that, inevitably, some people will draw that connection even before it has been factually established.
That's what happens when you come up with a racist policy that intentionally makes everything worse in every conceivable way.
So the problem here is the policy, not the random Twitter accounts that Joy Reid is crying about.
But it wasn't enough to have Joy Reid cry about them on her own.
She also brought the mayor of Baltimore on the air to respond to all of this.
You would think that the man who is the mayor of Baltimore has a crisis to attend to and would be too busy to spend time doing an interview to respond to a joking tweet from an anonymous Twitter account.
That's what you would think.
That's what you would like to hope.
But you would be wrong.
Watch.
Well, I think, listen, I know, and we all know, and you know very well, that black men, and young black men in particular, have been the boogeyman for those who are racist and think that only straight, wealthy white men should have a say in anything.
We've been the boogeyman for them since the first day they brought us to this country.
And what they mean by D.I., in my opinion, is Duly Elected Incumbent.
We know what they want to say, but they don't have the courage to say the N-word.
And the fact that I don't believe in their untruthful and wrong ideology, and I am very proud of my heritage and who I am and where I come from, scares them.
Because me being in my position means that their way of thinking, their way of life of being comfortable and suffering, and while everyone else suffers, is going to be at risk.
And they should be afraid, because that's my purpose in life.
Okay, I'm going to skip right past the mayor's statement that it requires courage to say the N-word.
Something tells me that if any white person did say it in his presence, he would have a lot of things to say in response, and praising them for their courage would not be one of those things.
But we don't have time to harp on that because the bigger headline here is this part.
He says, quote, Me being in this position means that their way of thinking, their way of life, of being comfortable while everyone else suffers is at risk.
And they should be afraid because that's my purpose in life.
So just to recap the situation, the mayor of Baltimore, in the midst of a major disaster, has taken the time to go on a political talk show to play the victim because someone tweeted something mean about him.
And then, in the middle of this little pageant, he proceeds to issue a threat and even declares that it is his purpose, his purpose is to put at risk the livelihood of these people he's threatening.
Now you might hope that, again, His primary purpose right now, you would hope, is to figure out what to do about the fact that a bridge that carried 30,000 commuters a day is now lying at the bottom of the Patapsco River.
But apparently not.
Apparently that's not his purpose.
And who is the they that he's talking about here?
Who's the they?
Is it that one guy?
Is it the one guy with the cartoon profile?
Is that who you're talking about?
Is that what this is all about?
Is that guy?
You said they.
I don't think he identifies as non-binary, so he must be talking about more than one person.
He says that their way of life is at risk, and they should be afraid.
Now, I suppose the most charitable interpretation is that he's talking about people that he deems racist.
Even that would be disturbing.
An elected official, a mayor in particular, should not be threatening anyone for having thoughts he disagrees with.
That's what we're talking about here.
Much less should he be declaring that they should be afraid, that he intends to put their way of life at risk.
But it's worse than that.
Because Mayor Brandon Scott of Baltimore has obviously demonstrated himself to be a typical far-left, race-baiting Democrat.
And we would know that, even without these statements on MSNBC, simply because that's the only kind of person who gets elected to lead a city like Baltimore, you know, these days.
Far-left race-baiting Democrats believe, and we'll tell you this explicitly if they're in an honest mood, which, I mean, most of the time they aren't, but they will say this explicitly, that all white people are inherently racist.
And they certainly believe that all white conservatives are inherently racist, which means that any threat issued obliquely against racists is intended by them for a particular racial group.
So this was an anti-white statement, and let's make no mistake about that.
Just as DEI is anti-white.
Which means that Mayor Scott really has earned the moniker DEI Mayor after all.
Just perhaps for a slightly different reason.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Not only is owing back taxes stressful, but the IRS has also become more determined than ever.
The IRS's chief data and analytics officer revealed that they're focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent.
They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't filed their returns first.
Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you with a record of negotiating over a billion dollars in tax relief for their clients.
Their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.
Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up to date.
Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move.
Contact!
Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt.
Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit our website at TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
They give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt.
That's TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
We'll start with this controversy over a decision made by the Edwardsville School Board in Illinois, and I want to play you the local news report so that you can go on the same journey that I went on when I first watched this this morning, because the idea that you'll hear about, it starts out bad, and then it gets worse as they continue to explain it.
Let's watch.
Fiery debate over gender-neutral bathrooms tonight.
Millions of dollars on the line in Edwardsville as the school board votes to pass the proposal for Edwardsville High.
Fox News' Max Dietenite was at the meeting, which just wrapped up at Liberty Middle School.
A passionate debate over millions of dollars going toward building new gender-neutral bathrooms at Edwardsville High School.
Some parents and others upset over this idea.
Who watches the Watchers?
But using our tax money, money that I earned to do something I oppose, is just so wrong.
Shouldn't even be a consideration.
It's wasting the public's time.
Thank you.
But others, including a current transgender student, argue the opposition is fear-mongering and that these bathrooms are safe.
From my experience as a transgender man, I rarely have ever felt safe in a public restroom.
This is an excellent opportunity to validate them as they are, to make education a safe space for them.
I commend the board on moving forward with this.
I encourage you to do so, and I thank you for your time.
Take a look at your screen.
These are renderings of the common area bathrooms boys and girls would share at Edwardsville High featuring private fully enclosed stalls for each student.
There's a light above each room indicating whether the stall is locked and already in use.
District officials say the hand-washing stations would be in the center for everyone to use.
So they passed it.
So gender-neutral bathrooms are the proposal.
Not just the proposal.
parts of the day.
Still, some parents fear having teenage boys and girls in the same space like this is a bad idea.
Monday night, the board voted to pass.
So they passed it.
So gender neutral bathrooms are the proposal, not just the proposal, I mean, it's been approved.
And we've obviously seen the gender neutral bathroom idea put
forward many times in many school districts as a way of solving the trans student dilemma.
And I've always been opposed to gender-neutral bathrooms for the simple reason that there actually is no dilemma.
It's a solution to a problem that we have invented, and the way to solve it is to just stop inventing the problem.
The old system worked perfectly well.
There was no problem.
There was no issue.
Everything was fine.
Boys use the boys' room.
Girls use the girls' room.
It's not a problem.
It's fine.
This has been the system in public schools for as long as public schools have existed.
If something has been done for decades, for centuries, and it's worked fine, and then you're coming along and saying, well, you should radically change this.
Then the burden of proof is on you to explain what was the issue.
Why is there a problem now if there never has been before?
If people have been doing a certain thing forever and it's been fine, and then you come along and you've got a problem with it, then it would seem like the issue is you.
The problem is you.
If everyone else can do it and they're fine and you have a problem, the problem is you.
So, that's the issue.
It's just that, you know, 15 seconds ago, we decided to start pretending that there is a problem.
And in pretending that there's a problem, one was created.
But again, it can be solved by simply not pretending that it's a problem anymore.
And, you know, just tell the boys to go with the boys, girls with the girls, males with males, females with females.
That's it.
That's all.
We don't need gender-neutral bathrooms.
The gendered bathrooms are an absolutely perfect system.
I mean, as perfect as a bathroom system can be.
There's no issue.
But here's the thing, I opposed gender-neutral bathrooms, even though I assumed, naively, optimistically, foolishly, it turns out, that the gender-neutral rooms would be single bathrooms.
Like, I thought that's what we were talking about.
A single bathroom with a single toilet.
Like, you know, similar to one that you might see in a coffee shop or something like that.
Where it's just there's just one bathroom and it's one person uses at a time and it's not labeled for any particular for male or female because only one person is using it at a time.
The bathrooms in your home are quote gender neutral in that way.
One person uses them at a time and so you know there's no reason to designate male or female.
And in those contexts, like at a small little coffee shop or at your home, in a context where only one person is using the bathroom at a time, yeah, it makes sense.
I mean, you don't even call them gender neutral.
It's just the bathroom.
But still, I opposed doing that in schools because I don't think we need to go out of our way to build bathrooms like that in schools in order to get around this imaginary issue that we've created.
But silly me, I didn't realize that we were talking about an actual communal bathroom with multiple stalls for multiple people where girls and boys will be invited to use it at the same time.
And that, apparently, is what we're talking about.
Not just talking about, but it's what they're going to do.
Where teenagers in high school be invited to use the bathroom with the opposite sex.
Like, whenever you think the public school system could not possibly get, like, when you think that it's gotten as mind-boggingly, bogging, Bogglingly?
Mind-bogglingly, I think that might be a word.
Anyway, when it's gotten as stupid as it possibly can get, it somehow proves that you're wrong.
It can get even dumber, because this is such a bad idea.
I mean, it's such a bad idea that it actually, it doesn't even, we'll get to this in a second, but it doesn't even solve the fake problem they've invented.
It doesn't solve any real problem, because there is no real problem, but even the fake problem is not solved by this.
So, let's just outline all the reasons why this is the dumbest thing ever conceived.
The first and most obvious, of course, is that you're putting hormonal teenagers of both sexes into a bathroom together, and obviously that is going to lead to all the things that I don't need to describe, because we were all teenagers at one time, and we know, and we went to, many of us went to public high schools, and so you know how it's gonna go.
And it sounds like that's what some of the parents brought up in the meeting.
That's a bad idea.
Why would we do that?
Why would we do that?
That's the stupidest thing.
You're just asking for all kinds of problems when you do that.
But that's only the first problem.
It's probably the biggest, but it's only the first.
The second problem is that the students who don't welcome the opportunity that is afforded to them by having Both sexes use the same bathroom.
Those students will be instead extremely uncomfortable.
So if public restrooms, especially in school, are already kind of awkward just because of the nature of what the facilities are there for, now you've just made them a hundred times more awkward.
And did I hear correct that, I think I did, that the communal sinks will be visible from the lobby?
And there's going to be adults in the bathroom, like, supervising?
When the kids are going into the stall, there's going to be adults standing there, watching?
Did I get that right?
You can see it from the lobby?
So you have found a way, somehow, against all odds.
To give these teenagers both more privacy than they should have at school, in the sense that you're putting boys and girls together in an inappropriate setting, and also not nearly enough privacy at the exact same time.
So it's a terrible idea for opposite reasons at the same time.
That's how bad it is.
And third, and this is the big thing here.
As alluded to, it doesn't even solve the imaginary problem that it's supposed to solve.
There's no real problem being solved because there was no real problem to begin with.
Boys with boys, girls with girls in the bathroom, it was fine.
It was fine.
But even the fake problem isn't being solved because the whole point for the boy who identifies as a girl or for the girl who identifies as a boy, the whole reason that they want access to the opposite sex restroom Well, the most innocent possible reason that they could want access is to be affirmed, right, as the opposite sex.
And that's really what this is all about.
But you aren't affirming them by doing this.
Like, this doesn't affirm anybody.
This is no, the whole reason, again, I say the whole reason, there are other reasons, but sort of taking them at their word.
The reason why you have a male who wants to use the female restroom Taking him at his word on this is that, which we shouldn't, but just for the sake of argument, is that it's an affirmative validating, because, okay, now I'm being accepted as a woman, and that's what this is all about.
But you're not, this is not, doesn't validate, it doesn't affirm, it doesn't, you know, you're not being accepted as a woman.
Just everyone's being thrown into the same environment now.
Now, I'm not saying that we should affirm them.
We shouldn't.
My point is simply that this doesn't even do the bad thing it's supposed to do.
Which is the whole reason they're doing it.
Which means either that the pro-trans side will hate this, I know we heard from a few there in the clip that said that they're in favor of it, but generally, The pro-trans side will either hate this, and historically, recent history anyway, they have opposed this kind of compromise.
For the reason I just said!
Because what they want is to be accepted and affirmed as the opposite sex.
They don't want, if you come out and do gender-neutral bathrooms, that doesn't work for them.
So, either they're gonna hate it, which means that you're doing all this for them, and they don't even like it, Or, if they are okay with it, as they seem to be here, I guess, well, that means that they've dropped the whole affirmation thing from the bathroom debate, which means we can just go back to the old system.
So, either way, the old system is the only one that makes sense.
And instead, they are, in an effort to solve a fake problem, they are doing something that will create all kinds of new problems.
While solving precisely nothing.
In conclusion, get your kids the hell out of public schools.
I don't know if I've mentioned that before.
I don't know if you realize that that's my stance.
I may have mentioned it a time or two.
Don't send your kids into this environment.
Just don't do it.
Honest to God, I've said before, you would be better, and I really, I don't even mean it as a joke, you would be better off Sending your kids off into the woods to be raised by wolves, than you would send them to public school.
Because they go to public school, they're being raised by the public school system, whether you like it or not, that's what happens.
That's why public school exists, to raise your kids, so the government can raise your kids.
So, rather than having these lunatics raise your kid, honestly, it would be better for your kid if you just said, okay, drop them off in the Amazon rainforest, and I'll pick you up in 10 years.
In fact, that'd be much better for them than the public school environment.
Probably safer, too, actually.
At least they'll come out of it with some skills that they'll have learned.
Okay.
Daily Wire has a report here that, really, you just need to go and read it because there's a lot more detail here than we can cover, but I do want to mention it for a moment anyway.
It's an important story.
Says, facilitated by left-wing activist groups, a network of websites has emerged to ship unregulated foreign abortion pills across the country with no age verification, no prescription, and no concern about state laws that may ban medication-induced abortions.
There are dozens of sites sending out abortion drugs, many of which are not approved by the FDA.
In many red states like Tennessee and Texas, where abortion is banned, all it takes to circumvent the law is access to the internet, a willingness to make payments online, and a shipping address.
Daily Wire investigation found that, for less than a hundred bucks, anyone can order abortion drugs such as Mifepristone.
Doesn't matter.
In fact, I don't even want you to know what the drug is.
That's why I'm not going to pronounce it.
Because I don't want you to know what it is.
Age is not verified, nor is a medical professional ever consulted, meaning anyone, including young girls, can easily get their hands on the pills after brief interactions on a shady website.
Websites typically direct users to discrete payment methods to acquire foreign pills.
If there are any medical complications, which are not uncommon, the websites typically say they have no liability.
And so this, and again, I mean, you can go and read the whole report, but it is an important report about how they're just, the pro-aborts are just basically ignoring, not basically, they're ignoring the laws and saying, we're going to do this anyway.
And we're going to do it on the internet, so it doesn't count.
We're allowed to do it there.
The abortion could be entirely outlawed in a certain state.
We're still going to do it.
And, you know, the report mentions that there are all kinds of medical complications with the abortion pill.
Which is true, but we should stipulate that when we talk about medical complications or side effects of the abortion pill, we're talking about the medical complications that are in addition to the primary medical complication, which is what the pill exists for.
The pill exists to create a medical complication.
It exists to terminate a pregnancy, otherwise known as killing a baby.
So it is causing something to happen in your body that is unnatural, is meant to be harmful.
Harmful, of course, to the baby, fatal to the baby, but then also harmful to the woman.
So the whole thing is medical harm.
That's the point of it.
It's poison, really, that they're just shipping around.
And, you know, the no age verification thing just shows how brazen these people are.
You know, we know the pro-abortion side.
These are truly evil people.
I mean, they kill babies.
This is all they do all day long.
It's what they care the most about.
So these are the most evil kinds of people In existence.
If you were to make a category of all the most evil people you can think of, right?
Serial killers, mass murderers, you know, school shooters, child rapists, like all the worst people.
The people in the abortion industry are right there.
Right smack dab in the middle of it.
It's no surprise there, but just to show, you know, they almost like to flaunt how evil they are, so that's why they don't even make an attempt to verify ages.
And of course, even if they did verify ages, it wouldn't make it any better, and it's quite easy to get around a lot of different kinds of age verification, but they don't even bother.
They don't pretend that they care.
And the other thing that you should know, One final point here is that this is what the left does with everything.
It's the same thing.
It's a very similar method to what we find with child mutilation, the gender transition industry.
Same deal.
Where they try to circumvent or blatantly ignore the law in states where it's been outlawed, where the castration of children has been outlawed.
We talked about one way they do it yesterday.
Which is they create these quote-unquote sanctuary cities or sanctuary states where they say, well, okay, if you can't castrate your child in your state, bring him here and you can do it here.
And then we also know there are many different kinds of schemes where they distribute these drugs often blatantly illegally online.
And this is what happens when you have one side of the kind of ideological divide here that is not only cartoonishly evil, but at the same time You know, above the law, not held to the same legal standards.
Speaking of cartoonishly evil, here's a video that's gone viral.
This is a recent tourism video put together by the city of Philadelphia.
This is their version of encouraging tourism, and this is what they came up with.
Watch.
Hey, look at clumsy Gerald, the animal's all sneered.
Giraffes can't dance, you silly fool.
Oh, Gerald, you're so weird.
Excuse me, coughed the cricket, who'd seen Gerald earlier on.
But sometimes when you're different, you just need a different song.
They shouted, it's a miracle, we must be in a dream.
Gerald's the best dancer that we've ever, ever seen.
Visit Philadelphia to see more of that.
I didn't think they could make Philly less appealing to me than it already is, but they found a way.
And it never ceases to amaze me, really.
These drag queens are supposed to be dressed like women.
They model their whole persona after women, supposedly.
Their whole purpose in life, as they see it, is to do this woman charades thing.
And yet these people have apparently never seen a woman in real life.
Because their version of dressing like a woman is to put on a costume that looks like something out of Pan's Labyrinth.
At best, they look like the female villain in a live-action Disney remake.
I mean, let's put that screenshot up again.
What is this?
What kind of woman?
So we've got a 70s lounge singer here on the left, and on the right we have a A tree with graffiti on it?
He looks like, what was that, what were the tree people from Lord of the Rings?
Looks like one of those.
One of those tree people, one of the tree.
Like one of those tree people went to Chicago and spent the night in Chicago?
Fell asleep on a park bench?
Would wake up looking like that?
That's womanhood.
That's what they imagine womanhood to be.
It's not feminine, obviously.
It's not womanly.
It's just bizarre and weird and deranged, which I understand, of course, is the point.
And in fact, this is why some of us, myself included, we talk about these drag queens, I think, the wrong way.
We say that they are appropriating womanhood That they're copying it, that they're aping it, that, you know, they're, as I said, charades, you know, all that.
But that's not quite what's happening.
At least it's not all that is happening.
Because they are, in fact, the real intention here is to subvert it.
They are subverting womanhood.
This is supposed to be a subversion of womanhood, of femininity.
And what does subvert mean?
Subvert means to corrupt, to ruin, to overthrow.
This is what subversion is.
And that's what they're trying to do with womanhood.
It is, in fact, a direct attack on women.
And there are a lot of women out there, especially, in particular, conservative women, who recognize this fact.
But it's always sort of funny that the kind of leftist women who are so sensitive about everything are too oblivious to realize that you're offended by everything all the time.
This is one thing you should be offended by.
They are openly making fun of you.
Are you too stupid to see that?
They are mocking you.
Intentionally.
And yet you've got these leftist women that will go to the drag shows and laugh and clap along while you are being mocked in the most disgusting way possible, right to your face, and you're paying them to make fun of you.
That's what they want to do.
Now they can't, these drag queens, they cannot succeed ultimately, they cannot succeed in a sort of ultimate final way of subverting, destroying womanhood, because womanhood is from God, it is divinely created, and so these people don't have the power over it that they think they have, but in their desperate attempt to make a mockery of this divinely created identity, Just like manhood is a divinely created identity, they can do an enormous amount of damage, and they already have, especially when they expose this to children, which is why they're so desperate to do so.
That is the whole point.
And it's why they've never been able to explain, you know, as much as they claim that we're persecuting them somehow by not allowing them to dress up like women or, you know, as a mockery of women, And read to children.
They claim that, but they've never been able to explain why they want to do that in the first place.
Oh, we want to read to kids.
Okay, read to them.
No one's saying you can't read to kids.
Why do you need to dress like that?
What is... Why?
Why is that part of this?
It doesn't make any sense.
But they can't explain it.
But it's really that they're not willing to.
Because the real answer is, oh, well, we are trying to corrupt and sexualize your children, number one.
And number two, this is a subversion, a perversion and deliberate mockery of womanhood.
And we want to expose kids to it at an age young enough where they don't understand what's happening.
And so that these ideas, that this mockery of womanhood seeps into their minds and becomes part of their, you know, of their formation.
And so that's what this is about.
They're not going to say that, but that's exactly what it is about.
One other thing I wanted to talk about, or complain about, and this is just a thing that annoys me, so like everything else I talk about on the show.
The Babylon Bee put out a headline, and the headline says this.
DeSantis kicked out of Republican Party for accomplishing too many things.
So there's the joke.
And, you know, it's an amusing joke.
It's not laugh-out-loud hilarious.
I don't think they intend it to be.
I don't think you're going to fall over, you know, fall out of your chair laughing, but it's amusing.
It's an amusing joke.
You know, you see that joke and you're like, yeah, okay, that's, it's good, okay.
And you get the point, you get the joke, it's fine.
It's fine, it's amusing, fine joke.
DeSantis is one of the few effective elected Republicans in the whole country, and yet he is now despised by a certain portion of the base.
And that's the joke.
And the reality of that fact is not funny at all, because that is in fact what's happening to DeSantis.
But the joke is kind of funny, and so you see that and you move on.
But people have not moved on.
In fact, this article is being shared all over Twitter by conservatives who are offended by it.
And there are many examples of this.
I'll just give you one.
This is from a guy named Gabe Guardini.
And this has 800 likes.
800 likes, he says, "It seems like the primary objective of the people of the Babylon B is
to subvert the American right as much as possible until we finally wake up and cut the cord
on them."
So, you know, a lot of those kinds of comments.
And the other thing to understand is that the Babylon Bee has been the subject of a lot of anger from the right over the past months, and for jokes that are, you know, often similar in nature.
With kind of a similar target of the joke.
And so I just want to say this, as someone who has myself been made fun of by the Babylon Bee like 10 times, okay?
I don't, well, I'm sure there are individual people who have been made fun of more often by the Babylon Bee than me, but I'm probably in the top 5, or at least the top 10, in terms of the number of times I've been the target of mockery by them.
And in every case I could think of, I always thought, yeah, that's pretty funny.
Right?
It is incredibly cringy and lame to get offended by satire, especially when it's from the Babylon Bee.
And I'm not saying that you have to find the Babylon Bee funny.
You don't have to find anything funny.
I see stuff online all the time that is supposed to be funny, but I don't think it's very funny.
I've seen plenty of headlines from the Babylon Bee that's like, okay, I get the joke you're going for.
I don't think it really landed.
They're not all going to land.
And then, you know, you see that and you carry on with your day.
The problem is, When you cross your arms, right, and you actually say out loud in an angry way, that's not funny.
That's not funny.
Like, when you do that, it's one thing to say, uh, that's not really funny.
But that's not funny.
That's two different ways of saying that's not funny.
The second way is that's a dangerous position to put yourself in.
And just to clarify, the danger is that you come off like a humorless dork.
And that's dangerous.
It's strategically dangerous, I guess is what I should say.
Because here's the issue.
One of the huge cultural disadvantages that the left is dealing with right now Is that they are humorless.
That they aren't funny.
And they used to be, right?
Many people have pointed this out because it's true.
They used to be funny.
They're not funny anymore.
And this is true collectively.
It's also true, you know, it's interesting to look at on individual cases.
We know the left, collectively, liberals, you know, used to be funny.
But then you look at individual, like, take, for example, somebody like Seth Rogen, let's say, okay?
Now, he has not done or said anything funny in years.
When was the last time Seth Rogen put out a funny film?
It's been a long time.
He's lame and unfunny now.
But back in the early 2000s, from, you know, 2002 to whatever, you know, maybe 2013 or so, there's a good 10-year stretch there where he starred in or he wrote several very funny movies.
And he was liberal back then, and a lot of these movies, you know, they didn't have like a far-left message, but the fact that all the people making these films were liberals comes through in the film.
But still, it was funny.
But not anymore.
He's not funny anymore, and he can't be.
And why is that?
Partly it's that the left is so beholden to their own ideological rules that it rules out comedy, because you can't follow the rules that society has set up while at the same time looking back at those rules and making fun of them, which is one of the main things that comedy is supposed to do.
So there's that.
The other thing that makes them unfunny now, though, is that they take themselves too seriously.
And they take everything too seriously.
It's why, you know, we're so used to it now that maybe it doesn't even quite register on us, but it is actually kind of dumbfounding that they can't manage to tell a funny joke about Donald Trump.
You know, these late night hosts that are constantly talking about Donald Trump and But rarely do they tell a funny joke about him, which seems impossible.
It seems impossible that you could fail so many times.
You could have someone like Stephen Colbert, who has told, I don't know, 500 or maybe 5,000 Trump jokes, and not a single one is funny.
How is that possible?
Trump himself is funny.
He's funny intentionally.
He's funny unintentionally.
There's so much material there.
And yet, they can't manage to be funny about him.
You look even back at SNL in the early days of Trump's presidency, until, I don't know, I can't remember the guy, the new guy they have now, or the last couple years, they got a guy who does a Trump impression that's actually funny.
But before they had, you know, Alec Baldwin doing the worst Trump impression anyone has ever seen.
And it wasn't remotely funny because they because Alec Baldwin and they hate him, Trump, so much.
And they take him so seriously or they insist that we should take him so seriously as like a fascist dictator threat, you know, as Hitler, you know, incarnate or reincarnated.
And because of that, it's like it's no, no, no, we can't really tell jokes.
It's so serious.
We can't joke about it.
Now, they bring in this new guy, and it's clear that, like, I don't know anything about the guy's politics, I assume he's probably liberal, but it's also clear to me that he does not hate Trump.
Because to do a good impression, you have to, and I think, I believe Norm Macdonald pointed this out, I'm sure he did at some point, that in order to do a good impression, you have to have some kind of, like, affection for the person you're doing the impression of.
Otherwise, all that comes through is contempt and hatred.
And it's just not, it's not going to be funny.
Because that's not, there's nothing funny about that.
It's just bitter and resentful, no one laughs.
Anyway, that's the problem for the left right now.
It's why they're not funny.
They take everything too seriously.
Obviously, as we know, they're too sensitive, but at the same time, they take everything so seriously.
They take themselves so seriously, they can't make fun of themselves.
And so they're humorless scolds, and they're a bunch of nerds, and it's just, it's lame.
And that creates an opportunity.
It creates an opportunity on the right that the left has... I mean, think about the opportunity it creates.
The left has thrown up their hands and said, we're not doing this anymore.
We're not telling jokes anymore.
We're giving up on being funny.
We don't want it.
And so the whole world of comedy is just lying there, waiting for someone to say, okay, well, if you don't want to be, we'll take that.
It's such an effective tool.
Not to mention, it just makes life more enjoyable.
And what I'm afraid of is that on the right, we will flub this massive opportunity by making the same exact mistake.
We don't have the same politics, but the same central mistake of taking ourselves way too seriously and taking everything too seriously.
And that's what you see with this Babylon Bee thing.
Again, the point is not that this Babylon Bee joke about Ron DeSantis was hilarious and we should all be, you know, we can't even catch our breath we're laughing so hard at it.
That's not the point.
The point is that, like, to get mad about it, it just shows you take your... Yeah, okay, right.
That's a joke that's targeted at... You know, it is.
It's targeted at Trump supporters.
Fine.
It's okay.
Like, you need to be... You can't take yourself that seriously, that you take the time to complain about one of... About a joke from... It's the most inoffensive, sanitized joke imaginable.
And if that makes you angry enough to say so publicly, then it just shows you take yourself so seriously that there's no way you could be funny yourself.
You can't be.
And it kind of disturbs me to see that, because I think we're going to flub the opportunity.
And it's different, too.
I mean, I even think, you know, you think back to 2016 and the sort of Trump Trump's still a funny guy, he always has been.
But Trump supporters in 2016 was a very like exuberant, very funny, didn't take itself too seriously.
And there's still some of that, but there's also this, there's these people, the types that quote, that angrily quote tweet the Babylon Bee, that make the Babylon Bee trend on Twitter Because they're, I mean, this has happened multiple times now, where the Babylon Bee is trending on Twitter because people are offended at a joke, but it's not the left that's offended.
You click on the trend, you're like, what's going on?
What do they do this time that people are mad about?
And then you see a bunch of freaking conservatives complaining.
And you just, oh my gosh.
We can't do this, guys.
This is not, it's not a good look.
It's terrible.
So, please stop.
You know, I've been very clear and outspoken in my stance that abortion is undoubtedly evil and should be illegal in all circumstances.
I'm also aware of the indoctrination and pro-abortion propaganda pushed by public schools and other liberal institutions.
You all have heard their lies that a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells, a woman's reproductive rights include termination of pregnancy if the baby's life is an inconvenience to her, they tell us.
And then there's the quality of life argument that abortion is somehow justified because the mother doesn't have the means to take care of her baby.
I don't think these people actually know what they're saying.
Our society needs a massive overhaul when it comes to understanding and helping young women and help them understand the inherent value of life and the duty and joy of motherhood.
That's why an organization like Preborn is so critical.
Preborn covers all the bases for new, soon-to-be mothers, particularly ones considering abortion.
Preborn meets women with compassion, encouragement, and understanding.
They provide women with the tools they need to choose life for their baby.
Not only do they introduce women to their baby through ultrasound, but they also provide education about pregnancy, as well as two years of financial support for women who choose life.
And they do all this at no cost to the mother.
Help make a difference in the fight against abortion by supporting organizations like Preborn.
Donate $28, the cost of one ultrasound, and help save a life today.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
As parents, you know, we're concerned about what our kids are watching.
You don't want them exposed to all the nonsense that's creeped its way into kids' content.
So, of course, The Daily Wire made the solution.
BentKey is the brand new kids' entertainment app from Daily Wire.
It's now available on Roku, Samsung, Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, and more coming soon.
With BentKey, there's no more worrying about inappropriate content or hidden agendas.
You only get high-quality shows made for kids that align with your family's values.
It's like having a personal filter for your kid's entertainment.
Amazing characters, timeless stories, and hundreds of episodes all designed to ignite your kid's imagination and curiosity with brand new episodes every Saturday morning.
Need another reason to start your trial now?
Our most popular show, Chip-Chilla, returns for Season 2 starting April 6, exclusively on BendKey.
Try BendKey for free with our 14-day trial.
No strings attached.
No hidden fees.
Just incredible shows that your kids will actually love and you can trust.
How do I know this?
Because it's what I let my kids watch.
Unlock the magic of BendKey for your kids today.
Head over to bendkey.com, use the code UNLOCK, and get 14 days of unlimited access to a world of adventure.
Your kids deserve it, and you deserve the peace of mind.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For a long time in moments of extreme boredom when they don't know what else to do with their time,
many people have wondered what exactly the plus in LGBTQ+ stands for.
After all, it seems like it defeats the purpose of having an acronym in the first place if you just add a plus sign at the end of it.
Acronyms are supposed to be clear, unambiguous, shorthand for a longer set of words.
CIA stands for Central Intelligence Agency.
YOLO stands for You Only Live Once.
MILF stands for, as you know, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and so on.
But LGBTQ+, commits the cardinal sin of acronyms, it's vague, it's unclear, and it invites a lot of speculation about what it stands for.
So, a few years ago, a crack investigative team at Fox 5 Las Vegas decided to look into this in a kind of roundabout way.
Officially, these unassuming journalists were covering the rise of the new eco-sexual movement, which involves people who say that they're sexually attracted to various aspects of the natural world, the ocean, the sun, the forest, etc.
And of course, the news crew had to play this completely straight, or else they'd be transphobic, or ecophobic, or whatever, and everybody at the station would lose their jobs.
But at one point in their report, Fox 5 spoke to an LGBTQ plus expert who runs some kind of gay rights center or something, and the expert does something you rarely see, which is she attempts to provide an explanation for the plus in LGBTQ plus watch.
Earth, one love story at a time.
The eco-sexual movement is moving its way into Las Vegas, but if you've never heard of it, don't Google it.
That's because with so many confusing stories about eco-sexuality out on the web, we decided to learn from an expert.
Fox 5's Shrenay Amara sat down with a professor who's been researching the start of the movement for years and gets into the weeds of what's going on.
What you're seeing is mother nature becoming lover nature.
This is actually one of many weddings to the earth.
And this one?
Marrying the sun and the people partaking are eco sexual.
Over 100,000 people identify as eco-sexual.
Now there's even a push to add the letter E to the LGBTQ acronym.
We went down to the center that serves the LGBTQ community to talk about how eco-sexuality falls under that umbrella.
Those letters and which ones we're using change.
It's not been for that long a time just over the past few years that we've added the Q and then we've added a plus because the community also with the growth of social media and the internet and dissecting and trying to have a better understanding of how humans think and how they feel.
Holly Reese is the Center's Community Engagement Manager.
She tells me there are over 26 letters that fall under what's called LGBTQ+, and there's no official way to add a letter, but it becomes more recognizable with more people who identify and accept the terms.
Okay, so put aside the freak shows who are getting married to the sun for a second, which by the way, I don't think that marriage is going to work out.
Like, you can't marry someone who will give you radiation poisoning.
Generally, it's hard to marry someone who, if you get within 10 million miles of them, they'll incinerate you.
It's like, that's one of those things that creates a division in the marriage that really will cause some problems long-term.
But we'll get back to them later.
So, the acronym LGBTQ+, apparently stands for more than 26 letters, if this expert is to be believed.
Now, if you're keeping track, the total number of letters in the alphabet is 26.
So, this acronym is apparently far longer than any of us imagined.
And apparently, since this is more than 26 letters, some letters are used more than once in the full acronym, or else they're incorporating letters from the Cambodian alphabet, maybe, which has 74 letters.
But specifically, we're told in this report that one letter that might soon be added to the list is E, so we'd have LGBTQE.
There's supposedly a push for that to happen, according to the reporter, and the E naturally stands for ecosexual.
And as I said, the clip you just saw is from a while back.
And yet, we still don't have the E in the acronym.
It still hasn't been added.
Even in Canada, where the acronym is currently so long that even Justin Trudeau flubs it when he tries to say it all, they still don't have the E for egosexual in there.
So, we can deduce that there's been some kind of snag in the process.
For whatever reason, ecosexuals simply aren't getting the recognition that they've demanded for a long time.
Well, recently a show called Naked Attraction, for some reason, decided to change this.
This is a show that's especially popular in the UK, although it does stream in the United States on HBO Max.
In an episode that aired this month, they put eco-sexuality front and center.
Now, if you're not familiar with the show, first of all, congratulations.
Basically, the idea of this show is that a contestant stands on the stage and six naked people are standing in front of him, and they're hidden in a booth so the contestants can't see any part of their bodies, and then as the show goes on, The booth lifts up gradually so the contestant can see more and more of their body starting with their feet and then going up from there so you can imagine the rest.
This devolves very quickly into full frontal nudity of both genders and eventually the idea is that the contestant wills down the competition down to two naked people and then the contestants take the contestant takes takes his his clothes off for whatever reason and then they go on a date or something like that.
Now, the case is not obvious.
I haven't seen this show.
I'm going off descriptions from the internet.
There's no reason any well-adjusted human being would want to watch a show like this.
Just from the synopsis, it's evident that everything about naked attraction is a clear and unmistakable sign of societal decline.
It's the kind of thing you can't even imagine happening in the Colosseum right before the fall of Rome.
Societies that still believe in God or even just have some basic shred of human decency, they don't pretend that pornography is a socially acceptable form of entertainment for the masses.
That's where our country is now.
There's no denying that.
Naked Attraction, according to The Hollywood Reporter, became the most popular series on HBO Max, now known as Max, just a week after its release in the United States.
So there's apparently a massive market for full-frontal nudity under the guise of a game show, which, given the state of things, is probably not a surprise.
And earlier this month, the show became the platform for rebooting the dormant eco-sexual agenda.
Apparently, there was a 25-year-old contestant who asks the faceless naked people in front of her to come up with a name for a dirty novel that they might write.
In response, one of the naked people responded, quote, And when the contestant asked if the naked person was an exhibitionist, here's how the naked woman responded.
Kind of, I'd say more eco-sexual.
What is that?
Eco-sexual?
Someone who finds nature sexy.
Huh.
This is a growing movement that treats nature as a sensual partner, and over 100,000 people now identify as eco-sexual worldwide.
How a person expresses their eco-sexuality ranges widely, from ceremonies where you can marry Mother Nature, to sex with trees, and even masturbating under waterfalls.
So...
Now you learn more about that than you want to do.
So, no matter how you slice it, saying 100,000 people subscribe to some deranged sexuality is not an endorsement of that sexuality.
And by the way, there's no citation for the 100,000 figure.
The best source I could find, which was updated in 2016, puts the number closer to 15,000 worldwide, and that makes a lot more sense because eco-sexuality appears to be something of a joke for a lot of these people, even the people who practice it.
So take, for example, this footage of a so-called eco-sexual wedding, which apparently involves a large number of people getting married to the ocean.
You can tell that nobody in the group appears to be taking this solemn occasion very seriously.
They're told that they can take as many wedding rings as they want, for example, and they giggle as they joke about sticking whatever body parts they want into the ocean.
They invoke God in a bunch of pagan garbage, perhaps pretty haphazardly.
Watch.
We're going to do a welcome to start but just keep in mind that we're going to go around and any vows that you want to make to the sea or to water, you know, you'll have a chance to speak your vows or do a poem or give them a flower or whatever you want to do or you can stay silent and just pass.
Today we stand upon this holy earth.
And in this sacred space to witness the rite of matrimony between the sea and us all.
Just as we come together as family and friends, so we ask the Lady and the Lord of the Wildwood to present here within our circle.
May the sacred union of this hand-fastened ceremony be filled with their holy presence.
In the name of God.
Is love declared and in the name of the goddess is peace declared?
Simply because you're here does not mean you have to marry the sea with us.
Yeah.
It's only if you want to.
Yeah, only if you're ready.
It's a big commitment.
Or a little one.
It's a huge commitment.
It's up to you.
And with this ring, I thee wed and bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind, heart, and hands.
As well as our body and soul.
In the power you have vested in us, we now pronounce you married to the sea!
Well, one thing, I'm glad, I was worried, I didn't know how they handled this, but they did avoid misgendering the sea, so they used, I don't know if you noticed, they used the they pronoun for the sea, so that's very important.
You don't want to make the sea feel invalidated, that's one thing, you don't want that at all, so you've got to be very careful, very sensitive about how you talk about the ocean.
Hopefully everybody on the beach was aware of what was going on and they stayed clear of the water for a while after that whole ceremony.
I wouldn't get into the water after an eco-sexual... In fact, I'd stay clear.
That's a hazardous waste area for like at least a week after.
There's no word yet on what exactly the honeymoon with the ocean entailed.
One may hope that... One may hope...
One may hope that consummating the marriage means that they all throw themselves into the sea, never to be seen again.
I'm not saying that I hope that, to be clear.
I would never wish death on anybody publicly.
I'm just saying that one may hope that.
There are people who would hope that.
But in any event, to give them some credit, it's not, it's, it's, well, not to give them credit, we wouldn't do that, but it's, um, It's difficult not to conclude that, when you watch the footage, that ecosexuals are, to some extent, in on the joke.
I assume they're not going to avoid other oceans.
You know, they're not going to go, if they marry the Pacific, they probably won't feel bad about going and waiting in the Atlantic, afraid that the one ocean will find out about the other.
They're probably not going to, you know, do anything untoward to the waves.
They won't do any of that, because from the look of it, they recognize, to some extent, the absurdity of the whole charade.
And in that respect, there's a big difference between these eco-sexuals and the people who prop up the endless list of fake sexualities that grow longer by the day.
There's something called Objectum Sexuality, or OS, which refers to sexual attraction to inanimate objects, like statues or furniture.
Nature, which was once a serious scientific publication, states that OS is linked to autism and other neurodevelopmental traits.
Who would have thought?
But instead of dismissing the concept of OS as completely absurd, which it is, Nature instead suggests that all these autistic people with OS merely provide a clue into the, quote, biological underpinnings of sexuality.
Presumably, Nature Magazine has the same opinions of other invented sexual orientations, including pansexuality, which, I mean, by comparison, pansexuality starts to look like quaint and traditional in light of these other things.
And now supposedly serious people are pretending that OS and eco-sexuality are legitimate.
In reality, of course, none of this has anything to do with sexuality.
It's not about science either.
It's about narcissism.
And once you embrace so-called alternative lifestyles and fake genders without any limiting principle, as pretty much every major scientific institution has, then you very quickly attract these narcissists in droves.
You know, you can't tell anybody that they're simply unwell.
Instead, you're supposed to sit in quiet amazement and pretend to be stunned by the fact that ecosexuals and object fetishists happen to have a lot of mental problems.
That's where the scientific community is right now.
Lunacy that pops up in Las Vegas and on softcore pornography shows like Naked Attraction is being backed up by supposedly preeminent scientific journals.
And what these journals can't say, because it's true, is that although a lot of these people are pretending to have unique sexualities as a way of accruing social credit points, they're really just damaged human beings who are seeking refuge in bizarre identities and fake sexualities.
Their real identity or sexuality is the rejection of normalcy.
That's what this is.
That's why their latest breeding ground is the smuttiest, least watchable television program imaginable.
Ecosexuality is not about hugging trees or doing perhaps more unsightly things to trees.
Although it may include that, it's about very confused people who need a lot less tolerance than they've been getting.
They certainly don't need a pornographic game show to encourage them.
