The Matt Walsh Show - December 20, 2019


Ep. 395 - Leftism Is A Religious Cult


Episode Stats


Length

45 minutes

Words per minute

166.97888

Word count

7,636

Sentence count

561

Harmful content

Misogyny

16

sentences flagged

Hate speech

30

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

A British judge rules that a woman who claimed that men cannot turn into women is not entitled to a job because of her belief in biological science. J.K. Rowling and Leftism's increasing plunge into the realm of superstition.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Merry Christmas, everybody. Welcome to the last show before Christmas, the last show before
00:00:04.300 the end of the year, in fact. So there was a debate last night. There was a debate last night.
00:00:11.520 And that's the end of my analysis on that subject. So moving on, we'll talk about J.K. Rowling
00:00:16.740 and leftism's increasing plunge into the realm of being a superstitious cult rather than a
00:00:26.080 political ideology. Many examples could be presented, of course, to prove that point. But
00:00:30.580 this week's controversy, quote unquote, controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling, I think, should suffice.
00:00:35.860 So for a little bit of background, there's this woman named Maya Forstater. And she's a researcher
00:00:43.560 in the United Kingdom who recently lost her job for stating the scientific and indisputable fact
00:00:50.060 that men cannot turn into women. That's what she said. Men cannot turn into women. And Forstater 0.97
00:00:57.740 lost her job. She went to court to win her job back. But an employment judge ruled against her this week
00:01:03.640 and said that Forstater's belief in biological science is, quote, not worthy of respect in a
00:01:11.800 democratic society. Actually, let me quote from this judge a little bit more at length, because I think
00:01:16.060 you need to hear this. This is Judge James Taylor. No relation, I assume. He says, if a person has
00:01:23.340 transitioned from male to female and has a gender recognition certificate, more on that in a second,
00:01:29.420 that person is legally a woman. That is not something Mrs. Forstater is entitled to ignore. 0.99
00:01:36.220 Ms. Forstater's position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe
00:01:42.280 herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Even paying due 1.00
00:01:49.160 regards is still the judge. To the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be
00:01:54.700 protected if their core belief involves violating others' dignity and creating an intimidating,
00:01:59.980 hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them. I mean, this is shocking.
00:02:07.620 And let's not be so jaded by the left's insanity that we don't appreciate how extra insane this is.
00:02:14.820 First of all, you have the gender recognition certificate. I went to the website,
00:02:18.700 the government website, where you go if you want to get a gender recognition certificate. So if you
00:02:24.160 want to get your gender recognized in the UK, go to this website. This is how they describe the
00:02:30.340 process of getting a gender recognition certificate. It says, apply to get to the gender recognition panel
00:02:36.480 the gender recognition panel for a gender recognition certificate. No, by the way, I'm not reading
00:02:45.080 something from a dystopian fiction novel. This is real. This is an actual thing. Okay. Apply to the
00:02:51.240 gender recognition panel for a gender recognition certificate. If you want your acquired gender to 1.00
00:02:57.220 be legally recognized in the UK, there are three different ways to get a certificate. Which one you
00:03:02.240 use depends on your situation. Here's the standard route. Apply by the standard route if all of the
00:03:09.700 following are true. You're 18 or over. You've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. You've lived in your 0.92
00:03:17.140 acquired gender for at least two years. And you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your 0.98
00:03:23.480 life. Okay. That's how you get a certificate. Now, uh, lived in your acquired gender, lived in acquired 0.94
00:03:38.340 gender. What the hell does any of that mean? Could anyone give me, I don't know, three sentences
00:03:48.200 explaining exactly what that means? How do you live in a gender? How do you live in a gender?
00:03:56.800 And how do you acquire one? And from where do you acquire it? Just, just think of how this would
00:04:03.480 sound in normal conversation. Oh, I acquired my male gender when I was 22. Yeah. I've been living in it
00:04:08.040 for 10 years. So not bad. Maybe a little problem with the transmission. Might have to take it back to the
00:04:12.180 dealership. Again, where are you acquiring this gender from and how do you acquire it? And what
00:04:19.920 does that mean to acquire it? And living in a gender, this, this is, this, this part of the
00:04:26.600 superstition of, of the modern left. What they have created is the weirdest kind of dualism that the
00:04:34.280 world has ever seen. Where they, they're sort of separating the person where you as a, you, you as a
00:04:41.440 person, you are this kind of genderless, amorphous entity sort of floating around. And then your gender 0.95
00:04:52.560 is something that you select out of the ether and put on like a sweater or get inside like a car and
00:04:59.860 just drive it around. That's the way they're presenting how the, this works. And it, it's, it's,
00:05:07.440 oh, the only thing you can call that is religious doctrine. It's certainly not science and it makes
00:05:14.860 no logical sense. And what is the judge saying? Is he saying that the government's decision to
00:05:21.140 recognize your acquired gender, whatever that means, magically makes you into that gender,
00:05:27.000 turns you into that gender? Because Forstater's point about, was, was, was not just about the
00:05:35.040 government's recognition. Forstater's point was about what a person actually is. She was saying
00:05:40.800 that a biological male can't actually turn into a woman. So if this judge is disagreeing,
00:05:47.460 he must be saying that a man who gets this certificate is actually now a woman.
00:05:53.940 That again is a supernatural claim. That is religious dogma. This is like a, this is like a perverse
00:06:00.040 version of transubstantiation or something. Instead of the Eucharist turning into the, to the body and 0.56
00:06:05.120 blood of Christ, this is a man supernaturally transforming into a woman by the, by the incantation
00:06:11.820 of a government bureaucrat. That's, that's what they're saying. In fact, here's one of, just so we
00:06:17.680 understand the context here, here's one of Forstater's tweets specifically. Here's what she said.
00:06:23.620 I share the concerns of at fair play women that radically expanding the legal definition of women
00:06:30.460 so that it can include both males and females makes it a meaningless concept and will undermine
00:06:35.860 women's rights and protections for vulnerable women and girls. That's what she said. And keep in mind,
00:06:42.740 this judge didn't just say that she was wrong in this blatantly obvious assertion on her part.
00:06:48.840 The judge said that there's, it's, it's, it's so wrong. It is so vile, so disgusting, so horrible
00:06:55.080 that there's no place for it in society. But can anyone respond to the point she made? Can any of
00:07:02.160 the superstitious cultists who believe in the fluidity of gender actually respond to the point
00:07:08.500 that she made? The point she's making is that if, yes, if you expand this, if you expand woman to
00:07:14.720 include males, then the word woman doesn't mean anything anymore. What does it mean? Now we'll
00:07:19.740 get back to that in a second as well. Um, he also ruled that her views on biology do not have the 0.90
00:07:27.200 protected characteristic of philosophical belief. And on that point, I think he's actually correct
00:07:32.240 because it's not a philosophical belief that men can't transition into women. That's not a
00:07:36.840 philosophical belief. That is a scientific fact, but a fact that these days just cannot be stated
00:07:43.400 publicly without being punished. So here's where JK Rowling comes in. Uh, and, and this is where
00:07:48.860 she gets in line for cancellation. The author came to four stater's defense, but did so in the mildest
00:07:56.540 and most leftist friendly way possible. Or so she, or so she thought. So she wrote on Twitter,
00:08:04.140 Rowling did, um, dress however you please call yourself, whatever you like sleep with any consenting
00:08:10.880 adult who will have you live your best life and peace and security, but force women out of their 1.00
00:08:16.480 jobs for stating that sex is real question mark. And then hashtag I stand with Maya. That was it.
00:08:25.220 That's what she said. Rowling here. She affirms the relativistic libertine position on every point,
00:08:32.620 except she is not willing to profess biological sex as a figment of our imagination. 0.99
00:08:37.580 So simply for suggesting that sex exists, Rowling has found herself in the middle of a leftist
00:08:46.660 firestorm. And you've got thousands of these science hating lunatics who are calling her bigoted 1.00
00:08:52.640 and transphobic and on and on and on all because she relayed a fact, an indisputable fact.
00:09:00.480 By the way, there've been a lot of comments to Rowling. Um, a lot of the responses
00:09:04.600 would be hilarious if you didn't consider the fact that this is, that these people exist in the
00:09:12.860 millions out there, people that are this insane. Uh, but here's one example. There's a lot of
00:09:18.100 comments like this. This one is from Shamir Sani on Twitter. It's got a blue check. So you know that
00:09:22.720 his opinion matters. He says, as a gay man that found safety in Hogwarts throughout my childhood,
00:09:28.100 knowing that trans people wouldn't be able to have that safety breaks my heart. There was, again,
00:09:33.720 there's a lot of that kind of stuff. A lot of people heartbroken to discover that trans people
00:09:38.380 aren't welcome at Hogwarts, uh, which is a school for wizards and which by the way, doesn't exist.
00:09:45.180 And I would make fun of them. I guess I know a little bit how they feel because I'll never forget
00:09:48.640 when I first discovered that Batman won't let me into the Batcave. Very difficult to deal with.
00:09:54.860 It crushed me, but Hey, at least we can all go to the Shire and hang out with, uh, Bilbo Baggins.
00:10:00.880 We still have that at least. Now you could argue that, that JK Rowling deserves to be eaten by the 0.57
00:10:07.480 alligator. She's been feeding all these years. She's a leftist herself. She's been, she's been 0.68
00:10:12.400 encouraging and, and jumping in with, um, the pitch, the leftist pitchfork mob. She's done that many
00:10:21.340 times. And so maybe this, this, she has all this coming and, and, and probably she does,
00:10:27.220 but it is worth highlighting her plight. I think, because it underscores the point
00:10:31.560 that I made at the top, which is that leftist gender theory is a superstition and leftism is a
00:10:38.040 cult. And I have no doubt that, uh, certainly anthropologists of the future, when they're sifting
00:10:45.300 through the wreckage of our once great civilization, that is the conclusion they will come to.
00:10:50.940 You know, when they're going through and discovering things like, uh, Oh wow, those ancient people in
00:10:57.580 2019 thought that they could literally change boys into girls. The only conclusion they could come to
00:11:05.980 is that this is that this, this was some sort of insane supernatural cult that grabbed hold of,
00:11:11.980 uh, of American society. And that's exactly what happened now on a related note and inspired by the,
00:11:19.740 the latest bit of madness, uh, that we've been talking about. I, I, I, I would like to repeat
00:11:27.440 again, a challenge I've made to the left several times. And I wrote a piece yesterday, reiterating
00:11:33.700 this challenge. I put it up on Twitter only now I'm going to, I'm going to up the ante a little bit
00:11:38.960 as I announced on Twitter yesterday, I will, this, this is my offer. Okay. I will give,
00:11:46.720 and I'm dead serious about this. I will give a hundred dollars, not saying it's a ton of money,
00:11:51.660 but Hey, it's, it, this is a hundred bucks. I'm willing to give somebody for, for really nothing,
00:11:57.280 for no effort. I mean, why wouldn't you take it? Here's all you have to do for a hundred bucks.
00:12:01.500 And I'll say, then I'll Venmo it to y'all PayPal, whatever you want to do.
00:12:04.620 I will give a hundred dollars to the first leftist who can provide me with a coherent definition of
00:12:14.420 the word woman that permits biological males to be included yet still maintains womanhood as a 0.94
00:12:24.020 distinguishable and objective category. A hundred bucks. Okay. Around the holidays,
00:12:31.140 you could use a hundred bucks. Couldn't you now it's, it is my contention that this simple
00:12:38.080 question, as I have said many times, and I'll keep going back to it over and over and over again,
00:12:42.440 but this simple question, what is a woman? I believe completely dismantles left-wing gender 1.00
00:12:48.380 theory in its entirety. Um, I claim that everything the left says about gender can be discredited
00:12:56.480 just by posing this question. All you have to say is what is a woman and you win the argument 1.00
00:13:03.120 because after all, a statement like I identify as a woman can have no meaning if the word woman has no
00:13:12.020 meaning. And certainly if there's no difference between women and men, then for a man to identify
00:13:18.220 as a woman is redundant. He might as well identify as a man. When he identifies as a woman, he's identifying 0.61
00:13:22.660 as a woman. So the whole thing is redundant and pointless. In fact, all statements, all statements 0.99
00:13:31.620 that anyone has ever made about women become incoherent. If we don't have a working definition
00:13:36.980 of the term itself, this is not a trick question. This is not a gotcha moment. This is a very fair,
00:13:44.340 very basic question. You are using the word woman, not just using the word, but you are making 0.84
00:13:50.300 an extraordinary claim about the nature of womanhood by saying that this biological male
00:13:57.860 with a function with functioning male reproductive organs can be a woman. I think it's how else could 1.00
00:14:05.420 I possibly respond to that? But by asking, what do you mean by woman? What do you mean by that?
00:14:13.260 That's all I want to know. Now, the problem for the left is that they need the word woman to mean 1.00
00:14:18.680 something in order for feminist and LGBT rhetoric to have any relevance whatsoever. But any attempt
00:14:24.840 to define the word woman must result automatically in the exclusion of biological males. There simply
00:14:32.520 is no available definition of woman that legitimizes transgenderism. If it means anything for a woman to
00:14:39.620 be a woman, then it cannot mean anything when a man says that he is one. So here's, this is what I'm
00:14:49.460 getting at. And I think this is so important. This stuff about transgenderism, it's not just
00:14:58.280 scientifically invalid. It is scientifically invalid. But it's more than that. It is logically invalid.
00:15:05.620 It is illogical. Which is very important. Because it's not just that the left is promoting a crazy
00:15:12.620 new scientific theory. It's that they're making a claim that is logically incoherent, and thus dismissible
00:15:20.380 out of hand. What they're saying is the equivalent of claiming that a circle has four sides.
00:15:28.640 That's, that's, that's, that's not a, there's nothing to even talk about. That is, that is just nonsense.
00:15:36.600 That cannot be true. Even if you, even if you had supernatural powers, God himself could not make
00:15:45.640 it so that a circle has four, four sides. Because it's illogical. It doesn't mean anything.
00:15:51.580 And that's what I'm saying with, with these claims. It's, it's, forget about the science for
00:15:59.220 a second. It is simply illogical. But, um, you know, if, if I'm wrong, then prove that I'm wrong.
00:16:07.340 Just give me a definition. That's all. Just a definition. I'll give you a hundred bucks. You got
00:16:13.640 nothing to lose. So far, no one's been willing to do it or able to do it. Um, and that's, what's so
00:16:23.040 amazing about this is that the left's gender theories, uh, transgender ideology and all that,
00:16:30.240 it is, it is absolutely indefensible. They can't defend it. They can't even begin to defend it.
00:16:39.340 They can't even define the words they're using. The, the most basic follow-up question to their
00:16:47.400 claim, they can't answer. Well, this biological male's a woman. What do you mean? That's it. 0.92
00:16:54.380 What you're saying, what do you mean? They can't answer that question. You ask, when you, when you
00:16:58.420 just ask for a clarification, what do you mean by that? You've, you've already won. They're already
00:17:02.960 defeated. They can't even go that far. It's incredible. Um, and that's why, you know, in my
00:17:14.000 experience, and I, as you know, I've talked about this many times and I've had many debates about it,
00:17:18.640 many arguments. And in my experience, this is not a straw man. I have honestly, in my life of talking
00:17:25.480 about this, I have only ever heard ever two defenses of this, of the, of transgender ideology,
00:17:33.640 the, you know, the left gender theory generally, I've only ever heard two defenses of it. And that's
00:17:38.420 it. I'll tell you what those two defenses are. These are the only ones I have ever heard. Aside
00:17:43.500 from, you know, the most common one is just screaming at me and calling me a bigot. But, um, the only
00:17:48.900 actual sort of attempts at a defense I've ever heard are, um, one, what about intersex people?
00:17:58.200 And two, this doesn't affect you. Why do you care? Those are the only responses. Those are the only
00:18:03.560 defenses. I have never heard anything else aside from those two. Intersex and how does it affect you?
00:18:09.780 So let me, let me just very quickly, um, deal with those because I know even, you know, that's the
00:18:19.600 responses I'm going to get to this. First of all, with, with intersex people, um, this is a response, 0.98
00:18:27.360 an argument that is both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Incorrect and irrelevant. Why is it
00:18:36.120 irrelevant? Well, because when we talk about this, we're talking about transgender people. Transgender 1.00
00:18:40.720 people are biological, you know, biological males who identify as women or biological females who
00:18:46.420 identify as males. That's what it means. That's what a transgender person is. So the existence of 0.95
00:18:53.500 intersex people does nothing whatsoever to validate the claims of a transgender person.
00:18:59.800 It, there's a two different categories. So it's completely irrelevant.
00:19:04.380 So when I say that, you know, that if you're a biological male, you're a man and that's it,
00:19:12.120 how does it validate the claims of a biological male that he's actually a woman when he points
00:19:19.020 to someone else who is allegedly intersex and has ambiguous genitalia? Okay. That's someone else.
00:19:25.740 That's not you though. So if we, if we were just talking about intersex people, then we would be
00:19:30.520 talking about intersex people, but we're not, we're talking about trans people and that's a
00:19:33.860 completely separate category. So it's irrelevant, completely irrelevant. Um, this would be like
00:19:42.400 if somebody said, if someone made a claim and said, I have three arms. Okay. What if I, what if I
00:19:50.020 right now claim that I have three arms? Okay. Well, I think you can look and see that I don't really
00:19:55.760 have three arms. I only have two, but then what if I said, Oh yeah, well, what about that person
00:20:01.600 over there? He has three arms. And then I could present you with someone with three arms. Even if
00:20:06.680 I could do that, that doesn't mean that I have three arms. That doesn't validate my claim to having
00:20:12.040 three arms because someone else does obviously. Um, but so that's why it's irrelevant. Why is it
00:20:23.100 incorrect? Well, it's incorrect because actually sex is still binary. Sex is a biological sex is a
00:20:30.620 binary proposition. Intersex people are not an exception to that. They do not represent some third
00:20:37.220 biological sex. They don't represent an in-between state. Uh, they don't destroy the binary at all.
00:20:43.340 Again, even if they did, that does absolutely nothing whatsoever to validate the claims of
00:20:50.420 transgender people, but it, but it's not even true. They don't. An intersex person suffers from, uh, 1.00
00:20:56.860 deformity and illness, you know, genetic mutation. And what that means is that their biological sex 0.98
00:21:04.500 is harder to discern because it's not so immediately obvious because of their physical,
00:21:11.260 um, uh, you know, mute genetic mutation. That doesn't mean they don't have a biological sex.
00:21:17.900 It just makes it a little bit harder to tell. That's it. Just like you take someone, let's take
00:21:24.900 somebody with one arm. There are people born with one arm. Okay. That doesn't, that doesn't mean
00:21:30.560 that it's, it's no longer valid to say human beings have two arms. It is a valid statement to say 0.93
00:21:35.940 human beings have two arms. They do. Okay. Just like you can say spiders have eight legs. We can say
00:21:41.700 that. If you present me someone with born with one arm, well, I know automatically that this is
00:21:47.900 somebody with a genetic mutation or some other, something went wrong. And if we're to look at that
00:21:52.480 person and, you know, and, and, and do a medical checkup and all that, and we'll, we'll discover that
00:21:58.100 sure enough, something went wrong. So this is not a new type of person who undermines the, the,
00:22:05.160 the, the statement that people have two arms. This is just someone who was supposed to have two arms,
00:22:09.440 but something went wrong and their right or left arm just didn't show up. And so it's the same thing
00:22:15.420 with intersex people. This is something went wrong. It doesn't, you know, we say the exception 1.00
00:22:21.640 proves the rule. That's the exception that proves the rule. Because when you see an intersex person, 1.00
00:22:26.600 you automatically know there's some sort of genetic problem here. There's some sort of physical
00:22:30.740 problem and, and sure enough. And then the other claim is how does it affect you? Again, irrelevant
00:22:38.620 and, and incorrect. So both of, both of these responses are irrelevant and incorrect. Even if
00:22:45.440 it doesn't affect me, that does nothing to, to legitimize the fact, the claims of fact that are
00:22:51.740 being made. So if you, you know, if we're having an argument about what is the capital of Maryland
00:22:56.620 and you're saying it's Baltimore and I'm correctly pointing out that it's Annapolis. And then I pull
00:23:02.040 out a map and show you sure enough, it's Annapolis. You can't say, well, how does it affect you that
00:23:07.420 I'm saying Baltimore is the capital of Maryland? It might not affect me, but you're still wrong.
00:23:11.300 We're not talking about how the argument is not, how am I affected by your claim about the capital
00:23:16.760 of Maryland? The argument is what is the capital of Maryland? And you're wrong. So affect me, who
00:23:23.040 cares? What difference does that make? The argument here is about the nature of biological sex and
00:23:29.360 gender. What are the facts of the case? It's not about who's affected by it.
00:23:38.060 So that's why it's irrelevant, but it's also incorrect. Because if we were having an argument,
00:23:42.760 say, and I think this is more analogous, if we were having an argument about basic arithmetic
00:23:46.840 and you were claiming that two plus two equals seven, and I'm pointing out that no, two plus two
00:23:54.580 equals four, and then I pull out four apples and I demonstrate it for you, or I get out a calculator
00:23:59.180 and I show you, and then you say, how does it affect you? It doesn't affect you that I'm saying
00:24:03.640 two plus two equals seven. Well, irrelevant. Okay. You're still wrong. I'm right.
00:24:08.020 But it really would affect me if you then turn around and organize a nationwide campaign
00:24:17.960 to convince everybody that two plus two equals seven, and to punish those who claim that two
00:24:24.240 plus two equals four, and to indoctrinate our kids into the belief that two plus two equals seven.
00:24:31.380 When you start doing that, it very much affects me because now you're trying to reorganize society
00:24:37.720 around a delusion. You're trying to dismantle arithmetic, which is a pretty useful thing.
00:24:44.980 You're trying to get rid of that and destroy it and reorganize society around this delusional claim
00:24:50.600 that you're making. Does it affect me? Yeah. Yes, it does. Obviously. It's the same thing here.
00:24:59.460 And it is directly analogous, really. Trying to deny the biological realities of men and women 0.57
00:25:08.420 is just as crazy as denying that two plus two equals four. And trying to reorganize society around the
00:25:17.040 delusional, superstitious claim that biological males with functioning male reproductive organs can be
00:25:24.820 and women is just as damaging to society as trying to dismantle basic arithmetic. 1.00
00:25:32.460 All right.
00:25:35.540 You know, this holiday season, do your friends and family a solid by giving them a Daily Wire gift membership.
00:25:41.480 And the good news for you, until January 1st, you've got a few more days, all insider plus gift memberships
00:25:46.660 will be 25% off. That means your loved ones will get all the fantastic perks, plus the majestic,
00:25:51.000 beautiful, glorious, leftist tears tumbler, and you'll get the savings. That's 25% off all insider
00:25:57.820 plus gift memberships this holiday season. Go to dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off.
00:26:03.040 Again, that's dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off. Give them a gift that they'll thank you for
00:26:08.960 all year long. Here's something. The New York Post headline says, flirting with coworkers helps reduce
00:26:17.280 stress according to new study. Flirting with coworkers helps reduce stress. And, you know, I know that sounds
00:26:23.780 crazy, and people were reacting to that online saying, oh, this is nuts. But there's a lot of truth to it, I think,
00:26:29.620 because think about it. If you get fired for sexual harassment, it will really reduce the stress of having to
00:26:36.340 get up early for work. So in a way, I can see how that would work.
00:26:41.260 Um, all right, a couple other stories to hit on before we, we read some emails and then call it a
00:26:47.720 year. As the Daily Wire reports, after Hallmark Channel pledged its allegiance to GLAAD, the Gay and
00:26:54.600 Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, in the wake of its decision to pull an ad that featured two lesbians
00:26:59.540 kissing, the site IndieWire has now called upon the channel to make its first LGBT movie. Jude Dry,
00:27:06.900 writing for IndieWire, says, if Hallmark really wants to make an impact and show the LGBTQ community
00:27:12.480 its commitment to inclusivity, it should greenlight an LGBTQ script ASAP. Jude Dry's call echoed that
00:27:20.780 of GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who said that LGBTQ people are, are and will continue to be a part
00:27:27.340 of advertisements and family programming, and that will never change. According to Dry, a more inclusive
00:27:33.020 Hallmark Channel would be like the company's greeting card wing, which already features a robust offering
00:27:37.920 of LGBTQ friendly holiday cards. Um, the writer said, after all, Hallmark has perfected its tried and true
00:27:45.760 formula, generic, cozy, formulaic over years. It wouldn't be hard to simply swap one gender in its pile of 0.95
00:27:51.440 unproduced scripts. Better yet, solicit an up and coming LGBTQ writer to, to craft the script, hire an LGBTQ 0.99
00:27:57.640 director and cast the movie with LGBTQ actors. Um, and et cetera, and so forth. So what we see here,
00:28:06.520 once again, and this is, uh, related to, you know, what we talked about at the top of the show. So it's
00:28:11.920 all part of the same theme. What we see once again, is that all the stuff we heard from the left for
00:28:18.060 decades about, we're just trying to live our lives, leave us alone. We'll leave you alone, live and let
00:28:25.780 live. Right. That was all a big pile of BS. As many people, myself included have been warning for
00:28:33.540 years. It's BS. It's not true. That's not their intent. Never has been. You know, Hallmark isn't
00:28:41.420 hurting anyone by making their corny movies the way that they'd been making them. It doesn't hurt
00:28:45.380 anybody. Has anyone been actively hurt by the fact that there isn't a gay character in a Hallmark movie?
00:28:52.000 I mean, Hallmark is about the least threatening company in existence. You don't get more harmless
00:28:59.840 than Hallmark. Um, and the writer doesn't even seem to like Hallmark movies, calls them formulaic,
00:29:08.380 generic, which they are of course. So what he's saying is, eh, you know, these things are bland and
00:29:13.680 formulaic, not very good, but, uh, just, just put some gay actors and characters in there anyway,
00:29:18.500 because I say so, because it'd make me feel better. It would make me feel better to know
00:29:24.200 that you're following my ever, my every demand. Even if I don't watch the movie, I just want to know
00:29:30.300 that you're doing what I say. And that's, and that's what the LGBT lobby has been up to 0.88
00:29:38.140 for years now. And that again is why their claims of it doesn't affect you. It doesn't,
00:29:44.440 it does affect us. You want to affect us. You want to control what we say. You want to punish us
00:29:51.320 for saying things you don't like. You want to indoctrinate our kids into your belief system.
00:29:57.040 So I guess my point is at least be honest about it. Be honest about what you're doing.
00:30:06.200 Especially with the, the T on LGBT, that part of the lobby. I mean, this is the most aggressive,
00:30:15.380 hostile lobby in the country. If you defy them, they will try to rip you to shreds and treat you
00:30:25.000 like scum. Look at what they're doing to JK Rowling. Who's, who's, I, I, I read for you what,
00:30:31.580 that's all she said. That's it. She said, you know, let's not fire women for saying that sex is real. 1.00
00:30:38.620 And for that, you should see the things they're saying about this woman. And again, you know,
00:30:42.380 I know you might not be sympathetic because she's, she's a left and she brought left as she brought
00:30:46.540 this on herself. And I agree with that, but still the hostility, the vitriol,
00:30:52.940 the attitude is how dare you defy us even a little bit. How dare you think for yourself at all?
00:31:05.320 You know, here is your assigned point of view. And if you stray from that, even the slightest bit,
00:31:11.980 we will ruin you. And yet these people still want to claim that, oh, we're not trying to affect you.
00:31:18.240 We're just trying to, oh, please, please just be honest. That's all I'm asking.
00:31:26.340 All right. Uh, let's go to emails. Matt wall show at gmail.com. Matt wall show at gmail.com.
00:31:31.740 This is from Henry says, hi, Matt. I completely agree with you about expecting others to say Merry
00:31:35.860 Christmas instead of happy holidays. Getting triggered when a non-Christian doesn't say Merry 1.00
00:31:40.100 Christmas is like saying he is risen at Easter and getting upset when a non-Christian doesn't say 1.00
00:31:46.120 risen indeed. Yeah, Henry, I got a lot of emails on this topic and, um, several of them in disagreement
00:31:53.180 with us, but my feeling is always the whole thing, the whole controversy about happy holidays or Merry
00:32:00.780 Christmas, who cares? Who cares? Makes no difference. Let people say what they're comfortable with saying,
00:32:07.480 you know, trying to force people to say something. Um, and, and, and especially just when someone is
00:32:15.820 trying to be friendly and, and they, they have no ill intent to get offended by that, to complain about
00:32:23.660 it. If somebody says happy holidays, that's a friendly greeting. They're not trying to attack you.
00:32:30.660 It's not a, it's not an attack on Christmas. They're trying to be nice. So take it in that spirit
00:32:36.980 and move on with your life. And I think that's what most people do. I think on both sides, I think
00:32:42.080 there are very few actually people on either side who either get offended by Merry Christmas or get
00:32:46.880 offended by happy holidays, but there are some in there. And the problem is they're very loud.
00:32:50.100 All right. Um, this is from Colin says, Matt exclamation point. What are your top 10 movies of
00:32:58.880 2019? I don't think I've, I don't think I've seen 10 movies in 2019. I especially, I, I, I especially
00:33:04.420 have not seen 10 movies in 2019 that were released in 2019. So I can't really give a top 10 or even a
00:33:12.260 top five. I will tell you, I saw one movie I saw in 2019 that I really liked what was, uh, Ad Astra,
00:33:18.220 the, the Brad Pitt space movie. And I thought it was a gorgeous film. I thought it was thoughtful.
00:33:23.180 I thought it was interesting. Uh, I thought it was fundamentally about the bond between a father
00:33:30.820 and son, or rather, I suppose about the son's longing for that bond. Um, a long, a longing that
00:33:39.580 goes frustrated, frustrated ultimately, but it's really a beautiful and sad movie. And, um, and I liked it
00:33:46.140 a lot. I thought Ad Astra was basically what interstellar wanted to be, but wasn't.
00:33:55.560 Let's see. Uh, this is from Thanos says, hello, Matt. First time sending you an email. I'm a fan
00:34:02.140 from Thailand. You said it doesn't have to be star Wars. If you want to tell the story about space
00:34:07.540 and it doesn't have to be Spider-Man or Iron-Man. If you want to tell the story about someone with
00:34:11.680 supernatural powers, I don't think that was the only point why people want to see them.
00:34:16.440 It's not just about space or supernatural power stuff, but also about the characters growing that
00:34:21.680 we grow to love. And, uh, after we see them within those movies, we want to see what's going on with
00:34:29.040 the Skywalkers in their space. We want to know what is Spider-Man going, uh, doing with his powers.
00:34:33.000 We want to know what is going to happen in this new movie that they are in. I mean, sure,
00:34:36.860 it might be the same story again and again. We may like it or hate it, but that doesn't change the
00:34:40.960 fact that we love to see, uh, these characters in action. Kind of like how we enjoy listening to
00:34:46.060 your speech again and again, even though it's the same stuff. So is it really that bad for us to get
00:34:51.400 attached to those kinds of movies? I'll wait to hear your answer. Love your show. Matt, you do raise
00:34:56.360 a good point. Uh, me as someone who tends to repeat myself constantly, I guess I can't really blame
00:35:03.480 Star Wars for doing the same thing. But, um, I'm first of all, you know, as I have stated many times
00:35:10.780 there, I have one standard for myself and another, another standard for everybody else. I've been very
00:35:15.740 clear about that. So, you know, I can do what I want, but I expect other people to be better than
00:35:21.800 me. I don't see the big deal. Now I'm not saying it's bad to like Star Wars. In fact, I said, I totally
00:35:29.060 understand that people have a nostalgic attachment, um, to the movie. So, you know, that's, that's,
00:35:35.520 that's totally under, that's understandable to me. If you grew up with this movie, you, you, you,
00:35:40.780 you, you have that sort of relationship with the story and with the film. And, um, I don't begrudge
00:35:47.760 that at all. What I'm talking about is just the actual quality of the movie. I'm saying that the
00:35:53.460 Star Wars movies generally have below average acting. The scripts are below average. The stories
00:35:59.000 are repetitive and, um, and that's it. And so maybe it's time to move on, right? It's, it's not like
00:36:06.800 this is a story or the, that the original trilogy was of such a nature that it was just so incredible,
00:36:16.980 so deep, so rich that there is, that it's a never ending source of additional stories because
00:36:25.040 obviously it's not, you know, the well has run dry. And so let's move on and tell other stories in
00:36:33.300 space. What's wrong with, here's what I would like to see happen. You have filmmakers, this generation
00:36:41.680 of filmmakers, um, who grew up with Star Wars, love the movie, have it, have been influenced by it.
00:36:49.660 Great. So what I would love to see is, is for them to go and make a different space movie.
00:36:57.300 That's not a Star Wars movie, but that is influenced by it. So whatever happened to that,
00:37:02.480 see that, I think that's the way it's supposed to go. It's not, it's not supposed to be, oh,
00:37:06.920 I was influenced by Star Wars. So I'm going to make my own Star Wars. No, just you're influenced
00:37:11.020 by it. It's one of the influences you had as a filmmaker along with other, and go and, and so go
00:37:16.420 and tell a space movie that yeah, is, is reminiscent of Star Wars in some ways, but it's also a
00:37:20.640 completely different story. It's like, if you're a filmmaker coming up and you loved the Godfather
00:37:25.060 as a, uh, you know, when you were younger, you're very influenced by Francis Ford Coppola and the
00:37:30.000 Godfather. You're not going to go and try to make Godfather four, you know, you might tell, have a
00:37:35.540 mob movie that is reminiscent in some ways of the Godfather, but it's, it's still its own thing.
00:37:40.940 Um, so that, that's what I'm saying. You had, uh, who is the guy, the director that made the last
00:37:47.380 start? Rian Johnson. Um, I, he did, I think it was, I don't know. I think it was the last,
00:37:54.160 not this latest entry, but the one before that. Well, he's, this is the same guy who did, uh,
00:37:59.300 Looper, which I thought was a very interesting and good movie. Uh, he did a movie called Brick.
00:38:04.360 I think it was his first movie, uh, came out years ago, low budget, kind of indie movie with
00:38:11.000 Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Also a really interesting movie. Um, I would have loved to see that filmmaker
00:38:18.180 who I think is a very good filmmaker. I would have loved to see him tell a sci-fi space movie,
00:38:26.520 not a star Wars one, not one that has to fit into that cookie cutter mold, but I would love to see a
00:38:33.220 guy with those talents and that perspective influenced by star Wars and other films tell
00:38:39.240 his own space movie. That would have been great. Instead he told a star Wars movie and you know,
00:38:45.200 he made a star Wars movie. He told a star Wars story and it was, you know, it was kind of a bland
00:38:50.340 middling. Uh, let's see. All right, moving on. This is from Jacob says, Hey Matt, I listened to your
00:38:57.860 show daily came for Ben. My subscription isn't up yet, so I can't say stayed for Matt, but it makes you,
00:39:02.520 if it makes you feel better. Sure. It does make me feel better. I'm a 24 year old Orthodox Jew.
00:39:08.080 As such, I take off 10% after tax income for charity. A guy, my age, I haven't seen in years
00:39:12.880 messaged me asking how I was. Obviously he wanted something. So I asked what's up. He tell me his
00:39:18.840 dad has had two strokes and he had to move in with him. Blah, blah. Can I help? I like how you just
00:39:24.720 blah, blah over dad had two strokes. I felt bad and figured even if it was bull, the guy obviously
00:39:30.540 needs help. So I sent him, sent him 150 bucks. He was over the moon. Thank me a thousand times.
00:39:36.520 Okay. Good night. Next day. He tells me that he thinks the reason his life is going so bad
00:39:40.880 is because he isn't religious. Can I give him money to get food for Shabbat? I thought about it. 0.95
00:39:46.160 Uh, I want him to keep Shabbat, but I don't know. I don't want to now be his wallet. I'm in turn. I'm
00:39:52.240 interning with barely an income myself. So I sent him another 70. Do you think the second installment
00:39:57.780 was immoral also creating an issue for myself? Okay. Yes to the second question. No to the first.
00:40:05.160 It wasn't immoral. You're obviously a very nice charitable guy. So you didn't do anything morally
00:40:09.600 wrong. Did you create an issue for yourself? Yes. Because, uh, this person that you're dealing
00:40:15.300 with is what is known as a leech. And so I would cut him off immediately. I mean, the very idea that
00:40:22.040 you're going to ask somebody for money who you haven't talked to in years and you reach
00:40:26.980 out to them and almost immediately asking them for money. Okay. Well, I think this was
00:40:31.640 your thought. It's like, well, that's definitely tacky, but maybe he's in dire straits. He needs
00:40:37.520 to reach out to somebody. Doesn't know anybody else. He's reaching out to me. So I'll help
00:40:40.900 him out. I think I was, I think I was very generous of you. He comes back the next day and
00:40:45.460 is asking for more money. And the setup for it is that he wants to be religious and he needs money
00:40:51.040 to do it. What is this guy? Televangelist? Uh, no, I would, I wouldn't give him another
00:40:58.420 freaking dime. Okay. Um, so I think you've, you've done your part. This is from Michael says,
00:41:05.720 last year, you mentioned that it's a wonderful life was one of your favorite Christmas movies.
00:41:09.100 The film was considered communist propaganda by many people when it was first released in 1947.
00:41:13.720 I have had a very long argument with my liberal parents over the holidays about how the movie
00:41:18.740 was full of socialist tropes. My argument, by the way, it sounds like my, it sounds like my family
00:41:24.200 at the holidays. Not that anyone's liberal because we're all crazy right wingers, but having a long
00:41:28.380 intense argument about something like whether it's a wonderful life is a communist movie. I think
00:41:33.560 that's great. You know, I think I probably enjoy hanging out with your family because, uh, there are
00:41:38.180 the families that can have arguments like that. They get very intense and go on for hours. And then
00:41:43.340 they're the families that can't. And I'm definitely in the can category. Um, my argument was that George
00:41:49.000 Bailey was essentially giving out subprime loans during the depression to people who could not
00:41:53.580 afford them while disregarding his fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit to Potter,
00:41:57.960 who is the stockholder. Potter is then portrayed as an evil, greedy capitalist throughout the film
00:42:02.580 for being solvent during the depression and supplying free market housing for a competitive price.
00:42:07.360 I would like to hear you analyze this with your sound reasoning since socialist ideology
00:42:11.300 is now so prevalent in this day and age and old rich white men are castigated in the worst possible
00:42:15.900 light. I ask this question every year to the daily wire team and have yet to receive an answer. So I
00:42:20.000 hope that you can fit it in your final email segment before the year's over while the topic is still
00:42:24.220 relevant. Well, Michael, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but listen, you could make the
00:42:32.640 argument that Santa Claus himself is a manipulative nanny state tyrant. He watches you, watches you even
00:42:42.140 while you're sleeping. Think about how creepy that is. Think about the lyrics of that song.
00:42:48.260 He knows when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. My God. He knows if you've been bad or good.
00:42:55.340 Then he breaks into your home. He rewards you if you comply with his demands. And if not,
00:43:00.340 he leaves a terrifying threat in the form of a chunk of coal, a black coal. Now, if you want to
00:43:07.540 be all literal about it, you could say that Santa is a morbidly obese big brother figure who violates
00:43:14.460 our privacy rights, violates our property rights, and violates our free speech rights. And that would
00:43:21.960 all be true. But it's Christmas, so we make an exception. All I'm saying is Santa gets off the hook
00:43:28.760 in the spirit of Christmas. And it's in that same spirit that I let George Bailey
00:43:32.960 off the hook, even though he is a deadbeat, self-pitying whiner. But yeah, so I really don't
00:43:42.560 have a response for you, I'm afraid. I understand what you're saying. You're not wrong.
00:43:48.100 Uh, but, but still, that's what, that's the answer I'm going to give you. I'm going to give
00:43:54.360 you a yeah, but still on that one. This is from LJ says, Hey Matt, can you give us a great recipe
00:44:00.740 for bourbon eggnog? Um, I sure can LJ. What you do is, uh, well, I tell you the step-by-step process.
00:44:08.200 What you want to do is, um, take some bourbon out of your liquor cabinet. You want to pour a generous
00:44:14.560 portion of it into a glass. And the next step is drink the bourbon. The end. Because obviously the
00:44:25.060 last thing you should ever do with the glorious elixir known as bourbon is mix it with raw eggs
00:44:31.600 for God's sake. That's my bourbon recipe. Hope you enjoy it. Um, I know I'll be enjoying that form
00:44:39.700 with eggnog myself over the holidays and, uh, hope all of you have a great blessed Christmas.
00:44:46.000 Happy new year. I'll talk to you next year. Godspeed. Merry Christmas.
00:44:53.260 If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the
00:44:56.820 word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
00:44:59.980 We're available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out the
00:45:05.620 other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the Andrew
00:45:09.840 Klavan show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer,
00:45:15.780 Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay, supervising producer, Mathis Glover, supervising
00:45:21.300 producer, Robert Sterling, technical producer, Austin Stevens, editor, Donovan Fowler, audio mixer,
00:45:27.240 Mike Coromina. The Matt Wall show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
00:45:31.680 If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the
00:45:37.640 insanity filling our national news cycle, well tune in to the Ben Shapiro show. We'll get a whole lot
00:45:42.200 of that and much more. See you there.