Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Pride Month has started again, unfortunately. This year's festivities kicked off with a gay pride message from a very popular YouTuber who makes content for very young children. Also, a politician in Canada uses the cringiest method possible to voice her support for a law that will lower the voting age to 16. Fauci admits that the social distancing regulations he came up with had no scientific basis. And, a viral post on social media laments the lack of "emotional intelligence" in men. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1379
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
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, Pride Month has started again, unfortunately.
This year's festivities kicked off with a gay pride message from a very popular YouTuber who makes content for very young children.
Also, a politician in Canada uses the cringiest method possible to voice her support for a law that will lower the voting age to 16.
Fauci admits that the social distancing regulations that he came up with had no scientific basis, and a viral post on social media laments the lack of emotional intelligence, quote-unquote, in men.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
We recently had some monumental news that nobody's talking about.
For the first time in our history, the interest we pay on the national debt has surpassed every individual budget item except for Social Security.
The United States now spends more on interest than on national defense or Medicare.
And the situation is only getting worse as big government continues to spend like drunken sailors.
That's why investor central banks and concerned savers are turning to gold, something not tied to the inflated U.S.
debt.
You can, too, with the help of Birch Gold.
Birch Gold understands that navigating financial decisions can be scary.
That's why their dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Birchgold is committed to addressing your questions and concerns promptly.
Their team is always ready to provide answers and clarity, whether it's about fees, taxes and rollovers, or the timing of the process.
They're here to ensure that you feel valued and well-informed.
Text WALSH to 989898 to talk to one of Birchgold's experts and claim your free info kit on gold.
You'll learn how to convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
The best part is, it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Just text WALSH to 989898.
That's WALSH to 989898.
So June is upon us, which means that the government, media, political activists, and major corporations have all collectively decided once again to spend an entire month celebrating one of the seven deadly sins.
Fathers, mothers, veterans, fallen soldiers all receive just one day on the calendar each, but People who are proud of their sexual activities are awarded four weeks of non-stop attention, on top of all the other various days and weeks that they've earmarked for themselves.
And the point of this all-encompassing production is to browbeat you into submission, to force you to join the celebration, whether you want to or not.
Now, as anyone who was alive a few decades ago can attest, our country wasn't always like this.
Every aspect of these festivities is artificial, which is why every year the facade becomes
a little more obvious, even to the most oblivious among us.
It's a bit like that old story from the Soviet Union where nobody wanted to be the first
person to stop clapping for Stalin.
So everybody just clapped indefinitely.
And then inevitably, someone is the first person to stop, and they end up getting in
a lot of trouble.
In that case, going to the Gulag for like 10 years or whatever it was.
And something like that happened over the weekend to the luxury car maker BMW.
Now this year, as they've done every year in recent memory, BMW dutifully changed its official profile picture on social media to reflect the gay-friendly colors.
But at the same time, BMW very conspicuously didn't change its profile picture in Middle Eastern countries at all.
Unfortunately for BMW, someone on the internet noticed this discrepancy and asked BMW the following question, quote, How come you don't proudly display your logos and pride colors on your Middle East post?
And then, for reasons that are not clear at all, somebody at BMW decided to respond to that question.
They wrote, quote, This is an established practice at the BMW Group, which also takes into consideration market-specific legal regulations and country-specific cultural aspects.
So that's the official explanation from BMW for why the pride colors are for Western countries and not the Arab countries.
We're just pandering is essentially what they're saying.
They're admitting that this isn't about activism or gay rights or whatever.
They're just adjusting their messaging for what they think people want to hear so they can make money.
Not exactly a major revelation here, but this kind of honesty from a major corporation is unusual.
And if you're the optimistic type, you might take it as a sign that things might be returning to normal somewhat at some point in the near future.
There are certainly other indications that corporate America is finally retreating.
To some extent from this insanity. For example, last year Microsoft's Xbox brand removed their
pride colors from their social media accounts for just four days in the pride month. And this year,
at least so far, they haven't made any change to the branding for pride month whatsoever.
They've also preemptively locked replies on Twitter and other platforms
on some of their pride month messaging.
But for every positive sign like that, there are indications that we are in fact backsliding further into the abyss.
And for example, one of the social media accounts of the Navy SEALs posted this image celebrating Pride Month.
Here it is.
You can see it.
This is the Navy Special Warfare Command flying the LGBTQ colors and lecturing us about equality and pride.
You won't find a better illustration for why the Navy is experiencing a massive recruitment shortfall than this.
It should go without saying, but the kind of people who appreciate these flags and make their sexuality into their identity are generally not the kind of people who want to endure grueling conditions and potentially sacrifice their lives behind enemy lines for America.
We want people in these positions who are focused on the mission and on the defense of their country.
That should be obvious to the Navy SEALs, but apparently it's not.
And of course, that's not even getting into the larger issue, which is that the government should not be participating in activism.
Period.
And there's a lot of reasons for that.
One of them is that, in many cases, it creates an obvious conflict of interest.
Consider the fact that on Sunday, the FBI was sashaying through the Gay Pride Parade in West Hollywood.
There were several FBI employees who were wearing their FBI-issued clothing, apparently followed by FBI vehicles, in the parade.
Watch.
Now, this is the same FBI that under Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray has launched investigations into parents who question the indoctrination of children at school board meetings.
You may remember that.
Parents didn't like their kids reading books that vividly described various gay encounters, so the school board groups complained, and the FBI started looking into the whole situation, and now that same FBI is marching at a parade that's explicitly a celebration of that lifestyle.
It was also a celebration of abortion too, which is why Planned Parenthood participated in that pride parade.
And of course, that's another conflict of interest because the FBI notoriously doesn't seem to care very much about attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers, but they'll show up in pre-dawn raids to haul away pro-life protesters who dare to protest at abortion clinics.
Now, this parade in West Hollywood, by the way, is traditionally one of the most disturbing and hyper-sexualized Pride parades that takes place every year.
And this year was no different.
I went through some of the footage from the parade yesterday, but most of it's too graphic to even show you without blurring it.
But here's what, just to give you an idea, here's what I can show you.
Watch.
A lot of boys wearing the midriff, but you don't see that much that style here.
I see a lot of skin today.
Yeah, there is a lot of skin.
I think skin is very much on trend and in for sure.
And color.
I want to do a shout out really fast to Mr. Universe Organization.
That's right.
Mr. Universe Organization.
Oh, and there we go.
No warning.
Just letting you know that this is float number 12 rolling in with an important message.
It is Mr. Get Your Prep Online for free with Mr. They offer free online prep and STI testing and no doctor's office, no needles, no paperwork and free delivery.
Look, it's the nuns!
Oh, not the perpetual nuns of love!
What has been your favorite part of this event so far?
I loved going out there and seeing all the kids just living and being there with their parents of all shapes and sizes and just seeing them having so much fun and giving them fans and throwing candy and everything like that.
Okay, so I'm going to cut around quite a bit, do some blurring, because with these sorts of things there's only so much we can actually show you.
But this is a disturbing clip in part because the local news station is broadcasting all of it enthusiastically as if it's normal.
There's strippers on stripper poles, there's men dressed as firefighters in their underwear, there's an Abbey float with a cross with even more guys in their underwear, there's nuns in drag, there's men in BDSM gear.
There's a bunch of children there.
Some of them are even participating, as you saw.
In fact, the commentators are celebrating the fact that there are so many kids in attendance and there's so much skin being displayed as well.
This kind of thing, as grotesque as it is, wasn't just happening in West Hollywood.
At the supposedly family-friendly Dallas Pride event this weekend, as Sarah Gonzalez and Alex Stein reported, announcers made graphic jokes about genitals with children in attendance.
There was also sexually explicit merchandise, which I can't even describe, on air.
And a state representative was filmed bringing children to the event.
Watch.
Where are my bisexuals?
Bisexuals?
They're not really bisexuals, they're just sluts.
Ooh, Cox Automotive!
*unintelligible* You're in good company, except for the ladies who are a
little grossed out by that.
Bless my chins.
Yeah, you need to stop taking kids to gay events!
Stop taking kids to gay events, you weirdo!
Are you really a state rep?
I am, I am.
Why don't you do something about the border?
What about the fentanyl crisis?
The border?
Oh my gosh!
We need to make the border more flexible!
Are you serious?
What about all the drug cartels?
Yes, we have to stop consumption over here in the United States!
That's a big party!
So this is what pride means.
It's what every major power center in this country, from the FBI to the Navy SEALs to the media, is supporting.
Even the VA hospital in Orlando is celebrating this.
Take a look at this footage here.
So it's hard to see in the clip, but there's at least three pride-themed items in the lobby at the hospital, including the flag.
There's also a little sign that tells patients to inform the receptionist of their pronouns.
Again, you talk about a recruitment crisis in the military, this isn't helping.
It's shameful, obviously.
So is this event in Philadelphia, which just put on the largest Drag Queen Story Hour for kids ever, at least according to Guinness records.
They're very proud of that.
Watch.
You had 263!
[cheering]
[applause]
Congratulations.
Drag Story Time is, of course, a literacy program.
Literacy is the foundation for success through life.
My mom told us all, you should go to bed early.
I'm gonna give them all a big round of applause.
So as Meg Brock pointed out in response to this clip, the good news is that in a city
of almost 1.6 million, only 263 people showed up.
That was the world record.
263 people at a drag event intended to indoctrinate children in a city of 1.6 million.
Now that's 263 too many, of course, but it does underscore the fact that this is not a mainstream ideology, at least not among normal people in public.
It is among our institutions.
But, in fact, beyond that, it's not even mainstream on the left at this point.
That's why not everything went according to the plan at the Philly Pride this year.
At one point, for example, pro-Gaza protesters ran into Pride Month protesters.
Now, if nothing else, the clash provided the first moment of unintentional comedy so far in Pride Month, and we're only, you know, a day or two into it.
Probably be seeing a lot more of this in the months to come.
Watch.
Okay.
So there's some aggressive drumming going on there and it's kind of.
It's hard to tell who's on whose side on this one.
It literally backfired in an intersection, which is kind of nice.
You can pretty much guarantee that all of these pride protesters are free Palestine people themselves.
There were free Palestine chants at the WeHo parade, for example.
But the real free Palestine people, the ones who actually understand what they're supporting, don't take too kindly to pride parades.
It's amazing to watch, like a defund-the-police congressman having to call the cops after he gets smacked by the reality of what he supports.
As the left continues to import more of the Arab world, they're going to have to get used to this sort of thing.
This is new, but it's not going away.
At the same time, for every indication that Pride Month is different this year, there was another reminder that not much has changed.
For example, Walmart just aired this Pride Month advertisement, as if the whole Target boycott didn't happen last year.
They decided to charge ahead with this.
They don't appear to care that Target lost billions of dollars in market cap.
Watch.
Queer people have magic that we can share.
We're lucky enough to be in the Walmart Pride Collection this year.
Total dream come true.
It's not every day that I see my products in a Walmart.
It's important to me to share my art.
No one can make the art that you make.
No one can say the things the way you say them.
There's a lot of opportunity to uplift with a bit of playfulness and imperfection.
The world needs to hear what you have to say and your story.
Queer people have magic, says Walmart, as if you needed any more proof that LGBT activism is a secular religion.
You know, that's what you get there.
We're being literally told now that they have magical powers.
And as I discussed on Twitter recently, some of those popular children's content creators, people whose videos are viewed by tens of millions of children, very young children all over the world, are the biggest evangelists for this.
So take Rachel Accurso, for example, known by her stage name Miss Rachel.
She has more than 10 million subscribers on YouTube, where she's best known for her series Songs for Littles.
And these are videos that get hundreds of, tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of views.
And for the most part, the videos themselves are mostly age-appropriate stuff, like nursery rhymes, even if they are incredibly annoying.
But over the past year or so, Miss Rachel has started explicitly pushing LGBT indoctrination on her audience.
It wasn't hard to see this coming.
After all, Miss Rachel's co-host, Jules, identifies as a, quote, white, non-binary, trans-masc human.
And claims that, as a two-year-old, she realized something's not right, quote-unquote, with her body.
And at 12, a teacher first exposed her to gender ideology.
And then the rest is history for her.
But early last year, things reportedly got more direct.
According to the Postmillennial, Ms.
Rachel personally invited Dylan Mulvaney on her program to sing a song for children.
And this is what Ms.
Rachel posted below one of Mulvaney's videos.
It said, quote, sometime when you're in NYC, you should be on our show, Song for Littles.
We love you and your singing.
Now that wasn't bad enough, and if it wasn't clear enough that this woman hates the conservative parents who account for a large portion of her audience, Miss Rachel doubled down in a video celebrating Pride Month.
Here it is.
Pride to all of our wonderful families and friends.
This month and every month I celebrate you.
I'm so glad you're here.
I'm so glad you're exactly who you are.
To those who are going to comment they can't watch the show anymore because of the support, no worries and much love your way.
God bless.
I am not chasing fame or views.
I'm standing strong in love.
So, she's very loving, she says.
Ms.
Rachel's approach is the loving one.
If you don't want your kids watching Dylan Mulvaney, and if you don't take your kids to family-friendly Pride events, then you're a hateful person.
You know, the problem is with you.
You're a bigot, etc.
Of course, the real point here isn't, to me, loving.
As Jules has said, the point is to, quote, encourage and nurture a sense of curiosity in kids, and to teach them that there are infinite, quote-unquote, ways to exist in the world, and, quote, one isn't better than another.
The point, in other words, is to indoctrinate more kids with lies and falsehoods.
And this is a falsehood, of course.
There are not actually infinite ways to exist.
When it comes to our sex, there are actually only two ways, male and female.
So it's a very finite system.
And when it comes to the lifestyles and the choices that people make, some indeed are better than others.
So this message might be delivered with a smile, but that doesn't make it any better or any less wrong, of course.
In any case, the indoctrination continued this weekend at the Queer Fam Jam in Chicago.
This event was sponsored by Lululemon, and Jules, the Miss Rachel co-host, was a headline performer at the event.
Watch.
Well, a PrideFest launch last year in Chicago returned today, this time at Millennium Park.
Hundreds of families from the LGBTQ plus community enjoying Queer Fam Pride Jam.
WGN's Sean Lewis has our report.
With the sun overhead and June underway.
The queer fam Pride Jam kicked off in a new location, Millennium Park.
It just makes me very proud to be a Chicagoan today.
And I think it's important that he sees that there's all kinds of people in this world and all kinds of love in this world and not to be judgmental about it and just be open-minded and amazing.
You can't be what you can't see.
So when you walk in and you're not one family, but you're one of many, it's just the affirmation that that provides and the hope to keep going and living in your truth.
It's just irreplaceable.
You can't be what you can't see, we're told.
And that really kind of sums it up.
These activists understand that their agenda must be foisted.
It must be imposed.
It has to be shown to people, particularly children.
Kids will not come up with any of this stuff on their own.
We knew the local news media wouldn't cover the whole story, so the Daily Wire's field reporter, Spencer Lindquist, was at the event in Chicago, and here's some of the footage that he recorded.
Watch.
[MUSIC]
Here you go.
Keep going.
Good.
Go, go.
Hold it.
Let's go, let's go.
I got you.
5, 6, 7, 8.
5, 6, 5.
Look to the right and right.
Hold it.
Good.
Good.
Hold it.
And to the left.
♪ Falling down, love ♪ ♪ Falling down, baby ♪
♪ Down to the top of the world ♪ - Okay, so lots of very young children there.
The children were subjected to a grown man in a skin-tight leopard print onesie with heels, shaking his body around while collecting a dollar bill from a small child.
The children were then trained in the gay, vogue dance style by a grown man learning to strut and shimmy, quote-unquote.
This is creepy, obviously, which is probably why the local news didn't cover exactly what took place, but it's a good illustration of the state of Pride Month in the year 2024.
It's more explicitly targeted towards kids than ever before, but there's also a sense of embarrassment about it.
If The Daily Wire hadn't been there, it seems likely that nobody would have ever aired footage like that.
So they want to have these events, they don't really want anyone, they don't want anyone outside of the event to see what's going on there.
What this means is that if you have kids, it's never been more important to pay attention to what they're watching, what events they're attending.
You can't just put on a kid-friendly YouTube show and expect that everything's going to be fine.
It also means that everyone, whether they have kids or not, needs to reject this insanity because it appears the pushback so far is having at least some effect.
And the stakes couldn't be more clear.
Only a disturbed, doomed culture celebrates pride.
That's biblical wisdom that happens to be common sense.
And with every depraved, supposedly family-friendly event that's exposed this month, hopefully many more people, finally, will wake up to that fact.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This year, the IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies or property seizures are halted, providing you with
peace of mind and financial security.
If you haven't filed in a while and you need amended returns or are missing records,
Tax Network USA expert tax preparers will update all your filings, eliminating the risk of IRS
enforcement. Tax Network USA will evaluate your financials and create a settlement strategy to
reduce or eliminate your tax debt, putting it behind you for good. Don't wait any longer and
call my friends at Tax Network USA today.
For a complimentary consultation call 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh today.
So let's start with some cringe.
We're gonna dive right into the deep end with this pure grade A cringe here.
This is the military grade stuff.
Okay, this is This is something.
Up in Canada, which of course is the cringiest country on earth, next to Australia, they're working on a bill to lower the voting age to 16.
And that's not the cringy part.
Well, it is cringy, but it gets worse.
Senator Bernadette Clement is a supporter of that bill, and she wanted to express her support for it, and she decided to express her support this way.
Watch.
Now bear with me as I go into my last paragraph here, because I had this part translated into Gen Z for us.
Honourable Fam, waiting to vote until 18 is a big yikes and mad suggy.
But S201 hits different.
Today's youth slays and stays bussing.
That's why we've got to give them a chance to clap back.
If not, how will we be able to say that they ate that up?
No cap, this bill slaps and is electoral glow-up.
I am its number one stan for real.
Merci, thank you, nyawa.
My God.
God help us.
God help us all.
You know, up until now, the most out of touch and embarrassing attempt to appeal to the youth I'd ever seen in my life It was probably when I went to a Christian youth camp as a kid, which is where a lot of cringy, embarrassing attempts to appeal to the youth occur.
But anyway, I went to one when I was a kid and there was a priest who broke into a freestyle rap on stage.
Freestyle rap about how we should... I don't know.
I can't remember what the subject was.
About how Jesus is awesome or something along those lines.
So up until this moment, that was the pinnacle of this particular brand of cringe that I'd ever witnessed.
But I think this beats it.
I think that this comes out on top.
And more importantly, of course, letting 16-year-olds vote is an insane idea.
I mean, it's Canada.
So, what difference does it make at this point, you could say.
If Canada wants to speed up its own march into its own self-annihilation, then that's Canada's choice.
I have no dog in the fight, really.
But it's worth addressing because lowering the voting age is an idea that has a fair amount of support in this country also.
In fact, unless there's some kind of sudden miraculous restoration of basic common sense in this country, I suspect that the voting age in the US will be lowered.
At some point in the next probably 10 years.
And what makes this inevitable is that politicians, especially Democrat politicians, have a vested interest in lowering the voting age.
That's why anything that actually happens, anything they really get done, it only gets done because it serves their purposes, obviously, and this would.
And it helps them because 16-year-olds are naive and ignorant, And that's what politicians love.
Politicians love naive and ignorant voters because they're easier to manipulate.
Now, of course, we already have millions of naive and ignorant adult voters who collectively are ushering us into our national ruination.
That's already happening, but there can never be enough.
From the perspective of our political leaders, you can never get enough of those kinds of voters.
And that's the only reason why anybody in a position of power would want to lower the voting age.
It is specifically so they can increase the number of ignorant, intellectually malleable voters.
And really lowering the voting age, although it's an insane thing to do, It's just a logical extension of our current approach to voting anyway.
Because most people already believe that voting is a universal human right, which it isn't, something that everybody should participate in, which they shouldn't, and that it doesn't matter if somebody's clueless, it doesn't matter if they have no skin in the game, it doesn't matter if they're not contributing members of society, they should all still vote.
That is the popular perception.
And it's completely wrong.
This idea that the most important thing is just for lots of people to be voting.
That's the prevailing attitude.
Now, granted, nobody actually believes that.
That's not a view that anyone actually holds.
Because when it comes down to it, even the people that say, well, it's a universal right whenever to vote.
Well, no, they want more of their own people to vote.
Of course.
So nobody really believes that, but that's what people pretend to believe.
And based on that attitude, sure, why not have 16-year-olds vote?
Why not have 12-year-olds vote?
Why not have babies register to vote at the same time that their birth certificates are issued?
I mean, why not?
I can think of a million reasons why not, but we already reject all of those reasons.
Because in reality, as I've been shouting to no avail for years now, I've been shouting from the rooftops, quite uselessly really, but still, it bears repeating anyway, that the problem with voting is that too many people do it.
That's our actual problem.
It's not a lack of participation, it's not a lack of...
You know, when voter turnout is lower, that's not a problem that we should be worried about.
Okay?
If voter turnout in a particular election is 10%, is down 10% from the election cycle before, We should say, oh no, it's down 10%.
We should say, okay, it's down 10%.
It's still like 80% higher than it should be.
We need to cut off another 80%.
Probably of the people who vote, maybe like 10% of them should be.
Maybe 10% are qualified to be voting.
If we actually cared about the future of our country, then this is the kind of conversation we'd be having, but we just, we can't.
The problem is that, again, our elected representatives, I mean, they have no interest in this.
They're not going to ever talk about actually excluding people from voting because it's a politically suicidal thing to say.
But also because, again, it cuts against their own interests.
Why would they want to do anything that ensures a more invested, more knowledgeable voting base?
They don't want that.
That's the worst thing for these people.
And the dumber our elected representatives get, the more that that's the case.
Like, the dumber they get, the dumber they need the voters to be.
Yeah, when we played that Jerry Springer Waffle House showdown that happened at a congressional hearing a couple weeks ago with Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC, And the whole thing just completely embarrassing and humiliating for everybody involved, but also for the country.
But that's the kind of thing that if you had only knowledgeable, fully invested, contributing members of society voting, that would never happen, because none of those people would be in office.
It wouldn't be possible for them to get elected.
But they are, because this is the direction we're going instead.
So I guess this is a way of saying, like, okay, yeah, it's crazy to allow 16-year-olds to vote, but at this point, whatever.
It doesn't even matter.
It honestly just doesn't even matter.
I suspect we'll eventually get to a point where even if our elected representatives don't want to have the conversation, at least there will be a critical mass of normal Americans who are ready to talk about this, who are ready to actually fundamentally question What so many accept as like a religious dogma?
That there's this universal right to vote and everyone should be able to do it?
It's just completely false.
It was never how our country was set up.
You cannot have a functioning country that works that way.
You just can't.
No, not everyone should have a say in the direction of the country.
No!
Why should everyone?
Just because you exist?
Just because you exist, you should have a say?
Why?
If you're a moron and you have no clue what's happening in your own country, if I were to ask you the branches of government and you couldn't even tell me, if you're not a contributing member of society, if you're not doing anything, why the hell should you have any say at all?
Well, just because I'm me.
I don't care if you're you.
I'm a human being.
Okay, well, you're a human being.
Great.
You have a fundamental moral worth as a human being.
That doesn't mean that your perspective on who should lead the country has any value at all.
Eventually, we'll get to a point where we're all ready to have this.
Maybe not all of us, but enough of us are ready to have this conversation that there can even be a conversation.
But right now, we're just not there.
Alright.
From the Daily Wire, the six-foot social distancing guideline pushed by public health officials during the COVID-19 pandemic apparently lacked any sound basis in science, according to the testimony of former Chief Medical Advisor to the President, Anthony Fauci.
Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advised former President Donald Trump, of course, we know about all that.
Advised Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden on the U.S.
response to COVID-19, carrying significant influence over infectious disease policies.
Fauci appeared on Capitol Hill in January to testify behind closed doors to members of the select subcommittee on the COVID-19 pandemic.
These transcripts, and if you're wondering why we're just hearing this now, the transcripts, we don't have video of this, but the transcripts were just released on Friday.
And so now we're just finding out about some of this.
One line of questioning from the Republican Council focused on the six-foot social distancing standard.
Fauci was asked where the standard originated.
The former federal health official suggested that the standard was arbitrary without a hard basis in data.
Fauci said, quote, You know, I don't recall.
It sort of just appeared.
I don't recall like a discussion of whether it should be five or six or whatever.
That's just great. None of this is surprising. We know that we are. We already knew all of this
basically, but it is still just outrageous. These were These were not just guidelines, these were policies that were put in place.
People were forced to, or at least they attempted to force people to abide by it.
And now the guy behind it, he's asked, like, where did that come from?
Why did you tell?
Well, I don't know.
It just appeared.
It appeared.
The guidelines appeared out of thin air.
They just, magically.
They descended down from heaven.
I don't know.
It's like Mount Sinai.
They were decreed.
Is that what happened?
In response to a question if Fauci had seen any studies supporting the six-foot standard, Fauci responded in the negative.
I was not aware of studies that, in fact, that would be a very difficult... I was not aware of studies that, in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do.
Okay?
Also in his testimony, the GOP council asked Fauci if he had seen evidence to support the masking of children.
Fauci said, you know, I might have, Mitch, but I don't recall specifically that I did.
I might have.
Um, so this is another thing that kids, kids were forced to mask in school.
Like you may recall, this was a big, big fight for like multiple years.
And people have said that it's crazy to make kids wear masks all day at school or anywhere.
We were shouted down, shut down, we were, you know, there was a long period of time where you couldn't even say it on social media, you couldn't say it on YouTube.
And now Fauci admits that, you know, there might have, I don't know, maybe I saw a study that supported that, but I don't know.
This is, but here's the thing, this is the, this whole story.
It's like the black pill of all black pills, this is, because there is simply no accountability.
Nobody will ever be held accountable for any of this.
I'm sure you've maybe come to terms with that.
You've probably realized that by now, whether or not you've come to terms with it, you've realized that nobody will ever be held accountable for any of this.
They shut down the country.
They did untold damage, economic damage, damage to people's, real damage to people's mental health, as much as I don't often like that phrase and what it implies.
But in this case, doing real damage to people psychologically, financially, physically.
Suspending basically all of our constitutional rights.
And here we are a few years later, and they can't give us any reason why any of this was done.
The guys behind it cannot tell us why any of this was done.
They have no justification for it.
But there will be no accountability.
No one's going to jail.
No one's even getting fined or anything.
There's not going to be anything.
There won't even be a slap on the wrist.
Not even so much as a literal slap, like they used to do in school, maybe with a ruler, just a quick tap on the wrist.
There won't even be that.
There will be nothing.
And there are a few reasons for that.
One is the fact that the American public does have the memory and attention span of a fruit fly, and so we just can't stay focused on one thing for that long.
And once something is in the past, we say, oh, it's in the past, who cares?
It doesn't matter anymore.
Let's go on to the next thing.
What's the next big controversy?
But even more than that, the real reason why nobody will be held accountable is that this was a tyranny, the COVID tyranny.
It was imposed by pretty much the whole political class, by the whole ruling class.
Republican, Democrat, Very few people at that level are actually innocent in this thing.
And that's why no one is going to be held accountable, because there is no one to do the holding.
In order to be held accountable, there has to be someone who has the power to do it.
But all the people that have the power to do it are also responsible for this.
So, there's just an agreement among all of them that, yeah, you know, we're not going I mean, we'll do the hearings and stuff like that, but we're not going to actually do anything about any of this, and we're not going to send anyone to jail, certainly not.
We're going to kind of cover the bases symbolically and then move on like it never happened.
All right, if that wasn't depressing enough, let's do another one.
This is the New York Post.
It says, a young Dutch woman finally got her tragic wish to die by assisted suicide.
29-year-old Zaria Ter Beek's life was terminated last week after waiting three years for final approval for her euthanasia, which is legal in Netherlands if the patient is deemed to be experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement.
Ter Beek was diagnosed with autism when she was 21.
By the time she was 22, she wore a do not resuscitate tag around her neck.
She reportedly had been hoping to end her life since she was a child as she was bullied growing up and often felt like she didn't fit in.
And she struggled with depression, anxiety, personality disorders, wanted to assisted suicide, waited three years, and now she got it.
So she's now no longer with us.
And we've been following this case over the last year or so.
If you listen to the show, you've heard about this woman.
And now the case has reached its very unfortunate, though probably inevitable, conclusion.
And this is a woman who, just to review what we read and what we've covered, this is a woman who did not have any physical illness, much less a terminal one.
She was perfectly physically healthy, but she was depressed, and she was bullied, and she was anxious, and so she wanted to be put down.
After waiting on a waitlist, a suicide waitlist, she was finally killed.
Now, she was very vocal about her situation.
She wanted her case to be used as a kind of a means to promote assisted suicide even more.
But I think it's tragically instructive the other way.
Because it perfectly encapsulates all of the worst things about euthanasia.
It shows why euthanasia should not be legal, why it should not be allowed.
And it shows, most of all, The inherent contradiction of the whole thing.
Like, the whole thing relies on a kind of collective cognitive dissonance in any society that accepts it.
There's this disconnect that underlies euthanasia and the euthanasia agenda.
And here's why.
Here's a thought experiment, a hypothetical.
Imagine this.
Imagine If I was driving over a bridge, and I happen to see a young woman, say a young woman named Zariah, standing at the edge of the bridge.
And now imagine that I pull over, and I approach, and I ask her, you know, what's wrong?
And imagine that she tells me that her life isn't worth living anymore, and she's depressed, and she's been bullied, and she wants to kill herself.
Okay?
Now imagine that I respond by saying, okay, well, good luck then.
And I get in my car and I drive away.
Maybe in my rearview mirror I can see her, you know, tumbling over the edge.
If I were to respond to a suicidal person that way, not attempting to dissuade them, not calling the police, but rather just accepting their wishes, so she wants to die, it's her right to die, maybe I'd even say that.
What if I said that?
What if I said, okay, well, you know, that's your right.
See you later.
If I did that, nearly everyone would agree, rightfully, that I'm a monster.
There are plenty of people who think I'm a monster anyway, but let's leave that aside.
Nearly everyone would think that, including nearly everyone who supports euthanasia.
Okay?
But in that case, those people would say, well, how could you?
She was gonna kill herself if you just let her do it?
What kind of psychopath are you?
Now, the contradiction here is totally irreconcilable.
In fact, in the case of jumping off the bridge, nearly everyone would agree that not only should I try to dissuade her, but that I can, and in fact should, use physical force to stop her, if that's what it takes.
Almost everyone would agree with that.
And if you, let's say you pulled up next, and this woman was about to jump, and you saw me run up and grab her to stop her from jumping, you wouldn't object to what I did.
You wouldn't stand there and say, well, what are you doing?
That's her choice.
How dare you?
You wouldn't say that.
No, in fact, you would say I'm a hero.
I acted heroically to prevent this woman from doing what she wanted to do, but what she wanted to do was kill herself.
And so, that's how everybody would react.
And yet, if that woman just, let's say, keeps walking across the bridge and stops at her doctor's office a mile down the road and decides to use a poison needle or a poison pill or whatever to kill herself, then all of a sudden, it's now something we shouldn't try to stop.
In fact, a doctor should facilitate it, should perform it for her.
In fact, imagine this.
Imagine that I stop, because this is really, if you want to make this really analogous to assisted suicide, then it would be this.
She's about to jump off the bridge.
I stop.
I ask her what's wrong.
She says she wants to kill herself.
And then she says, well, I want to jump.
I don't want to live anymore, but I can't bring myself to do it.
So would you come over and push me?
And then, what if I did?
I mean, she wants to kill herself.
She's fully consented.
She's asked me to assist in her suicide.
So what if I said, okay, well, all right, if that's what you want.
And I just shoved her over the bridge.
Now, not only would I be condemned nationwide, globally, in fact, for doing that, but I would go to prison.
I would go to prison for a long time for doing that.
And there would be basically nobody speaking up in my defense.
And yet, that is exactly what doctors who perform assisted suicide are doing!
It's right there in the freaking name!
Assisted suicide!
And in that case, it's suddenly okay?
Now, supporters of euthanasia will probably make some ridiculous claim about how, well, I'm not a doctor.
And this medical treatment should be handled by a professional.
Except that's not really your problem.
Like, get real.
Okay, if I push the woman off the bridge at her own request, the outrage that you would feel towards me is not the moral outrage that you feel towards someone who practices medicine without a license.
Okay, your issue is not that I'm not properly licensed and the paperwork hasn't been filed.
No, you would feel the innate, just visceral moral outrage that you would feel towards any murderer.
That's how you would feel.
It's got nothing to do with paperwork and licenses and everything else.
No, you would hate me because I pushed a woman off a bridge.
Because this woman is in mental and emotional distress and rather than stopping her from killing herself, I helped her.
And also, you know, killing someone is not medicine.
Okay, just because you do it in a doctor's office, that doesn't make it medicine.
Just because a doctor does it, that doesn't mean that it's medicine.
This is a very simple concept that seems to be hard for a lot of people to grasp.
Just because a doctor, the definition of medicine is not whatever a doctor does.
Okay, that's not the definition of medicine.
And we should all understand that because through the decades and centuries and through the course of human civilization, many horrific things have been done in the name of medicine, have been done by doctors who claim that they're helping.
So we don't just accept all of that out of hand because a doctor's doing it.
No, medicine is a particular thing.
Medicine, by definition, is meant to heal and treat.
And cure.
Not everything can be cured.
Not everything can be healed.
But at the very least, it is treated.
That's what medicine is.
Killing someone is not a treatment.
Death is not a treatment plan.
And here's another thing that shouldn't need to be explained.
So then we go back to what exactly is the difference Between a doctor performing assisted suicide and me pushing a woman off a bridge when she asks me to.
There is no difference.
It's the same thing.
I mean, it is exactly the same thing.
And yet, everybody recognizes that one of those things would be a horrific act of evil.
And yet the other thing is supported, even celebrated, by many of those same people.
It doesn't make any sense.
And what does that tell you?
It tells you that, it really tells you that almost nobody actually supports euthanasia.
Because almost no one is honest about what it actually is.
Like the whole point of euthanasia is to hide from what this thing is that's being done.
That's the whole point of it.
And if that's not the point, then it has no point.
Just the whole idea that someone is waiting for three years on a wait list to kill themselves, it's like a very macabre, dark joke.
I mean, it's absurd.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so horrifically tragic and awful.
It's like some very dark satire of modern society that you've got people waiting on waitlists and filling out paperwork to kill themselves.
Because the obvious thing here is that anyone can do that.
Anyone can do that.
That's a thing that anyone can do.
And yet, Let's say do-it-yourself methods of suicide are things that we all recognize are horrible, and we would never... Anyone who tells us that they're struggling with suicidal thoughts, we would all want to dissuade them.
We would all want... In fact, even this article in the New York Post, at the very end of it, in the article, there's a link to the suicide helpline.
Well, what do they do with the suicide helpline?
They don't send you to euthanasia, they try to convince you, they try to help you not do that.
Because when it comes to suicide, we all recognize that it's wrong, and people shouldn't do it, and if they're doing it, then it's because, like, by definition, they're not in the right state of mind, and that life is worth living, and that we should never just give up on it.
We all recognize that.
And yet euthanasia has support from many millions of people, which again tells me that these are people who just are not, like, the whole thing exists to allow people to hide from what it is.
It is a way of not so much, it's not so much a method of suicide as it is a branding.
It's a method of branding it so that it seems like something other than what it is.
And then one of the things that's so horrible about that is that you end up with people who commit suicide through euthanasia who otherwise would not.
I mean, pretty much anyone who's going through the steps to commit euthanasia, if euthanasia was not legal, they wouldn't do it.
They wouldn't kill themselves.
Because if they would, they just would.
There'd be no reason to wait on a wait list.
So by definition, anyone who's getting euthanasia, you can't even talk about it without talking about it as though it's a medical treatment.
That's part of the point here.
But anyone who is availing themselves of euthanasia, by definition, we know that if not for euthanasia,
they wouldn't kill themselves.
And so people that are very concerned about the idea of banning euthanasia.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What's the slippery slope?
What's like the dystopian consequence of banning euthanasia?
More people live?
That's what they're worried about.
That's the consequence.
The consequence of having euthanasia is that a lot more people end up dying.
The consequence of not having it is that more people live.
And that's a bad thing.
We're told.
When the justice system collapses, we don't sit back.
We fight back.
The Daily Wire, we deliver you the truth.
And if recent news tells us anything, it's that the truth has become more important than
ever.
Join The Daily Wire as we fight the left and build the future.
You'll get unfiltered, uncensored access to the most trusted names in conservative media,
completely ad-free.
Plus, you'll have unlimited access to our entire catalog of entertainment, including
hit movies, series, groundbreaking documentaries, and you'll be the first to see what's coming
Sign up today at DailyWirePlus.com to get 25% off annual memberships with the code FITE.
That's right, 25% off when you use code FITE at checkout.
Don't miss out.
Join the fight today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Well, it's not every day that a tweet thread from an anonymous account called Meatball
Times serves as the jumping off point for our Daily Cancellation segment, but this is
that day.
Meatball went somewhat viral over the weekend with a lengthy diatribe about the need for men to build emotional intelligence, quote-unquote, and his rantings are only worthy of consideration because they unintentionally illustrate a very important point about the nature of masculinity and the challenges that men face in modern culture.
Now this person's not trying to illustrate that point.
In fact, he's reaching desperately for something like the opposite point.
But in the attempt, he inadvertently provides a learning opportunity for all of us.
So let's read it.
I've been feeling very undernourished in my male friendships recently.
I think there's something just kind of wrong with the default mode of male socialization slash communication, something men aren't taught about relating to people.
For instance, I've known this guy for 15 years.
I was his best man at his wedding.
I told him recently about a suicidal episode of someone I love recently, and also a close family friend lying about having cancer for two years and how it was killing me, crying.
My male friend's response to me crying on his sofa?
Dude, I'm sorry.
That's crazy.
What topping do you want on your pizza?
What the F?
Friends for 15 years?
This is his response?
Not all guys are like this, but could you imagine literally any woman doing this?
I realized several years ago that I could spend hours talking to my male friends and not learn a single thing about them.
I always am the one to ask personal questions, and when I ask guys about their divorce or whatever, a solid one-third of them like, shrug?
Hello?
Now the diatribe continues from here, but let's pause to consider a few points.
First of all, I'm trying to imagine how I might react if a guy came up to me and told me that he feels undernourished by my friendship.
I think I'd probably say a bunch of things that I can't say here, but the basic gist would be that I'm glad that I'm not nourishing you.
What am I, a dairy cow?
Why are you looking to me for nourishment, you freak?
I can never hang out with you again after a comment like that.
Now that I know that you're sitting over there expecting nourishment.
Although, I guess being told by a friend that I'm not nourishing him isn't the worst thing in the world.
That's the second worst thing.
The worst thing is if he came up to me and said, thank you for your friendship, Matt.
It's very nourishing.
That'd be the worst.
It's like, I didn't mean to be nourishing you.
I don't know what's going on here, but something's gone wrong here.
In either case, this is not how men speak to each other.
And it certainly makes one suspect that the author of this thread is not a man at all.
By the language he's using, you'd think that he's like a 24-year-old female HR representative who graduated from NYU with a major in queer poetry or whatever.
And maybe that's the case.
But let's take him at his word for the purposes of this conversation and assume that he really is a dude who speaks like that, and yet somehow still gets invited over for pizza night with the boys.
Which, again, is hard to imagine.
So okay then.
Tells us that he went to his friend's house, and starts crying on his couch.
His friend offers him a quick supportive word, and then tries to get back to ordering the pizza.
Meatball wants us to see his friend as the bad guy in this exchange, even though he's the one not only crying like a girl on his friend's couch, but even worse, doing it while his friend is in the middle of trying to order the pizza.
So Meatball's committed multiple violations of the man code in this story.
Violation number one.
Crying in front of another man.
Violation number two.
Crying in front of another man at his house.
Violation number three.
Distracting a man while he's trying to order pizza.
Now, the friend, we can assume he's married, so he already has to deal with that sort of thing with his wife.
Women are infamous for this kind of thing.
They're infamous for not staying focused and on message while food is being ordered.
Like, the other day, I was trying to order Chinese.
I asked my wife, like, what do you want from the Chinese place?
She launches into, like, a seven-minute story that's completely irrelevant to the Chinese.
I'm like, I'm sitting here, we can talk about that, but do you want General Tso's?
What do you want?
What are we doing here?
We gotta get the food handled first, and then we can have a conversation.
And now, this guy, he has to deal with the same sort of thing when he invites dudes over for pizza?
Like, it's unconscionable to put a man in that position.
I'm sorry you had a loved one who faked cancer.
That's weird, but what exactly does that have to do with Papa John's?
I don't understand why you're bringing this up right now.
And what does Meatball want from his friend here?
The guy said he was sorry.
Okay, check.
He said it was crazy.
Check.
It is crazy.
What else is there to say?
Especially a story like that.
I don't know what else to say.
My loved one faked cancer.
That's super weird, man.
Sorry that that happened.
What kind of cancer did he fake?
Like, what, do you want questions?
But he acknowledged your sob story, he offered condolences, and then he tried to redirect back to the pizza instead of letting you indulge any further in your pity party.
That's what men do.
That's how men relate to each other.
We don't wallow together in our emotions.
In fact, if I have any criticism of the friend in this exchange, it's that he didn't make fun of the other guy for crying.
That's the only place where he dropped the ball.
And I can only take solace in the assumption that the next time they hang out, if there is a next time, the friend will find an opportunity to make a joke about Meatball's crying fit.
And then to make a joke about it every time he sees him from here until they die.
And it doesn't have to be anything clever, by the way.
I mean, just...
As soon as he sits on the couch, just say, like, hey, you're not going to start crying again, are you?
Something simple like that, just to make sure that you fulfill your duty to give him crap for that, because that's what friends do, at least male friends.
Now, Meatball relates this experience as proof that men are emotionally deficient, but it's not proof that men are emotionally deficient.
It's proof that men are men.
Men are not women.
They are different, not deficient.
They relate to each other differently.
They express themselves differently.
They have a different way of being and acting in the world because men are men.
We are not women.
Meatball sees that as a defect and he's not alone.
The only reason we're talking about this post by some random guy is that it typifies a prevailing attitude in our culture.
This has been the popular consensus among elites in our society, the philosophy that drives most of our institutions, for decades now.
Men are broken, they say, because they are too much like men and not enough like women.
And the way to fix men is to make them like women.
A woman is a kind of perfected man by this way of thinking.
Which, by the way, explains why trans ideology is so important to these people, but that's a thread we can follow another day.
But it's all nonsense, of course.
It's extremely harmful nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with how men, in general, relate to each other and express their emotions.
We are more stoic.
We are the more emotionally reserved sex.
That's what we've always been.
It's how we're naturally inclined.
It's how we're made.
It's also how society needs us to be.
Society cannot properly function if everyone is dwelling on their emotions all the time.
Then no pizza would ever get ordered.
So some of us, about half of us, need to be able to shoulder our emotional burdens quietly.
Now that doesn't mean that we don't need support and friendship, it just means that support and friendship are different for us.
Male friendships tend to be less intense, tend to be more relaxed, less needy, less demanding.
That's not the wrong way to approach friendships, it's just a different way than how women approach them.
You know, I've had, I have friends that I've known for 30 years, and these days I see them Once a year, maybe twice at most.
There are years we go by where I don't see him at all.
We never talk on the phone.
We might text a few times over the year, usually during football season.
I still consider them to be very good friends, and when I see them it's just like old times.
We also spend very little time catching up on each other's personal lives whenever we do see each other.
And this is something that my wife doesn't understand.
She doesn't understand how I can still consider those guys friends when I so rarely see or speak to them.
So if I say, oh, you know, friend, she'll say, oh yeah, when's the last time you talked to him?
Um, I don't know, 2021 maybe?
So to her, that's like, it's impossible, you can't, it doesn't make any sense.
She doesn't understand how, when I do see and speak to them, we don't end up gabbing the whole time about all the things that happened in our personal lives since we last saw each other.
And that's because if my wife, goes several weeks, let alone months,
without having any contact with somebody she considers a friend,
it's like, it's a problem.
It's a sign that something has gone wrong.
And when they finally do talk again, they'll need to have like a heart-to-heart
about the fact that they weren't talking before.
So the fact of them not talking has to be a thing that they talk about
before they can talk about anything else.
And they'll talk about that, and tears might be shed, and it'll be a whole thing.
And they're women.
This is what women do.
And that's fine for women.
It's healthy for women.
But it's not healthy to insist on that kind of behavior in men.
Here's how Meatball wraps up his thread, quote, "I mostly just pity men at the not sure how I feel
"about my divorce levels of emotional intelligence.
"They're not dumb, they're confused.
"They lack the tools to introspect.
"They were never taught.
"The emotions are just gonna sit in the pressure cooker "in their heart maybe forever.
"Society tells men to suppress their feelings.
"Women demand go to therapy, "but female modes of expression are alienating to men.
"All the other men in your life are just as confused "'cause if talking about the NBA isn't helping,
"they're out of ideas.
No wonder guys feel nothing.
Where can men go to learn how to feel things and support each other?
Fraternal orders, like the Masons or Elks, dead.
Church religion, dead.
Strong, vulnerable men don't exist in media.
Clubs, third spaces, military, dead, dead, dead.
Men unable to feel their feelings live confused lives, inflicting others, especially women, with the burden of feeling things for them or compensating for their total lack of self-awareness.
We need dedicated spaces for men to build emotional intelligence.
Where are they?
Now, he's right.
Many of the spaces he mentioned are dead.
Male spaces are largely dead, precisely because they all became feminized.
Now, he sees the feminization of male spaces as the solution, when in fact it's exactly the problem.
Elk lodges, bowling clubs, cigar lounges.
I mean, there are still cigar lounges, thank God.
For the most part, none of these traditionally male spaces were ever designed to help men build emotional intelligence or learn how to feel things, okay?
Your grandpa, whoever, never went to the Elk Lodge because he wanted to learn how to feel things.
These were designed as places where men could be how they are without any womanly lectures.
But now there's nowhere to go to escape the womanly lectures.
Every space has been overtaken by scolding women and men who act like scolding women.
Every space has to cater to women.
That's the world we live in now.
There is no place that's allowed to not cater to women.
The let boys be boys philosophy is dead.
It's deader than the lodges and the bowling clubs.
We're placed with a very different mindset, which is now make boys be girls.
And some men, like our friend Meatball, have taken that call very much to heart.
