The Matt Walsh Show - September 09, 2022


Ep. 1018 - Leftists Dance On Queen Elizabeth's Grave


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 6 minutes

Words per Minute

171.0018

Word Count

11,345

Sentence Count

724

Misogynist Sentences

25

Hate Speech Sentences

28


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Walsh Show, with the death of Queen Elizabeth, the left has taken the
00:00:03.520 opportunity to rant about the evils of colonialism, but there is one form of colonialism still
00:00:08.320 happening in the world today, and it is left-wing ideological colonialism. We'll talk about
00:00:12.280 that. Also, podcast movement finally issues an apology for calling Ben Shapiro's physical
00:00:16.760 presence harmful. Local politicians in D.C. panic as illegal immigrants are shipped to
00:00:21.260 their alleged sanctuary city. Morning Joe tries its hand at biblical exegesis, and it
00:00:27.160 doesn't go well. And our daily cancellation will deal with a few recent attempts by the
00:00:30.620 left to finally answer the great question of our time. All of that and more today on Flannel
00:00:35.840 Friday.
00:00:45.600 When running a business, you'll get hit with all kinds of interesting scenarios like what
00:00:50.760 are meal and break requirements that I must provide for employees? How do I handle an employee
00:00:55.800 doesn't show up to work? How do I improve company culture and employee engagement? One complaint
00:01:00.800 can destroy your entire company. The problem is, though, HR managers who are meant to navigate
00:01:05.280 this stuff are expensive. They can easily cost over $80,000 per year. But with Bambi, you get
00:01:10.260 access to your own dedicated HR manager starting at just $99 a month. All of Bambi's HR managers
00:01:16.320 are based in the United States and can support the nuances across all 50 states. Your manager
00:01:20.740 is available by phone, email, real-time chat to help you effortlessly run employee onboardings
00:01:26.080 and terminations, encourage good performance, and make sure that your business stays compliant
00:01:29.740 with ever-changing HR regulations. With Bambi's HR autopilot, you can automate the most important
00:01:35.340 HR practices like setting policies, training, and feedback. In fact, Bambi clients are four
00:01:40.240 times less likely to have a complaint filed against them. So go to Bambi.com right now and type in
00:01:45.820 Matt Walsh under podcast. When you sign up, it'll really help the show as well. Spelled B-A-M-B-E-E.com.
00:01:53.660 Bambi.com. Type in Matt Walsh. Queen Elizabeth, who of course passed away yesterday at the age of 96
00:02:00.420 after reigning for 70 years, was one of the last great leaders and public figures in the world.
00:02:06.240 She possessed virtues like grace, nobility, dignity, stoicism. These are all character traits,
00:02:11.540 especially those last two, which have all but vanished from public life. Instead, in their place,
00:02:17.680 Western nations in particular find themselves led by boorish morons, self-centered ignoramuses,
00:02:24.140 and petulant crybabies. And that pretty much sums them all up. What's more, we're a civilization
00:02:29.200 which denies its history and makes war against its own traditions. That's another reason to mourn the
00:02:34.980 queen's passing. She was an anachronism, but I mean that in a positive way, a link to the past,
00:02:39.880 a reminder of how things used to be, but are no longer. And it's possible to appreciate all of
00:02:45.520 that, even if you, like me, don't have any particular fascination with the royal family.
00:02:49.960 And even if you, like me, are actually a bit perplexed by the fascination. I don't spend a lot
00:02:54.380 of time thinking about British royalty, but when it comes to Queen Elizabeth, I can appreciate these
00:02:58.920 facts about her. Of course, we live in a different world now. It's a world where people are eager to
00:03:04.280 advertise their utter lack of dignity and of grace. It's almost a virtue to not possess those things.
00:03:11.840 And there have been many such displays in response to Queen Elizabeth's death, like that from Uju Anya,
00:03:18.280 a professor of, this is what she's a professor of, Blackness and Multilingualism at Carnegie Mellon
00:03:24.560 University. And there at Carnegie Mellon, you can spend $60,000 a year to study utterly useless
00:03:31.020 subjects while having your brain assaulted and your soul pummeled by hateful, rabid ideologues like
00:03:36.860 Professor Uju, who reacted to the Queen's imminent death on Thursday before she had died with this
00:03:43.040 tweet. I heard the chief monarch of a thieving, raping, genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain
00:03:51.500 be excruciating. Now, the professor issued more tweets doubling down on this sentiment. She feels
00:03:58.820 absolutely morally justified in wishing excruciating pain on a dying elderly woman because that dying
00:04:06.460 elderly woman has committed the crime of being powerful and also white, which is the greatest
00:04:11.780 crime of all. CBS News correspondent Wesley Lowry was not quite as aggressive, but he had similar
00:04:18.020 feelings, tweeting, the death of a person seen as a near deity by the white political ruling and media
00:04:23.700 class, but who was also at one point the oppressive ruler of something like 30 percent of the global
00:04:28.820 population, is going to provide an excellent example of the subjectivity of straight news reporting.
00:04:34.680 There was much discussion about colonialism, with many echoing the thoughts of German comedian
00:04:40.360 Jasmina Kunk, who wrote,
00:04:43.340 Dear white Europeans, you do realize that Black people won't mourn when another colonizer dies.
00:04:49.160 She's old enough. Finally, let her and the whole colonial system go in peace.
00:04:55.300 There are American media figures like Eugene Scott and Jameel Hill, Jameel Hill who agreed that now is
00:05:01.040 the right time to talk about the sins of colonialism. Scott tweeted,
00:05:07.140 Real question for the now is not the appropriate time to talk about the negative impact of colonialism
00:05:12.660 crowd. When is the appropriate time to talk about the negative impact of colonialism?
00:05:17.320 Hill had her own answer to that question. She said,
00:05:21.040 Journalists are tasked with putting legacies into full context, so it's entirely appropriate to
00:05:26.180 examine the queen and her role in the devastating impact of continued colonialism.
00:05:32.140 Now, it's of course absurd to call Queen Elizabeth's impact on the world devastating. She has in fact been
00:05:39.500 resisting tyranny literally since she was a teenager, enlisting in the military during World War II at the age of 19.
00:05:46.540 The royal family chose not to flee to Canada even as the Germans bombed London and Elizabeth herself
00:05:52.700 contributed to the war effort as soon as she was old enough to do so.
00:05:55.780 As far as colonialism goes, the sort of historical colonialism that the left laments and has used
00:06:02.800 Queen Elizabeth's death as a forum to whine about was neither all good nor all bad. I mean,
00:06:10.300 you can no more condemn all colonialism than you can condemn all war. Terrible atrocities occur in
00:06:17.140 times of war, but so do acts of heroism and sacrifice. There are wars waged for good reasons
00:06:24.120 and bad reasons and many other wars whose motivations fall somewhere in between. In the case of
00:06:28.980 colonialism, the fact remains that from a broad historical perspective, Western civilization and
00:06:35.760 its freedoms and luxuries and rights and comforts and benefits would not exist without it. Now, the left
00:06:42.540 would probably agree with that sentiment, but then they would claim that, well, that's proof
00:06:46.000 that the West is inherently evil. And yet those same people choose to live here even so, feasting on the
00:06:53.860 fruits of a tree which they claim is evil at its root. Which only goes to show that judging the impact
00:07:01.420 of so-called colonialism is not nearly as simple as its critics pretend, it has had many effects
00:07:09.060 that they themselves enjoy, if not appreciate. The discussion about colonialism also ignores the fact
00:07:17.220 that there were empires all across the globe and all throughout history who practiced their own version
00:07:23.240 of it. The whole world was shaped this way. And if colonialism is an abject, straightforward evil,
00:07:32.080 which I deny, and if we can inherit its guilt through our blood, you know, which I also deny,
00:07:39.840 we would all share that guilt to the point where it makes no sense to dwell on it. But here we are again
00:07:47.220 talking about historical colonialism. And that's the kind that no longer exists. There is, however,
00:07:54.420 another form of the practice, the modern form. And the irony is that the people who spend the most
00:08:00.060 time screaming about the colonialist practices of 70 years ago or 300 years ago have nothing at all to
00:08:07.100 say about the sort of colonialism perpetrated by Western cultures today. In fact, if they do have
00:08:12.500 anything to say about it, they will speak up in defense of it. That's because the only sort of
00:08:18.140 colonialism still carried out by Western nations in modern times is left-wing ideological colonialism.
00:08:24.640 Historical colonialism had its bad moments. This left-wing ideological version, on the other hand,
00:08:31.500 is all bad through and through. It is the attempt to export by force, blackmail, bribery, political
00:08:39.820 pressure or other forms of coercion, left-wing cultural ideas and priorities to people and
00:08:46.880 cultures and countries that do not want them. It just so happens that CNN only a few days ago
00:08:52.820 provided us with a striking example of just this sort of thing. CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour had an
00:08:59.700 interview with William Ruteau, who is the president-elect of Kenya. Now, I didn't initially see the clips of
00:09:05.300 this interview online. I only became aware of the exchange because the sweet baby gang in Kenya
00:09:09.800 which is, it turns out, a sizable community, I'm pleased to discover, they watched it and they
00:09:16.220 alerted me to it. And I'm glad they did because this whole exchange, especially in light of this
00:09:21.840 colonialism conversation, is quite instructive. Watch. I want to talk to you about a specific,
00:09:28.200 you know, human rights situation in parts of Africa and including in your own country. You yourself
00:09:34.760 gained worldwide attention a few years ago when you said there was, quote, no room for homosexuality in
00:09:40.800 Kenyan society. I want to know whether you still stand by that. We have Kenyan law. We have Kenyan
00:09:50.460 constitution. We have our tradition. We have our customs. We will continue to respect other people's
00:09:58.920 customs as they respect our customs and our tradition. I am very clear that we respect everybody
00:10:10.800 and what they believe in. But we also have what we believe in and we expect to be respected for
00:10:19.740 what we believe in. So before I ask you to flesh that out and what exactly does it mean, I want to play
00:10:26.340 you what President Kenyatta said to me about this issue. I will not engage in a subject that is
00:10:34.780 of no, it is not of any major importance to the people and the Republic of Kenya. This is not an
00:10:44.240 issue, as you would want to put it, of human rights. This is an issue of society, of our own base as a
00:10:56.120 culture as a people, regardless of which community you come from. This is not acceptable. This is not
00:11:04.140 agreeable.
00:11:04.560 Now, what we've seen here so far are two leading figures in Kenya trying to explain
00:11:11.620 Kenyan culture to an outsider. They're both quite patient and gracious, which doesn't surprise me
00:11:16.800 at all based on my own experience in the country. You know, I went there with my own very stupid
00:11:20.620 questions, much like the stupid questions Amanpour is asking. And everyone I talked to was very kind
00:11:25.480 and accommodating, in spite of how idiotic the line of questioning was. But Amanpour continues to press
00:11:31.880 the issue. So let's keep watching. So he's basically saying homosexuality is not agreeable.
00:11:38.460 You've just said that you're kind of trying to thread the needle, that the law says one thing,
00:11:44.960 but you respect everybody's rights. Will a RUTO administration crack down, like many other
00:11:52.060 leaders in Africa, on the homosexual LGBTQ community? Or will you allow them their human rights and their
00:12:00.420 civil rights? I think on that subject, President Kenyatta was spot on. We do not want to create a
00:12:10.180 mountain out of a molehill. This is not a big issue for the people of Kenya. When the people, when it
00:12:19.000 becomes a big issue for the people of Kenya, the people of Kenya will make a choice. As it is now,
00:12:24.540 we are grappling with five million young people who do not have jobs, four million people who are
00:12:32.100 hungry. And that is my concern. That is the focus of the people of Kenya at the moment. When the issue
00:12:39.180 you have discussed about homosexuality and the rights of LGBT will come, the people of Kenya will make a
00:12:47.120 choice. And we will respect the choice of the people of Kenya. For now, Christiane Amanpour,
00:12:55.300 let us focus on the real issues that affect our people.
00:12:59.660 As you know, Mr. President, with respect, these are real issues that affect so many people around
00:13:04.840 the world. But we will hold you to what you said and we'll come back to you if the situation requires
00:13:10.520 it, which probably it will. Well, watch out, Kenya. Christiane Amanpour, she's going to hold you to
00:13:17.760 this. And she's going to tell you what issues matter to your country. Now, I think Mr. Ruteau was very
00:13:23.700 clear in his response, leaving no room for confusion. But for the benefit of Christiane Amanpour,
00:13:27.380 I will summarize. First of all, as both Ruteau and Kenyatta try to explain, Kenyan culture doesn't
00:13:32.480 recognize any sort of inherent human right to have whatever kind of sex you want to have. Now,
00:13:38.260 it may seem unthinkable to the modern Western mind that Kenyans don't believe in that kind of right,
00:13:47.320 that is, the right to have sex however you want. It may be unthinkable. You may not be able to get
00:13:53.620 your mind around it. It may shock you and offend you. But that's the reality. In fact, very few
00:14:01.240 cultures in the world or in the history of the world recognize that right. The right to sex
00:14:06.140 is a very modern, very, very Western construct. We just came up with it last Tuesday, basically.
00:14:13.040 And the rest of the world doesn't feel any particular urgency to adopt it themselves. They
00:14:17.180 just don't. That's it. Second, even more to the point, the entire issue is not relevant to Kenyan
00:14:24.300 society. There are millions of people in Kenya living in abject poverty, starving to death. People
00:14:28.180 don't have enough food to eat. Families who live in shacks made out of spare sheet metal and who,
00:14:32.800 if they become ill, could only go to a hospital in a shack similar to the one they live in,
00:14:37.020 except with the word hospital spray painted and graffiti on the side. Now, not all of Kenya looks
00:14:42.340 like that, but it's a reality for a large portion of the country. So they're not worried about LGBT
00:14:47.100 issues. They're not worried about a lot of the issues that we're worried about here because they
00:14:50.020 don't have the luxury or the time to worry about it. Now, Ruto is trying his best to communicate this.
00:14:58.280 If he were less patient, if he were more like me, he would have simply shouted,
00:15:02.580 hey, lady, our people are starving to death. We don't have time for this. Now piss off and leave
00:15:06.700 me alone, you weirdo. But this is how ideological colonialism works. The leftist colonizer demands
00:15:13.940 that her values must be adopted by people and cultures thousands of miles away. She insists that
00:15:19.360 societies she has no stake in and countries she has never even visited must conform themselves to
00:15:25.460 her own proclivities. She demands that people she doesn't know and has never met or even shared
00:15:30.040 a continent with must adopt and live by her list of priorities. And she does all this while also
00:15:35.360 claiming, by the way, to be an advocate for democracy. Well, you just heard the answer there.
00:15:40.020 Well, people of Kenya will decide. And if we decide that we care about this issue, then we'll care
00:15:43.300 about it. And if not, we don't. I mean, if you believe in democracy, then that should be a good
00:15:49.160 answer for you, but apparently not. This is the official policy, not just of nosy journalists like
00:15:54.280 Amanpour, but of the American government, which is why we gallivant across the globe waving the
00:15:59.240 rainbow flag in everybody's face. Meanwhile, the very people demanding ideological conformity from
00:16:05.040 foreign cultures also claim to be advocates of multiculturalism. That's all a ruse, as we have
00:16:11.300 seen. They don't want multiculturalism. Not anywhere close to that. They want uniculturalism, okay?
00:16:19.020 They want one culture, one society, one set of priorities adopted by people of different races,
00:16:24.120 ethnicities, and ethnicities all across the world. That's what they want. Their ultimate vision of
00:16:28.440 diversity and multiculturalism is a room full of people of varying skin pigmentations and ethnic
00:16:34.600 backgrounds, all speaking in unison, reading off of a script written by their left-wing overlords.
00:16:41.980 That's colonialism. That's what it looks like in the modern world.
00:16:45.880 And it is, in many ways, far worse than any form of colonialism that came before it.
00:16:53.740 Now let's get to our five headlines.
00:17:01.700 Have you noticed that big tech companies today are masquerading as privacy companies? Big tech
00:17:06.840 literally feeds on your information, like parasites. Sure, maybe they'll release a feature now and then
00:17:12.700 that does some good. But collecting and selling off your data is big tech's, that's their MO. It's in
00:17:17.560 their nature. They can't stop themselves from looking at what you do online. To protect myself,
00:17:22.380 then, against big tech's prying eyes, I use ExpressVPN. When you use ExpressVPN on your computer or phone,
00:17:28.800 you're hiding your unique IP address. Websites can't use that address to find out your real location or
00:17:33.640 track what you do online. ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes 100% of your online activities. So your
00:17:38.760 internet provider, Wi-Fi administrator, and hackers can't see it at all. And ExpressVPN is incredibly
00:17:45.760 easy to use. It takes just one click to protect all of your devices. One ExpressVPN subscription
00:17:49.960 covers up to five devices at the same time, so you can protect your entire family at the same time.
00:17:56.140 That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET, Wired, TechRadar, and countless others.
00:18:01.420 Get the VPN that I trust to protect my online privacy from big bad tech. Visit expressvpn.com
00:18:07.540 slash Walsh, and you can get an extra three months free on a one-year package. That's
00:18:11.840 expressvpn.com slash Walsh, expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
00:18:17.820 Well, happy Flannel Friday, everybody. This, for now, is the compromise we have reached after weeks
00:18:24.140 of intense negotiations. The pro-flannel and anti-flannel factions on the verge of violent
00:18:30.300 hostilities. We're able to come to this tenuous peace agreement wherein I will wear my flannels on
00:18:37.780 Friday. But what I want you to know is that this is not just for me. Okay, that's, this is, you know,
00:18:46.760 I tell you my vision is that Flannel Friday will not be just me. This is for the whole Sweet Baby gang.
00:18:53.420 This is for, indeed, the whole world to take part in. I want Flannel Friday to be, to be something that
00:19:01.520 we can all take part in and enjoy. I hope that it stands as a symbol of unity and peace for the
00:19:08.660 entire globe. So we should all wear our flannels on Fridays and tell our friends and our families
00:19:15.680 about it and tweet about it with hashtag Flannel Friday and shout from the rooftops and the rafters.
00:19:21.620 Because Flannel Friday is a movement, ladies and gentlemen. What the hell am I babbling about?
00:19:29.280 It's another good question. Here's an update on something we just talked about in the opening
00:19:34.400 monologue. There's a little bit more to this story from Daily Wire. It says, Carnegie Mellon University
00:19:40.240 condemned a professor on Thursday who called for the death of Queen Elizabeth to be excruciatingly
00:19:45.600 painful, saying that the professor's tweet was offensive and objectionable. And then, so we know
00:19:52.180 we read what she's, what she tweeted already. And the university said in a statement, we do not
00:19:58.300 condone the offensive and objectionable messages posted by Uju Anya today on her personal social
00:20:03.580 media account. Free expression is core to the mission of higher education. However, the views she
00:20:08.080 shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution nor the standards of discourse
00:20:12.700 we seek to foster. Now, that's all nice and good. And these days, it's like somewhat impressive that
00:20:23.620 they at least did that much because we know that usually there's no accountability whatsoever for
00:20:28.400 anybody on the left that can say whatever they want. So they condemned it and they condemned it and
00:20:33.420 they, you know, even by name, fine. But really what they should be doing, we should not be satisfied
00:20:40.520 with this. We should be, what we should be demanding, and I know some people are demanding
00:20:44.800 and they're right to demand it, is that she be fired. Okay. Yes. It's, you want to call it, it's
00:20:50.480 right-wing cancel culture. Sure. Whatever you want to call it that. Sure. Yeah. She should be canceled.
00:20:54.740 Absolutely. You're a professor. Okay. It's not like she works at Walmart or something like that.
00:21:00.940 She's a professor, which means that she's in charge of educating people. And, and this is the kind of
00:21:06.200 thing that she's saying publicly. It's an embarrassment to the institution that you work
00:21:10.460 for. And it would make any thinking person very hesitant to send their kids to that institution.
00:21:18.800 Like, these are the kinds of, I'm going to spend $60,000 a year to, for my kids to be taught by
00:21:24.660 people like this. And by the way, I didn't even read. I mean, I could go down. She, she wasn't just
00:21:31.580 that tweet that she, but it wasn't, it wasn't just that. Like I said, she doubled down on it
00:21:34.640 and she was responding to people criticizing her in very vulgar, disgusting ways that I can't even
00:21:41.880 read to you, but you can go look it up if you want to. This woman is like, she, she has the, the,
00:21:48.040 the maturity of a, of a 12 year old and, um, you know, a moral insight, much worse than that. So
00:21:57.740 it would make sense for the institution to fire her. That's what they ought to do.
00:22:05.540 People like this should lose their jobs and we shouldn't be hesitant or shy about calling for
00:22:11.340 that, but you know, lest we be accused of cancel culture or anything else. Um, kind of on the same
00:22:17.200 subject here, this is on the daily wire. It says the, uh, the media trade association that vilified
00:22:21.980 Ben Shapiro last month for simply appearing at a recent trade show apologized on Thursday saying
00:22:26.720 its treatment of the daily wire star wasn't right. Podcast movement, the industry's biggest trade
00:22:31.620 group and host of annual conferences that bring together top media companies said in a statement
00:22:36.100 that it was wrong to claim that Shapiro's presence at its recent Dallas show caused harm. The mea
00:22:41.920 couple came after the daily wire and media giant Cumulus both vowed to end their support for the
00:22:46.380 organization. So the statement said, as we stated, we're continuing to evaluate our priorities,
00:22:52.360 policies, uh, rather guiding social media and events with inclusivity, diversity, and respect for
00:22:58.020 all. We have to start by sincerely apologizing to Mr. Shapiro for our reaction when he visited a
00:23:04.560 booth that we, that we sold his company. That wasn't right. Uh, podcast movement began in 2014 with
00:23:10.220 four podcasters who had an idea to create a vibrant community. That was for podcasters by podcasters.
00:23:16.200 We're still those people with the same idea and recognize there's work to do as we grow.
00:23:20.660 So day the wire co-founder Jeremy Boring, who, uh, at the company's recent backstage event had
00:23:26.040 blasted podcast movement for unadulterated bigotry said, uh, people rarely admit when they do wrong,
00:23:31.300 particularly on the left where every cultural indicator reinforces your error. Podcast movement
00:23:34.880 did the right thing with this apology. Co-founder Dan Franks also called me to make clear their
00:23:38.560 treatment of Ben was unacceptable. Good on them. Jeremy's being very gracious here. Uh, I am a slightly
00:23:46.380 less gracious person in general. So yeah, it's an apology. It's, it's the right thing to do.
00:23:51.480 So, you know, kind of like Carnegie Mellon responding to their professor and the horrible
00:23:57.020 thing. She said, yeah, it's the right thing to respond to it, but you know, it's, to me,
00:24:05.480 it's not quite enough. And especially with podcast movement. Yeah. They, they gave the apology.
00:24:10.820 This is like two weeks later, three weeks, like two weeks later, and they're only doing it because
00:24:16.420 they had no other choice. I mean, they tried everything they could to avoid apologizing,
00:24:21.880 but then once Cumulus got on board and there were more companies, you know, having our back on this
00:24:30.460 thing as they should, they had podcast movement. What choice do they have?
00:24:34.260 If you want to have a podcast conference, a podcast organization, and you lose daily wire and you
00:24:43.980 lose Cumulus, you start, you start losing all of the biggest podcasts and companies. Well, then you
00:24:48.520 can't, then your company is gone. So they have no choice. And they, and they very begrudgingly
00:24:54.340 finally apologized as an act of sheer self-preservation.
00:24:58.240 Fine. I'm glad they did, but, um, I am certainly not at all convinced that this was, uh, that this
00:25:10.040 was something that they did because they really feel that they were wrong and, and, uh, they're
00:25:17.260 trying to make amends or, or whatever. All right, let's go to this. Um, another report from the Daily
00:25:24.580 Wire says, a sitting member of the Washington DC city council blamed Texas and Arizona Thursday
00:25:29.080 for an influx of immigrants, stressing Washington's social services. DC councilwoman, uh, Brianne
00:25:35.360 Nadeau pointed the fingers at, uh, the figure at the two border States, both run by Republican
00:25:40.120 governors claiming that they turned Washington into a border town. God forbid. Let's listen to some of
00:25:45.320 that. It's been said, but it's worth reiterating that the governors of Texas and Arizona have created
00:25:53.020 this crisis and the federal government has not stepped up to assist the district of Columbia.
00:25:58.080 So we, um, along with our regional partners, we'll do what we've always done. We'll rise to the
00:26:03.940 occasion. We've learned from border towns like El Paso and Brownsville. Um, and in many ways,
00:26:12.320 the governors of Texas and Arizona have turned us into a border town. We don't know how long this will
00:26:19.620 take to resolve. We don't know how long they will continue busing. And so the right thing to do here
00:26:24.800 is to be prepared to ensure we can greet every bus. We can get people off on the right foot. We can get
00:26:30.120 them where they want to go and that will ultimately help them. Oh, God forbid if they've turned us into
00:26:37.100 a border town, we don't want to be one of those. Now, of course, that's not even close to true. I don't
00:26:43.000 have the numbers in front of me, but you can fact check me on this. And I, but I'm quite certain in
00:26:47.480 saying that the influx of, um, illegal immigrants to Washington DC, um, or to any of the other cities
00:26:57.060 where they're being shipped off to Chicago, it doesn't even come close. It doesn't even come,
00:27:00.960 it's barely a fraction of what actual border towns are dealing with, you know, like a 10th or less
00:27:07.760 than that. So no, they haven't been turned into a border town. Um, if they think it's bad now,
00:27:14.880 okay, that if they were actually turned into a border, if they had to deal with the flow of
00:27:20.800 illegal immigrants, anywhere near the scale that real, that actual border towns have to deal with
00:27:25.760 it, then they would be, they'd be panicking much more than they are now. But as I, as I said, when
00:27:32.560 a couple of days ago, we were listening to, I think it was the, I think in that, yeah, it was the
00:27:36.860 mayor of Chicago, Lightfoot, complaining about Governor Abbott for sending illegal immigrants to her,
00:27:43.080 even though they opened their arms and they said, we're a sanctuary city.
00:27:48.800 All that Texas and Arizona are doing is saying, well, you're a sanctuary. So don't you want,
00:27:52.940 you said you're a sanctuary. Don't you, so we're, we're, we're sending people to the sanctuary that
00:27:58.300 you've set up. Oh, well, you don't actually want them though. So you wanted, you wanted the virtue
00:28:04.740 signal. You want to be able to say that about yourself. You wanted to be able to say, we're a
00:28:08.880 sanctuary city without actually having to deal with the everyday reality and all of the challenges
00:28:15.520 and problems, not to mention crime that comes with it when you have all these people being shipped to
00:28:19.620 you. Right. I get it now. This is how the ruling regime works. This, everything about this perfectly
00:28:28.480 illustrates leftist elites and how they function, where they want to be able to stand off at a distance
00:28:37.040 and make proclamations and, uh, suggest policies, impose policies that are utterly disastrous,
00:28:47.400 catastrophic, and cause untold human misery, but they don't want to have to experience any of that.
00:28:53.800 So they're, they're, they're, this is, this is left-wing compassion for you. Left-wing compassion is,
00:28:58.560 um, that they support actions that cause suffering that they don't have to experience.
00:29:09.660 Their compassion is forcing you to be compassionate. It's like coming up with
00:29:14.500 things that they think a compassionate person should do and forcing you to do it because they're
00:29:19.140 not going to do it. Right. The compassionate, the right compassionate thing is to defund the police,
00:29:26.180 to get rid of law enforcement, to stop enforcing the law, to let criminals out of jail. That's the
00:29:33.620 compassionate thing. And so they're going to do that in, especially in neighborhoods and towns where
00:29:37.440 they don't live, but they're in their gated communities and they've got armed security and
00:29:43.820 all the rest of it. But that of course is not compassion. I mean, true compassion, you know what
00:29:50.800 compassion means? Compassion is, um, if you follow the etymology of the word, actual meaning of the
00:29:56.580 word, uh, it means, it means, you know, co-suffering is what it means. Compassion, co-suffering. So
00:30:03.860 when you're compassionate, you are, uh, taking on the suffering of someone else. You are taking part in
00:30:13.460 their suffering. You're suffering alongside them. You're relieving their suffering and taking some of it
00:30:17.040 upon yourself. That's why as Christians, we would say the, the ultimate act of compassion in human
00:30:22.680 history was Jesus Christ dying on the cross, taking on the suffering of all mankind caused by our sin.
00:30:29.840 Um, that's why we call it the passion of the Christ, right? But that's what compassion is. And,
00:30:34.720 and that's what we're all called to do on a much smaller scale. But that means that you're doing it.
00:30:40.880 Okay. But you yourself are taking on that suffering. But if you're calling for a policy or for something
00:30:49.520 to happen and, uh, and hoping that all the suffering is felt by people who are not you,
00:30:54.700 then by definition, that is not compassion. That actually is the, that's indifference,
00:31:00.240 which is essentially the opposite. Speaking of, uh, the Bible and, and Jesus, here's Morning Joe
00:31:08.220 offering some insightful exegesis, uh, of, of his own. Let's listen to that as a Southern Baptist
00:31:15.360 that grew up reading the Bible, maybe a backslidden Baptist, but I still know the Bible. Jesus never
00:31:20.700 once talked about abortion never once. And it was happening back in ancient times. It was happening
00:31:28.020 during his time. Never once mentioned it for people perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ down to one
00:31:35.760 issue. It's heresy. Go. If you don't believe me, if that makes you angry, why don't you do something
00:31:42.400 you haven't done in a long time? Open the Bible, open the new Testament, read the red letters. You
00:31:49.240 won't see it there. And yet there are people who are using Jesus as a shield to make 10 year old rape
00:31:59.480 girls go through a living and breathing hell here on earth. They've also conveniently overlooked the
00:32:07.000 parts of the new Testament where Jesus talks about taking care of the needy, taking care of those who
00:32:15.780 are helpless, who live a hopeless life because they believe these state legislators believe that life
00:32:25.200 begins at fertilization and ends at childbirth. And Cady, what a powerful message yesterday.
00:32:34.580 Yes. Powerful, just a powerful straw man there. Every single part of that was a straw man.
00:32:40.600 And, you know, leftists, they really think that they're onto something here. They always think
00:32:44.720 that this is a, this is some sort of gotcha. Oh, you see, Jesus doesn't mention abortion. That,
00:32:51.600 there you go. But a couple of points about that. Um, first of all, abortion is the killing of
00:33:02.100 innocent human life. And the Bible does in fact forbid that, um, forbids that all across the old
00:33:10.480 and new Testament forbids it in the 10 commandments. Um, Jesus forbids it. Okay. These things are
00:33:16.860 explicitly forbidden violence against the innocent harming the innocent. Actually, what Jesus says
00:33:22.660 is that he, and he, and he specifies it for children too. Uh, he says that, that if you're
00:33:27.000 going to harm a child, it'd be better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and to be
00:33:30.840 drowned in the sea. Okay. That's how strong Jesus felt about it. One of the many statements that if
00:33:38.440 Jesus had never said that. And, uh, and, and, and, or even though he had like, if you still, if, if
00:33:45.220 today, if a Christian goes around speaking in terms as strong as that, there'll be a cure. Well,
00:33:50.040 that's unchristlike. You're saying that it'd be better for someone to have a stone hung around
00:33:54.960 their neck and be drowned in the sea. That's, that's violent and terrible and unchrist. No, it's
00:33:59.260 literally Christlike because that's literally what he said. And it is literal. Like it would be better
00:34:05.480 for you. If you're going to harm a child, it would actually be better for you to just drown yourself.
00:34:12.620 So yes, both, uh, the Bible forbids abortion, broadly speaking. And so does Jesus because it,
00:34:20.460 because, uh, harming the innocent is forbidden. Now, does it specify that, that is there any point
00:34:27.400 where it says, Hey, by the way, to all you modern readers, uh, when we say don't kill innocent
00:34:32.680 people, we include babies in that. No, it doesn't say that. Um, it shouldn't need to say that. In fact,
00:34:38.860 it doesn't, when we are forbidden from murdering, it, it, it, it rarely specifies groups of people
00:34:45.280 because we're supposed to understand that it applies to everyone. Okay. It also doesn't say
00:34:50.820 that, uh, it says don't murder people. It never says that you can't murder a middle-aged woman
00:34:55.320 or a teenage boy or someone who's 90 years old. It never specifies any stage of human development
00:35:06.320 or any age group because it applies to all of them. And if you're not brain dead, you should
00:35:13.520 already know that. Like it should be, you shouldn't have to ask the question. If somebody says to you,
00:35:17.140 if God says to you, as he says to us in scripture, uh, don't murder people, you shouldn't need the
00:35:23.820 follow-up question of, oh, sorry, uh, Lord was, does that include babies? Are they, oh, we can't
00:35:28.920 murder them either. Okay. Thanks. Did you really need that specified for you? But here's the other
00:35:35.580 problem. If, if you need, if you need these kinds of very specific rules laid out for you, or if you
00:35:45.720 think that Jesus was supposed to specifically mention every issue that we deal with today, um, well,
00:35:52.180 that's a problem for the left, isn't it? Because especially if they want to bring the Bible up,
00:35:57.140 I mean, once again, what have I told you before when the Bible is brought into a discussion about
00:36:02.940 abortion, especially it is nine times out of 10, or maybe 9.9 times out of 10, someone on the left
00:36:10.760 who brings it up. So they are the ones constantly bringing religion and the Bible and Jesus into not
00:36:17.780 just the abortion conversation, but any conversation about a social issue. They constantly bring that
00:36:22.940 in. And then they accuse us of basing our entire, uh, point of view on the Bible and religion and all.
00:36:30.220 Well, you're only saying that because of the Bible. You're only saying that because of religion. So,
00:36:33.380 you know, on one hand, we only, we only are saying this because we're following the Bible as if that
00:36:40.960 would be a bad thing anyway. But then on the other hand, the Bible doesn't say that it's very
00:36:47.120 confused. But the point is this, um, the left tells us that trans people have always existed,
00:36:54.200 you know, transgenderism, the fact that we're seeing this skyrocketing rise and transgender
00:36:58.720 identification in modern times, that's not a, it's not, that's not any social contagion. It's not
00:37:04.940 because people are being indoctrinated or groomed or anything like that. They claim it's because,
00:37:09.620 well, this many trans people have always existed. It's just that they were, you know,
00:37:12.780 they hadn't, um, they didn't feel comfortable identifying themselves as such.
00:37:18.140 Well, it means that trans people existed in Jesus's time. And yet Jesus never says anything
00:37:22.120 about trans rights. Never says anything about it. Actually, one of the very first things we're
00:37:28.280 told in the Bible is that God created us male and female. There's no mention of any other category.
00:37:33.980 There, there's no indication anywhere that a man can be a woman.
00:37:42.040 So by, by Joe Scarborough's logic, trans rights out the window. Jesus never says it.
00:37:48.580 You know what else he doesn't mention? Doesn't mention gay rights.
00:37:52.120 Quite the opposite, actually. And he also, Jesus also never mentions plenty of things that we should
00:37:59.360 all agree are bad. Like, uh, he never specifically condemns slavery as an institution. He never
00:38:06.620 specifically condemns child pornography or rape. Now, does that mean that we as Christians should
00:38:14.300 endorse all of those things or be indifferent or not have an opinion? Does it mean that Jesus
00:38:18.340 endorsed them? No, obviously not. Because Jesus didn't come to earth to just provide a list of
00:38:26.380 every single bad thing we shouldn't do. But we are given commandments and principles
00:38:33.040 and moral teachings, which we are then supposed to apply to all of these situations and all of these
00:38:41.140 issues. And if you take the moral teachings that we are given by Jesus and you apply them to, to
00:38:48.560 slavery, child pornography, rape, uh, you can easily see that according to these principles,
00:38:55.100 those things are horrific evils. We also recognize it as a matter of natural law. Like we, we inherently
00:39:01.500 recognize it. It's written on our heart. And the same thing goes for abortion. All right. Maybe we'll
00:39:10.260 do one more thing here if I can scroll down to it. Okay. This is important. So the new Pinocchio movie
00:39:18.420 starring Tom Hanks comes out, uh, today, I believe. And it's actually the second Pinocchio film of the
00:39:23.400 year. For some reason they make, there's been like 46 versions of this story, put the film.
00:39:28.220 This one stars Tom Hanks produced by Disney. And it's essentially a shot for shot remake of the
00:39:33.560 Disney cartoon version, except, um, this one is live action, live action, except for Pinocchio himself,
00:39:40.360 of course, who's still like a cartoon because it's, they couldn't find a live action, uh,
00:39:44.500 talking puppet who moves on its own. Anyway, it's getting trashed by critics, 30 some percent
00:39:49.400 critic rate, critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The audience hates it too. Um, the audience reviews
00:39:54.500 aren't, aren't much better. Total thrashing across the board. Uh, we haven't yet been told
00:39:59.380 that it's because of racism, but I'm waiting for that to happen because I think there is,
00:40:04.080 they did add, they did add a, uh, a black character into the film, like a character that
00:40:09.260 didn't even exist. It wasn't just changing one of the characters to make them black, but they added
00:40:13.460 a character, I think in this version of Pinocchio, uh, black woman who appears and pops up throughout.
00:40:19.960 And so maybe that will be their excuse. Once this thing does terribly and everyone hates it,
00:40:26.080 they're going to say, Oh, it's only because of racism. It's because he didn't like that character.
00:40:29.920 The review in the Telegraph gives it one star, uh, reading. Some of it says when Gus Van
00:40:33.980 Sand directed a shot by shot replica of Psycho in 1998, the exercise was widely decried as a cash-in.
00:40:39.980 Perhaps if he'd waited 20 more years, he would have been hailed as a marketing genius.
00:40:43.960 Disney's latest live action remake of a classic from the studio's animation vault even looks like
00:40:48.240 a business calculation before you press play. Rather than playing in theaters, it's going
00:40:52.200 straight online as a free-to-view enticement to Disney Plus subscribers. Uh, the company has been
00:40:57.140 criticized for releasing films directly onto their streaming service. The sheer hawkish expediency of it
00:41:01.700 seemed to reduce the ravishingly crafted likes of Pixar's Soul and Turning Red to mere time-passing
00:41:07.060 content. But content is the only appropriate term for this garish, dead-eyed exercise,
00:41:11.880 which recreates the 1940 masterpiece largely scene for scene, albeit with a handful of instantly
00:41:16.960 forgettable minor detours. Pinocchio is now assisted on and off by a young female puppeteer slash
00:41:23.020 ballerina, for instance, presumably to help redress the story's gender balance. So I think that's the
00:41:28.560 black character that was added in, which means that this review is horribly racist. You have to like
00:41:33.120 the film now. But here's the point. I bring this up because, um, I really think that this is the
00:41:38.140 worst thing Disney is doing right now. And maybe the best argument for ditching Disney and all of
00:41:46.440 these movie studios, it's, well, it's not quite as bad as the woke stuff and child grooming, but it's,
00:41:51.840 it's pretty bad. And it's all connected anyway, because the whole point or part of the point of
00:41:56.120 these remakes is to woke-ify the films. They're, they are corrections, they're correctives taking out the
00:42:02.260 quote-unquote problematic aspects of the stories and replacing it with something that is more palatable
00:42:07.580 for modern people. But even without the woke stuff, it's still just an abomination. I mean, Disney is so
00:42:14.380 bereft of ideas, so totally devoid of creativity, that now they're simply going through their old
00:42:21.860 catalog and producing the exact same films again, except this time without the charm or originality
00:42:28.800 or personality. It's not even a remake. And you know, think of a remake, you think of a, well,
00:42:33.300 taking a film and we're going to tell the same basic story, but it's going to be our, it's going
00:42:37.100 to be a new take on an old story. That's what a remake is. And in that sense, a lot of these old
00:42:42.540 classic Disney films were already remakes because they were taking stories that already existed and
00:42:47.380 had been told in different versions, sometimes for centuries, and they were kind of giving their spin on
00:42:52.960 it. But that's not what this is. This is just like a total absolute recreation of what already
00:42:59.080 existed, except without any originality, no personality. This is what happens when art is
00:43:05.840 dead in a culture. What you're left with are these lifeless, hollow recreations. And the premise is
00:43:13.200 ridiculous. Like, oh, let's do a live action version. As if the lack of realism in the first version
00:43:22.700 was a problem. No, it wasn't. I mean, it's, it's, it's actually absurd to do a realistic version
00:43:29.520 of a movie about a puppet who comes to life or a realistic version about a version of a movie about
00:43:35.440 a singing mermaid or a blue genie who lives in a lamp. Let's have that, but make it realistic this
00:43:42.080 time. Think about the Lion King remake, which I think the Lion King remake is, is maybe Hollywood's
00:43:49.360 greatest abomination of all time. You're taking this, this cartoon that was only, that only came
00:43:54.640 out, you know, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, calling it a live action remake, which of course it isn't
00:44:00.960 because there's still, it still is starring talking lions and there are no real ones. So it's still
00:44:05.260 animation, but we're going to take this cartoon and we're going to do it again, shot for shot.
00:44:10.660 And it's still going to be a cartoon, but this time it's going to look realistic.
00:44:13.720 Except that now, now you've got realistic looking lions going around singing and talking to each
00:44:19.800 other. It just looks, what before was, was cute and creative and had charm and personality now just
00:44:24.820 looks weird and awkward and, and bizarre. So the cartoon is part of the art. And so what they're
00:44:33.900 saying now is, well, let's, let's do it again without the art. Let's, let's have, let's try this piece
00:44:38.720 of art, but take out the art and see what happens. What you're left with is something totally empty and
00:44:45.700 lifeless. Let's get to the comment section.
00:45:00.400 Johnny Walker says, Matt makes great points about holding companies accountable. That's why the DW
00:45:04.920 doesn't use YouTube or Twitter. That's why Matt and Shapiro don't have Twitter pages. You guys use
00:45:09.620 those tools to get large. And a lot of us have no other options. If we want to do something similar
00:45:13.340 to what DW does, I don't use a lot of these companies that express views like this, but when
00:45:19.060 you turn around and see large conservative companies using them while telling us not to, what is a woman
00:45:23.240 was great. There's nothing offensive in there except for the people you interview who are hard to
00:45:26.460 stomach. Well, I've actually never said that you shouldn't use Twitter or YouTube or Facebook or
00:45:30.660 Instagram or whatever. I have said the opposite pretty consistently. I think that if you can use
00:45:35.840 those platforms to amplify a message of truth and rationality and morality, if you can do that,
00:45:45.540 then absolutely you should. Use the platforms to undermine the ideological agenda of the people who run
00:45:54.200 them. I think that's a, that's a good thing to do. We should be doing that. I am actually, I am against
00:46:01.780 this idea that conservatives should remove themselves from all these platforms and then go gather in
00:46:08.560 these kind of conservative ghettos of these like other social media platforms that are made just for
00:46:13.920 conservatives where no one's paying attention. It's not relevant. No one cares what you say there. It's an echo
00:46:19.140 chamber. And, um, and not only is it like not nearly as fun when there's nobody to argue with,
00:46:24.160 but also it's just, there's no cultural purchase there. There's no relevance. Uh, so I'm against
00:46:29.380 that. I think that it's, it's a good idea to be on these platforms and to use that to spread a message
00:46:34.000 as long as we can. Now, if you get to the point on a platform where you simply can't speak the truth
00:46:39.440 anymore, it's just, it's not allowed. And the only way to stay there is to abandon the truth. Well,
00:46:44.620 then we shouldn't be on the platforms anymore, but we're not quite there yet. I mean, I, for
00:46:49.560 instance, I can, you know, what is a woman? One of the reasons why what is a woman was so successful
00:46:54.760 and so many people saw it is that we were able to use these social media platforms to promote it,
00:46:58.620 which is, which is a good thing because then people were exposed to it or otherwise wouldn't
00:47:02.800 have been. So that's the issue. I think, um, when we talk about boycotts and conservatives,
00:47:09.660 not, you know, patronizing these woke companies, I think that in particular applies to products,
00:47:17.020 services, content, whatever, where all we are is consumers. It's not a platform that we're using
00:47:24.160 to spread a message. It's just something that we're consuming and that's it. And especially where
00:47:29.120 there are other options. So we could become consumers of this woke company, or in fact,
00:47:35.420 we could go somewhere else. There's actually another option. It might take, you know, a little
00:47:41.140 bit of time to find it, but they are, but they are there. So that's what I'm talking about. Now,
00:47:45.100 Eventbrite, yeah, it kind of falls in between. I'll admit it's, um, it can be, it's not just a product
00:47:52.500 or something that we're consuming. It is a platform. It could be a useful thing for getting out a
00:47:58.440 conservative message, except that now apparently you can't. So are we going to keep using it?
00:48:05.820 That's, that's the point. GigaSniper says, Matt, I took someone out on a date to watch What is a
00:48:11.120 Woman? Uh, my date told me I should start dressing like you and that look is extremely manly. The
00:48:16.060 flannels must return for the sake of us men. We need a strong manly fit figure to lead us, not erase
00:48:21.640 us. Well, I'm here at least on Fridays. You have that until flannel Friday becomes flannel Thursday
00:48:29.060 and Wednesday. It could happen. Uh, Courtney Gross says, Matt, if you want a great kid show,
00:48:34.540 you need to watch Bluey. Yes, it's on Disney, but, uh, I have not yet, yet come across anything that
00:48:39.520 I'm worried about regarding leftist agenda propaganda. Its characters are cute. I find myself
00:48:44.600 cracking up at the humorous ways the parents handle their two puppies. I love it. And I think you will too.
00:48:48.920 Um, yeah, I've heard of Bluey, but wasn't there a woke thing with Bluey? I don't know
00:48:53.840 this, but I, I seem to remember there being some, some recent story about wokeness injected into this
00:49:01.420 Bluey show. I could be wrong, but it's something to look into. Um, Mark says, Matt, a few days ago
00:49:08.440 on your show, you seem to call into question the notion of Christian forgiveness. I appreciate you
00:49:12.420 and your show, but you do not know more than Jesus Christ. Humble yourself, brother, and remember
00:49:16.600 who's in charge. I don't claim to know more than Jesus, but I do know what Jesus said. And I know
00:49:22.080 that he calls on us to forgive those who persecute us, right? You are much like with compassion. This
00:49:30.140 is you taking on the suffering of another. If you're, if you're making someone else take on the
00:49:34.520 suffering, it's not compassionate. Uh, same thing with forgiveness. You are called to forgive offenses
00:49:40.660 committed, committed against you. If your brother offends you, you should forgive him seven times,
00:49:47.820 seven times, seven times, and so on, right? If he offends you, but if it isn't you that's suffering
00:49:55.000 the persecution or the harm, then it's not up to you to forgive it. And that was my point on bringing
00:50:00.240 this up a few days ago is that, is that sometimes Christians will use forgiveness as a cover for what
00:50:05.480 is really indifference or cowardice because they don't want to get involved in a situation. So instead they
00:50:10.020 say, or there's, there's some sort of evil going on that they don't want to denounce.
00:50:13.540 And so instead they say, I, I, I, I forgive, I forgive the person committing this evil. It's not
00:50:18.080 up for you to forgive. Someone else is, is, is falling victim to it. I think a particular example
00:50:23.740 where this came up was the, the kids who are being mutilated and butchered by the gender affirmers.
00:50:31.420 Well, it's not good enough for you to say, uh, I forgive, I forgive my enemies. I forgive them.
00:50:35.900 It's not you being mutilated and butchered. It's the kids. So you're
00:50:39.660 forgiveness is worthless in that case. What does that even mean? It's like if, if you,
00:50:45.480 um, if someone stole your car and you were upset about it and I came up to you and I patted you on
00:50:50.960 the shoulder and I said, Hey man, listen, I forgive the person who did this to you. What? Of course.
00:50:58.260 Yeah. That's easy for you to do. This doesn't concern you. Um, that's a, that is at best a very cheap
00:51:05.600 forgiveness where you are not harmed. You are not concerned. Uh, you were not persecuted. Someone
00:51:11.420 else was, but you forgive them. No, as I said, that's to me, that's, uh, not forgiveness. That's
00:51:19.280 indifference. And there's certainly a difference. Well, if you thought the walrus gate, uh, emotional
00:51:24.960 rollercoaster wasn't wild enough, I'm here to add to the loops and corkscrews that tug violently at the
00:51:31.340 heartstrings. I've received a letter from one of the littlest members of the sweet baby gang, who,
00:51:36.960 as I'm sure you can imagine, is about one of the millions of children traumatized by the grave
00:51:41.460 hostage situation involving my giant walrus. I'll let the child's solemn letter speak for itself,
00:51:47.560 but I know that he speaks on behalf of all mankind and all walrus kind. So this is a real,
00:51:52.000 it's actually a real letter, right? It's actually sent to us. Uh, it is real. Dear Mr. Matt,
00:51:57.060 I like your book. I hope Mr. Ben gives you your walrus back from, uh, Eliana and my mom
00:52:05.680 from the mouth of babes. Okay. This is a child has spoken out. Even the children are crying out.
00:52:15.320 There you have it. How far must this go? How long must I be, must I be tormented? How many children
00:52:20.760 must be affected? Think of the children. Uh, I still have not, nor may I ever receive my walrus,
00:52:27.800 but that should never stop you from getting yours. Anyway, go to dailywire.com slash shop to bring
00:52:32.460 home your own Johnny, the walrus plushie. And maybe we can all make this little sweet baby and I's dream
00:52:37.720 come true. Also here's the daily wire. We're doing everything we can to loosen the left's grip on the
00:52:43.260 culture. We're making movies that challenge woke Hollywood narratives, documentaries like what is a
00:52:47.820 woman that exposed radical gender ideology. We're creating kids content that parents can trust. We
00:52:52.040 can eat. We even sued the government over unconstitutional mandates. We're doing a lot.
00:52:55.180 It's a lot of work and there's still a long way to go, but you can help in just two simple steps.
00:52:59.320 One, stop shaving with your woke razor to start shaving with Jeremy's razors.
00:53:17.820 Hang on.
00:53:26.180 If you're still not shaving with a Jeremy's razors, chances are you're funding left-wing agendas.
00:53:31.500 We're building alternatives. We're making razors and the left is betting their bottom billion dollars
00:53:36.160 that you won't use those alternatives. Prove them wrong. Go to jeremysrazors.com.
00:53:41.180 Get your Founders Series Shave Kit today. Daily Wire Plus members get 25% off. That's what you're
00:53:46.360 getting Jeremy's razors. Shut up and shave. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
00:53:55.840 Well, even as big tech continues to conspire to suppress my documentary, What is a Woman,
00:54:00.320 most recently with Eventbrite's decision to ban all screening events and watch parties from their
00:54:04.740 platform, still the ideas from the film and the question, the ultimate question, are out there.
00:54:10.340 Nothing can be done now to stop that. In fact, the left is finally beginning to realize that they must
00:54:14.940 come up with some kind of answer. They can't dodge it forever. And that's why today for our daily
00:54:19.180 cancellation, I'm going to take a look at two of the most recent attempts to answer, and if not answer,
00:54:24.360 then at least handle the great question of our time, what is a woman? So we begin with a man named
00:54:30.480 Matt Ho, who is running for Senate in North Carolina on the Green Party platform. Matt was very proud of
00:54:36.880 himself a few days ago when he tweeted this, quote, today I got my first what is a woman question.
00:54:42.720 Before I could say anything, my campaign manager replied, F off transphobe. There was no reason to
00:54:48.600 say anything else. Hashtag F off transphobe. Hashtag trans rights are human rights. Now as a Green Party
00:54:55.340 candidate, I must admit it takes some guts to alienate 50% of your electoral base by cussing out
00:55:00.640 one person. Still, it's a rather sad thing to see a grown man proud of the fact that he had to dodge
00:55:08.460 a question that my three-year-old could answer. Perhaps next he'll brag about the time when someone
00:55:13.880 asked him whether the earth is flat or round, and he responded by bursting into tears and running out
00:55:19.280 of the room. I mean, these are moments of true courage, right? Now I tried to explain to Matt that
00:55:25.360 F off is not exactly a sufficient answer to the question. And to his credit, he did give another
00:55:31.040 attempt to actually answer it. Less to his credit, his second attempt is arguably even dumber than his
00:55:36.640 first. A few hours later, he tweeted this, for all the people demanding an answer as to what is a woman,
00:55:43.120 a woman is a person who identifies as an adult female. Hashtag trans rights are human rights.
00:55:48.720 Now look, in a certain sense, this is progress. At least he's not attempting to define the word woman
00:55:55.700 by using the word woman. And yet this definition has its own very significant problems, because a
00:56:02.040 female person is a human being who is of the nature to bear offspring and who produces ova, which are
00:56:08.440 female gametes or reproductive cells. So if someone identifies as female, then they are identifying as a
00:56:16.180 human capable of bearing offspring and producing ova. But a male who identifies as producing ova
00:56:22.800 still cannot produce ova. He produces sperm, which are male gametes. No matter how he feels or what he
00:56:30.260 says or how he identifies, he will produce male reproductive cells all the same. Therefore, identifying
00:56:35.900 as female when you're male is no different in kind than identifying as seven feet tall when you're
00:56:40.840 actually five and a half feet tall. So what Matt is claiming is that there is basically no difference,
00:56:45.760 definitionally, between an actual seven foot tall human being and a human being who's a foot and a
00:56:50.160 half shorter, but views themselves as equal in height to the seven foot person. But that's nonsense.
00:56:56.520 I mean, if it's true that females are females, but then males can be females too, that means that
00:57:03.760 females effectively don't exist. And if they don't exist, then it doesn't make any sense to identify
00:57:08.760 as one. You can only identify as that which can be defined. But if it can't be defined, or rather,
00:57:14.020 if it can be defined, then there must be a physical reality against which your self-identification can
00:57:19.600 be judged accurate or inaccurate. So if females exist, then males cannot be females. And if females
00:57:25.860 do not exist, then males also cannot be females. So no matter what you do, males cannot be females.
00:57:33.200 And Matt Ho is left up a creek without a paddle, and nobody is even sending a search party for him
00:57:39.120 because nobody will know that he's missing because he's a Green Party candidate. It's a terrible
00:57:42.780 situation all around. But if a politician on Twitter can't solve the riddle, maybe somebody
00:57:49.700 on TikTok can. There's a video going around, recently gone viral, from a user called Circus
00:57:55.540 Pork Roast, who, I mean, that's her username, who believes that she has finally, once and for all,
00:58:02.680 come up with the answer to the dreaded question. Let's listen.
00:58:06.140 I keep seeing all these clips from the Matt Walsh documentary, What is a Woman?, where he asks these,
00:58:13.060 you know, gender studies experts, what is a woman? And then when they give him these, like,
00:58:18.700 long, carefully thought out answers that, like, delve into the identity and the complexities of,
00:58:24.800 you know, the label of woman, he basically mocks them for not being able to give him, like,
00:58:30.240 a short, concise, biologically truthful answer. If you've watched any of these clips, and you
00:58:36.780 yourself have wondered, I don't understand why they can't just give, like, a simple answer. Like,
00:58:41.060 it's such a simple question. I'm going to compare it to something else. And I'm going to ask you this
00:58:46.540 question. What is a mother? Can you tell me that in one sentence? Yes, I can. Thank you for asking.
00:58:53.040 Mother is a term that describes a woman's relationship to her children. There you go.
00:58:58.340 That's what it means. Hopefully, we can all move on with our lives now, but I suspect that's not the
00:59:02.740 case. And you might say, oh, well, obviously, a mother is someone who has given birth and then
00:59:08.860 raised children. But it's actually a lot more complicated than that, right? Because, yes,
00:59:15.240 there are mothers who were pregnant and gave birth to children and then raised those children,
00:59:20.080 and we all agree those are mothers. But there's also people who adopted children. They didn't give
00:59:25.820 birth. They were never pregnant. But we still consider them to be mothers because they take on
00:59:30.120 the societal role of mother, and they accept that as their role. And then there's also people who gave
00:59:36.900 birth and then gave those children up for adoption and wanted nothing to do with them and don't
00:59:42.140 consider themselves to be mothers. Are those mothers? Do we consider those mothers as well?
00:59:49.540 And then there's also people who were pregnant but had a miscarriage. They consider themselves to be
00:59:57.060 mothers. But there are certain people who argue against that and say, well, no, your baby was never
01:00:02.620 born and therefore you're not a mother. And then there are people who raise their nieces and nephews or
01:00:09.140 their grandchildren as their own children. They consider themselves to be mothers even though they
01:00:13.960 are also aunts or grandmothers, therefore taking on two separate labels at once. And both of those
01:00:20.420 things are true at the same time. And so, as you can see, a supposedly simple question that seems to be
01:00:26.860 rooted in biological reality is actually much more rooted in the societal roles that people play and
01:00:33.240 the labels that they accept upon themselves. And the same thing is true of gender. It's partially rooted
01:00:40.520 in biology, but in our modern times, it's more so rooted in the roles we play in society and the labels
01:00:48.840 we accept for ourselves. Okay, let's try our best to sort through this. First of all, nothing that you
01:00:56.780 said there actually makes the term mother confusing or opaque. As I already noted, the word mother
01:01:02.820 describes a woman in relation to her children. A woman who gives birth to offspring is a mother. A
01:01:08.040 woman who conceives children who then tragically die in utero is also a mother. A woman who adopts
01:01:13.380 a child is a mother too, because that child, once adopted, is her child. What does it mean for him to be
01:01:19.060 her child? Well, she's taking on the role as his primary female caretaker. She's accepting a unique
01:01:24.940 legal and moral responsibility for and to the child. She is dedicating her life to him. She's a
01:01:30.820 mother. This is not confusing. Now, there is some nuance here, sure. A child who is put up for
01:01:36.200 adoption may end up with, in effect, two mothers, because the woman who gave birth to him is a mother
01:01:41.680 in the biological sense, while the woman who adopts him is a mother in every other sense. This is why we
01:01:46.900 often distinguish in those situations between mother and biological mother. Again, it's not really
01:01:52.020 confusing. You only want to make it seem confusing because you think it helps you make something else
01:01:56.900 seem confusing too. And that brings us to the second point. Even if I agree that the word mother
01:02:02.580 is somehow vague or ambiguous, which I don't, that still wouldn't at all prove that the word woman is
01:02:08.940 vague or ambiguous. There are ideas and concepts that are difficult and hard to define. That doesn't
01:02:15.760 make all ideas and concepts difficult and hard to define. You can't prove that one word has no
01:02:22.180 objective definition simply by asserting that some other word has no objective definition. This is what
01:02:27.400 they do all the time. They say, well, you asked me to identify, to define woman. Can you identify this
01:02:33.300 other word? What does that have to do with this word we're talking about? So because one word can't be
01:02:39.300 defined, that means no word can be defined. It's especially absurd in this case when the other
01:02:44.900 word, mother, actually does have an objective definition and everyone knows what the word means.
01:02:52.040 The reason why mother has some extra complexity is that it is a word which describes a role and a
01:02:58.880 relationship. You're right about that. But it's a role and relationship specifically fulfilled by women.
01:03:04.960 Mother is a role that many women fill. But being a woman itself is not a role or a relationship. It is
01:03:13.680 by definition a physical, biological identity. After all, if mother is a role and woman is a role,
01:03:22.200 then who exactly is filling these roles? We can only say anything about mothers at all if we first
01:03:27.940 establish that women exist and can be defined. There are plenty of other words that describe roles that
01:03:34.420 women play or relationships they take part in, sister, aunt, girlfriend, waitress, actress, etc.
01:03:39.560 All of these are roles that a woman can play. But even if on the margins there is some element of
01:03:46.000 ambiguity in some of these roles, the roles can only exist and we can only talk about them if women exist
01:03:52.880 first. And whatever ambiguity you can find in the role does not at all even come close to creating
01:03:58.820 ambiguity around the concept of womanhood itself. But all of this could almost be put to the side.
01:04:07.220 Because here's the real question for you. Whatever you think about mothers, whatever you think about
01:04:13.540 women, I ask you this. If a man with no children, who isn't even a caretaker of children, like he sits at
01:04:22.280 home all day playing video games, like he doesn't, he's not even around children. If he stood up one
01:04:27.840 day and declared that he's a mother, would you accept that self-identification as valid? Would
01:04:33.080 you say, well, I guess you're a mother too? In other words, if I agree that the word mother has some
01:04:39.120 complexity and nuance to it, does that mean that just anyone can legitimately claim the title for
01:04:44.740 themselves? Does physical reality impose no requirements at all on the person who makes this claim?
01:04:50.140 It may be difficult to wrap your arms around all that the word mother describes, but does that mean
01:04:57.260 that it describes nothing? Does the word have a complex meaning or no meaning? You're wondering
01:05:06.380 whether an aunt or a grandmother who's very close to a child counts as a mother, but would you wonder
01:05:11.540 whether my five-year-old son counts as a mother? I assume you would not. So you may struggle with the
01:05:17.580 concept around the margins, yet you know that the word means something, and it therefore excludes
01:05:22.940 people, lots of people actually, regardless of what they say about themselves or what anyone else says
01:05:27.520 about them. And if you would agree that the word mother cannot be applied to just anyone, then you
01:05:33.540 must agree that the word woman cannot be applied to just anyone. There is a reality that the word
01:05:40.280 describes, both in the case of women and mothers, there's a reality that it describes, which means that
01:05:52.500 someone can make a claim, can identify themselves, and be wrong about it, because it does not comport with the
01:06:00.100 reality that the words are supposed to describe. That's the real point that you should be thinking about.
01:06:05.400 And you'll have plenty of time to think about it, because you are, today, on this first Flannel
01:06:11.700 Friday, canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. We
01:06:16.860 move on to our member segment. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you on Monday. Godspeed.