The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1051 - Lots Of Twitter Employees Are About To Lose Their Jobs, Thank God

Episode Date: October 27, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves with increasing regularity in recent weeks. Besides the obvious — stupidity, a need for attention, etc — what is driving all of this? Also, Elon Musk prepares to take over Twitter and reportedly fire 75 percent of its staff. But Twitter employees have a plan to stop him: a strongly worded letter. And a male volleyball player who identifies as female severely injures a female opponent. In our Daily Cancellation we have a video that, in less than 60 seconds, perfectly captures race relations in America. And it’s not a pretty picture. - - -  DailyWire+: Become a DailyWire+ member to watch the brand new DailyWire+ series “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on Marriage”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Join Ben Shapiro’s Book Club TONIGHT at 8pm EST as he discusses “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley on dailywireplus.com  - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/walsh - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves with increasing regularity in recent weeks. Besides the obvious stupidity and need for attention, etc. What is driving all of this exactly? We'll talk about that. Also, Elon Musk prepares to take over Twitter, reportedly fires 75% of its staff, but Twitter employees have a plan to stop him a strongly worded letter. And a male volleyball player who identifies as female, severely injures a female opponent. In our daily cancellation, we have a video that in less than 60 seconds perfectly encapsulates race relations in a male. America, and it's not a pretty picture. All of that, and more today on the Matt Walls show.

The Labor Department's Consumer Price Index, which catalogs the cost of good services, food, and rent, rose 0.4% over the month of August, double what many economists had anticipated. Perhaps worse, core inflation, which excludes food and gas prices, saw the highest increase last month that it's seen since August 1982. What is the current administration doing to quell the surge of inflation, spending more taxpayer dollars, of course? Don't bear your head in the same. And while your savings deplete, diversify into gold with Birch Gold today. All you got to do is text Walsh to 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold in a tax-sheltered account. The experts over at Birch Gold have almost 20 years of experience in converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metal IRAs.

With an 8 plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers, why haven't you checked them out yet? Text Walsh to 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on diversifying into tax-free gold. Take the necessary steps to hedge against inflation today and protect your hard-earned money. Get your free info kit by texting Walsh to 9898-98 now. Well, every few months or so, climate activists will go through a phase where they are especially annoying and obnoxious. And of course, they're always annoying and obnoxious, but periodically they will decide to be even more annoying and obnoxious than usual. it works in cycles like the phases of the moon. In fact, the cycle might even be tied to the phases of the moon, but that's a theory that will have to be fleshed out another time. The point is that

right now we are going through one of the extra obnoxious periods. Here's their most recent stunt from Yahoo News. It says, a protester has been arrested after just stop oil supporters through orange paint over the headquarters of a climate skeptic think tank in central London. Climate activists from the campaign group attacked a building in Westminster used by the global warming Policy Foundation and disrupted traffic by sitting in the road. Some supporters also glued themselves to the road and others locked themselves together. Just Stop Oil has been demanding the government halt new oil and gas licenses and consents. It has been labeled a nuisance by many and has closed the Dartford Crossing, smeared chocolate cake over a waxwork of King Charles, and thrown

various things, including mashed potato, over famous pieces of art in recent weeks. Now, we'll leave aside the phrase climate skeptic. As I'm always reminding you, there are no climate skeptics. Nobody is skeptical about the climate. Nobody is walking outside, looking up at the clouds and saying, hmm, I don't know about this. I'm skeptical. We all agree that the climate exists and that it changes

and that those changes sometimes result in unfortunate weather events. The skepticism is related to the supposed causes of those changes and the proposed solutions for those changes. Indeed, the greatest skepticism, at least my greatest skepticism, as a skeptic, is directed at the notion that the weather is a problem that can be solved at all by anyone apart from God himself. But as I said, leave all that to the side. We'll also choose not to linger on the fact that these climate activists are buying paint and throwing it around, even though paint is made from fossil fuels,

which is a bit like a vegan activist purchasing 10 pounds of ground beef from the supermarket as an act of protest against the slaughter of cows. There seems to be a little bit of a disconnect here, a concept problem. But we can't expect these people to behave rationally. They are throwing a tantrum, and if I know anything about tantruming toddlers, and I know a lot about them, it's that rationality is well beyond their grasp, especially in the middle of the tantrum. The episode with the paint is just the latest in a series of stunts, stunts which often involve throwing different sorts of liquids onto different sorts of objects or gluing themselves onto things.

Last week, climate activists glued themselves to the floor at the Porsche Museum. And the staff at the museum did exactly what people should be doing in response to these sorts of things, what I've been advocating for, which is that they just closed down for the night and they turned the lights off and the heat off. and they just went home, and they left the activist glued to the floor. The activists then complained that they weren't provided food. They complained that they weren't given buckets so that they could go potty. It's a bit like lighting yourself on fire and in protest and then complaining that nobody has a fire extinguisher on hand. These are really the sorts of preparations that you should probably be making yourself.

Now, elsewhere, climate activists have blocked traffic. They've run onto the field during sporting events. And most notoriously, as mentioned in the article, they've thrown various food items onto priceless works of art. This has apparently led to some internal disputes among climate activists, as reported by Axios with this interesting headline. Headline is, climate activists divided on souping art. Souping.

Yes, soup is a verb now. Soup is something that you can do. because, you know, there are no rules in English language, as we have repeatedly discovered. The article says, quote, 18-year-old climate activist Elijah McKenzie Jackson, campaign coordinator for youth climate strike movement, Fridays for Future International, told Axios in an email that history tells us civil protests like these are necessary for change. He says, quote, although I can recognize these acts of justice may seem outrageous to people, I challenge them to feel the outrage of destruction, death, and murder, all Western governments and corporations are committing to our animals, our neighbors in the South, and our ecosystems, wrote McKenzie Jackson. Fifteen-year-old Genesis Butler, founder of global organization Youth Climate Save,

echoed that sentiment, writing in an email to Axios that, quote, it's important for us all to make bold moves to raise awareness about the climate crisis. But then there's the other side. Some don't see putting fabled art at the heart of disruptive protests as an effective path to advancing climate action. Among those who spoke out against the Van Gogh soup stunt was climate scientist Michael Mann who criticized the move, telling the Associated Press that people will draw negative associations with climate act of advocacy. He's worried that they will draw those negative associations. I think it's a little bit too late for that. Researchers and journalists alike have also

since argued that these kinds of viral activities don't mitigate climate polluting emissions science and policy do. Oh, well, it's good that researchers have made that determination. I would not have been able to figure that out otherwise. We needed researchers to tell us that throwing tomato soup on an old painting will not change the weather. That's what researchers are saying. I need to see the studies. I haven't read the studies for myself.

I won't believe in time. I need to see, show me the study that proves you can't change the temperature outside. by throwing your food at a painting. But if soup will not alter the climate, maybe dancing will. After all, many primitive cultures have believed that dancing has some effect on the weather, and maybe they were onto something. These healthcare professionals seem to think so, so they performed a rendition of staying alive in pursuit of climate justice.

Let's watch this. new fossil fuels stay planning with renewables come on kids to pay the price ignoring scientists advice leadership be happy to stop and find a plan on so we stay alive stay alive we all want to stop our butter stop and so we stay alive we all want to stay alive though I'm not sure I do after hearing that. I'm having flashbacks now to COVID when the nurses wouldn't stop dancing,

which ultimately, you know, did, you know, COVID ended up being worse than the Black Plague, as they predicted, because the nurses were dancing so much. And back in the Black Plague, the healthcare professionals, they didn't do as much dancing. I can only hope this doesn't become a trend again because of climate change. So what is this all about? Why are the climate activists having these tantrums,

whether a musical form or not. Well, one thing we must always keep in mind is that nothing is entirely organic on the left. There is money behind this current rash of activism, organizations funding it, and pulling the strings. And that's especially true when you hear about, we heard in the Axios article about a 15-year-old who started an international organization.

It's almost always the case that when you hear about, It's just like when the kids in Virginia were staging walkouts in their schools all across the state because of policies that say that only boys have to use the boys room and girls have to use the girls' room. Then you find out that, well, no, this is all being organized by adults and by organizations with money. So the same thing goes here. But as for the grunts on the ground, you know, people that are out there actually gluing themselves to the floor or having food fights with art exhibits or whatever else. There's not one explanation that can suffice.

For some of them, this is empty virtue signaling. They're hopping on a trend, fishing for social media clout, etc. There's definitely a lot of that. And for some of them, the younger ones anyway, this is the youthful, rebellious instinct, searching for a cause. Young people naturally desire a cause to protest over fight. for or against, and climate activism provides an outlet. It's a place to expend that energy. But underneath all of that, I think, there's also nihilism. This is the engine that drives

most so-called climate activism. It's really the message that they're sending when they destroy or attempt to destroy a priceless work of art, or when they block traffic, randomly interfering with people's ability to get to work and feed their families. And at the same time creating more traffic congestion, which only causes more CO2 emissions, not less. What does that achieve? Well, nothing, of course. It is just destruction and obstruction for its own sake. It's a protest not really against climate change, but against life, against humanity. They are expressing their anger at a world that to them has no meaning. They're expressing their anger at the fact that it has no meaning.

Some of these people, again, the younger ones especially, they really do believe that the world is coming to an end. They really believe it. Now, a lot of the older people, the adults, Hollywood celebrities that push this stuff and they're flying around on the private jets and Al Gore. And we know about all the hypocrites behind this stuff. And they don't really believe it. They know better. They're the ones who started this. They're the ones who are propagating the lie.

The ones propagating the lie, they know that it's a lie. A lot of these kids don't know that. They've been told since they were children that the world's coming to an end because of this. The fear tactics, the hysteria, that's all settled into their minds. But they also see no value in life and in the planets, which they believe is headed towards destruction. And this tension is what causes them to lash out like they do. that they do. I mean, think of it. That's why it's interesting that they're going after paintings. You would think that if you believed that the world was coming to an end and that we didn't have

much time left, you would cherish beautiful art even more. You know, you would have more appreciation for the things that are beautiful in the world. But they don't, because underneath all this is nihilism. Lack of meaning, denial of meaning. That's what lies at the bottom of all left-wing causes. And this one is certainly no exception. Now let's get to our five headlines. Well, as you all know, I'm currently waging a war with a force diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. I'm not referring to the culture war or my ceaseless battle with the gender ideologues. This war is one waged at home.

Literally. I can't get my giant walrus home because my wife doesn't want it there. I have no idea where this is going. day after day I pass the gentle creature sitting solemnly in the corner his eyes following me I look away in a mixture of anguish and shame this heartening and inescapable concoction of emotion is overwhelming all the while I still feel his longing stare as I leave each day without him in tow we're going to have to vacuum seal it like a mattress or something but I'm open to suggestions because this fight is far from over where the hell is this going go to dailywire.com slash shop to

bring home your own a waller's. Okay, yours will not come vacuum sealed, but it will fit through the door just fine. So Elon Musk is scheduled to take the reins over at Twitter, I believe on Friday. That's when the deal is supposed to be official and he'll actually be in charge of Twitter. The left obviously is panicking over it. And they're panicking because we know they rely so much on on suppressing speech and that is all in service to kind of this pretending that there is a consensus on an issue when there really isn't. Some people have called it on Twitter, you know, manufacturing a consensus.

That's the great value that Twitter has for the left and that all social media does, that big tech has for them, is by pretending by putting their own views out there and creating an environment where it seems like everyone agrees with their position when really they don't. It's a, and that can be a very convincing thing to people. When we spend so much time on social media and there's one point of view that you see everywhere you turn, and another point of view, which might be your own, which you don't see represented at all, trick you into believing that, well, you must be very much in the minority. And if you're in the minority, you must be wrong.

But they manufacture this by suppressing all other opinions. Now they're afraid that's going to go out the window. So Elon Musk showed up to Twitter headquarters yesterday. He posted a quick video showing him carrying a sink into the building. Here's that video. So I get it because he let that sink in, is the pun? I think it's, I'm always a fan. I'm always an apologist for all forms of dad jokes.

Now, we previously talked about Musk's reported plan to fire a huge portion of the staff, which is a great idea. It's even a better idea than the pun. And the pun was a fantastic idea. And it's an even better idea in light of this. Here's a video that Libs of TikTok found and posted. This is another one of those TikTok videos where somebody goes through their daily routine. I have no idea why this is a trend, why these videos are so popular, but they are.

So here is the daily routine of a Twitter employee. Watch. Welcome to a day in my life as a Twitter employee. So this past week went to SF for the first time at a Twitter office, badgeed in. Honestly, took a moment to just soak everything in. What a blessing. Also started my morning off with an iced match from the person. Then I had a meeting, so quickly scheduled one of these little pod rooms, which were so cool.

They're literally noise canceling. Took my meeting, got ready for a bunch. Look how delicious this food looks. Oh, my goodness, I was so overwhelmed. Then made my way down to this log cabin area. I don't know what this is, but it was really cool. I played some foods with my friends to kind of unwind a bit. Also found this really cool meditation room.

that I thought was super neat. I didn't do any yoga, but they have this yoga room if you were a yogi. So I also thought that was really cool. Had a couple more meetings in the afternoon. Had a ton of projects that we needed to knock out. Say hi to my teammates. Went to the library to kind of get some more work done. Obviously had to have our afternoon coffee.

So made some espresso. And then before leaving for the day, had some red wine on. that's on tap, went up to the rooftop, and just honestly enjoyed the beautiful weather. So, awesome trip. No work was done at all. Well, she had a meeting. So you had a meeting for 15 minutes. I think there's a lot of fat we can trim here.

I really think that there is. So he wants to fire 75% employees. I think you probably fired 90%. We would be fine. I love how she said that she had to unwind by playing some foosball with her friends. unwind. You just got to work an hour ago. You spent most of the time drinking coffee and hanging out and meditating. And you already have to unwind. If you have time for yoga and foosball and meditation during the workday, you aren't needed. Okay. Good rule of thumb there. If I was an employer, I might put all of that stuff in the office just so that I can fire whoever you. uses it. It gives people an opportunity to sort of tell on themselves. I think it's actually a brilliant idea. The more that I think about this, it's really not a bad idea. Have a swimming pool,

have a hot tub, have a water park, have lounge chairs and reading material and, you know, all that kind of stuff. Have a room that says like it's the, it's the Netflix room and you just sit there and browse Netflix and watch Netflix movies. And anyone caught using any of that is fired automatically. I'm half joking. Well, I'm not really joking at all. I would do that. But the point is that if you don't want to be fired, if you want to have job security, and this is not just a lesson for Twitter employees, it's for everybody. You have to make yourself irreplaceable, as irreplaceable as possible. I mean, the reality is that nobody is totally irreplaceable, but your value to your employer increases with the degree of your irreplaceability. Okay.

if they can find just anyone off the street to do your job, then you have almost no value as an employee, sadly. That's just, that's the reality of it. It's not very, might not be nice to think about it, but it is. If they can find anyone else, if they pull anybody else in and have them do it, then you just don't have a lot of value. Now, if they would have extreme difficulty finding someone who can bring what you bring to the table, then you have immense value, which means you have bargaining power

and you have leverage. Speaking of which I just saw, so Starbucks has a union now. The Starbucks employees have unionized, and they were complaining earlier this week because they were trying to have a meeting with Starbucks management, you know, Starbucks corporate management. and the corporate walked out of the meeting. They complained, and they said they just got up and walked out. They wouldn't negotiate. Well, this again goes back to you have to have leverage. You have to have bargaining power.

And if you work at Starbucks, for example, there are a lot of people who can do that. And so you just don't have a lot of leverage. Twitter employees especially don't understand this. And what they think is they can just make the man. So this is from Time. Okay. Time magazine has this. Employees at Twitter are circulating an open letter protesting Elon Musk's plan to fire as much as 75% of the company's workforce as the deadline for him to complete his $44 billion acquisition of the company looms.

Time has learned. Musk must complete the acquisition by Friday or face the resumption of a lawsuit in Delaware court. And the plan is that he will eradicate the jobs of nearly 75% of Twitter staff, reducing headcount from 75% of Twitter. to just 2000, according to the Washington Post. Now, here's the letter that they're circulating. It says, staff, Elon Musk, and Board of Directors, we, the undersigned Twitter workers, believe the public conversation is in jeopardy. Elon Musk's plan, the public conversation is in jeopardy because it's not going to be suppressed

anymore. The public conversation is in jeopardy when more people are allowed to participate in it. it's very similar to how we're going to face the end of democracy if too many Republicans participate in it and vote for Republicans. That's the end of democracy. So it's the end of the public conversation if there are too many people involved in the conversation. Elon Musk's plan to lay off 75% of Twitter workers

will hurt Twitter's ability to serve the public conversation. A threat of this magnitude is reckless, undermines our users and customers trust in our platform, and is a transparent act of worker intimidation. Twitter has significant effects on societies and communities across the globe. As we speak, Twitter is helping to uplift independent journalism in Ukraine and Iran, as well as powering social movements around the world. A threat to workers at Twitter is a threat to Twitter's future. These threats have an impact on us as workers and demonstrate a fundamental disconnect with the realities of operating Twitter.

They threaten our livelihoods, access to essential health care, and the ability for visa holders to stay in the country they work in. We cannot do our work in an environment of constant harassment and threats. without our work, there is no Twitter. Well, yeah, but we're, the point is that many of you don't need to do your work anymore because you're going to be fired. So I don't even understand, if you fire us, we will not be able to do our work at Twitter. Well, yeah, that's the whole point. You're not needed. We, the workers at Twitter, will not be intimidated.

We recommit to supporting the communities, organizations, and businesses who rely on Twitter. We will not stop serving the public conversation. Well, you will if you get fired, then you will. That's how it works. We call on Twitter management and Elon Musk to cease these negligent layoff threats. As workers, we deserve concrete commitments so we can continue to preserve the integrity of our platform. We demand of current and future leadership. Respect.

We demand leadership to respect the platform and the workers who maintain it by committing to preserving the current headcount. Safety. We demand that leadership does not discriminate against workers on the basis of their race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. Oh, now they're worried about people being discriminated against based on political beliefs. We also demand safety for workers on visas. We will be forced to leave the country or who will be first to leave the country if they work. They work and if they're laid off. Protection. We demand Elon Musk explicitly commit to preserve our benefits, those both listed in the merger agreement and not. We demand leadership to establish and ensure fair severance

policies for all workers before and after any change in ownership. We demand transparent prompt and thoughtful communication around our working conditions, we demand to be treated with dignity and to not be treated as mere pawns in a game played by billionaires. Okay. Again, these demands mean nothing if you have no leverage. And notice how they never even try to pretend that they have leverage. They didn't say, here's what we bring to the company, okay, here's what we do every day. And you need us to do this. And here's what will happen if you get rid of us.

Here are all the bad things will happen to the company and to the company's bottom line without us. Okay, here's what will happen if you don't have us doing yoga and eating hummus all day. This is the catastrophe level. They didn't really do that. Instead, they just went right to playing the victim card, emotional blackmail. if you fire us, it'll make us feel bad. That's their argument.

You know, it's just, it probably won't work. If you get called in to the office and the boss lets you know, listen, it's not working out. We've got to go our separate ways. You can't do that? Why can't I do it? Because I don't like it. It makes me feel bad to be fired.

Well, okay, well, sorry to hear that. Anyway, here's your box, fill it with stuff. Get the hell out, please. Just that, you can make demands all you want, but the demand doesn't mean anything if you have no leverage. And leverage as an employer is tied to what you actually do, to how you perform, to what you bring to the table. The problem is that a lot of these people have been told that it doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter what they bring to the table. They shouldn't have to prove themselves to anyone.

and they should be allowed to continue working at Twitter just because, because they are them and they are special. It just doesn't work that way, unfortunately. All right. So the Washington Post has this story, headline Democrats scramble into defensive posture in final stage of midterms. It says Democrats on Wednesday pumped at least $6.3 million worth of advertising into a trio of congressional districts in New Jersey and New York, where President Biden won by at least eight percentage points. First Lady Jill Biden spent the afternoon in Rhode Island trying to help save a Democrat running in a district, her husband carried by nearly 14 points. Oh, that'll do it.

That is the Democrat's secret weapon heading into the midterms. They're very worried. They're in a defensive posture. They're panicking. There might be the red wave. But they're trotting out their secret weapon, which is Jill Biden. That'll get the voters turned up. It will.

The president is headed to the deep blue empire state on Thursday, where the Democratic governor is scrambling to avoid an upset in a close. closer than expected race that has put Democrats down the ballot in greater danger. And in Pennsylvania, Democrats were trying to move past a shaky Tuesday debate performance by John Federman. Shaky is one way to put it. One former party official relayed hearing from people who wondered why Federman agreed to debate during his recovery in the first place. So, and these are the, and when the media is reporting this, you know that it's bad.

When even the media is saying the Democrats are panicking and it's not looking good for the Democrats, you know it's a bad situation. And why are we headed towards a red wave? You know, why are Democrats in this spot? Well, it's for one thing because, as we talked about yesterday, we talked about many times, Democrats are not focused on the issues that not only just the issues people care about, but the issues that actually affect people. For the Democrats, their entire platform, all they have to offer is ideology.

That's it. And the reality is that most Americans are not intensely ideological, which sometimes we have to as those of us who are ideological and kind of live in the political space, that could come as a surprise to us. But it's just the truth. That's not to say that most people are stupid or uninformed. I mean, there are a lot of uninformed people out there, but being not very ideological and being uninformed are not the same. And so that's just it. People, people tend to be more focused on

just the realities of everyday life and, you know, meeting the needs of their families and that sort of thing. Democrats have nothing to offer you there. They need you to be fully, they need you to buy in fully to the leftist ideological project. And then they can speak to you. If you have bought in, then they can speak to you. If you have bought in, then they can speak. to speak to you. But if you haven't, they don't even have the language to speak to you. I also think related to this that, you know, after Rovi Wade was overturned and there was this discussion about who does this help? And the consensus was that this is going to help the Democrats that Rovi Wade has overturned. And it's going to lead to a, in fact, there's going to be a wave. It's going to be a

massive blue wave because Rovi Way is returned. It's going to motivate voters to get out there and vote to protect their, quote, abortion rights. And I did tell you from the very beginning that that is not going to happen. Okay? Now, back earlier in the summer, I was skeptical of myself about whether the red wave would materialize. But that, to me, had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade overturned. In fact, I said from the beginning that, in truth, abortion is not that high on the list of most Americans' concerns. And I lament that myself as a pro-life, right?

I think Americans should care more about it from a pro-life perspective. But they don't. Poland consistently shows that. You ask people to list the things that they're worried about the issues they care about, and abortion is going to cut. Like barely even cracks the top five for most people. For me, it's higher up, again, because I am an avid pro-lifer. But that's it.

Most people don't care about it that much. And so, and this is, before Roe v. Wade was overturned, this was the fundamental challenge that pro-lifers faced. Yeah, we had to make our case. We had to explain, you know, we were defending the rights of unborn babies to exist to live their right to life. But before we could even get to that point, we had to get over the apathy, the kind of general malaise and indifference that people have around this issue. And that is, and we spent decades dealing with that problem. it's very difficult to overcome.

And now the left is experiencing the same thing. So they were expecting of this with motivated voters, and it just didn't. Which means that ultimately, Roe v. Wade getting overturned has helped Republicans. It's helped Republicans, not because it's motivated voters on the other side. No. But just because Roe v. Wade being overturned has led to Democrats deciding that they should make abortion, into, you know, one of the central parts of their platform. It has led to Democrats focusing on abortion leading into the election, which if Rovi Wade had not been overturned,

they would not have focused on it as much. But it was. They assumed that Americans will be very concerned about that. And so they have made that their focus. And it has hurt them considerably. All right. This is from story from Outkick

that's been following this story here. It says the mainstream sports media continues to blur the lines between men's and women's athletics without much consideration for the potential dangers of having biologically different athletes pity against each other.

The North Carolina high school volleyball match last month highlighted the ugly side of this narrative when a trans female who was biologically male spiked the ball so hard that it hit a female opponent in the face and bounced several feet back

into the net. The girl suffered significant head and neck injuries along with a concussion. So this happened a couple of weeks ago, didn't get a lot of attention. In fact, I don't even think that I mentioned it. For me, it just got, you know, when it comes to the assault on biological reality and gender ideology, there are so many things happening all at once that things end up getting lost in the shuffle. But this did, this did occur. We're told that having biological males compete against females, It's not hurting anybody.

Of course, that's always a lie. And even putting aside physical injury, we're hurting girls by taking opportunities away from them and we're taking their privacy away from them in the locker rooms. But then there is also, of course, the potential for actual physical injury, which is what happened here. Outkick was one of the few media entities

which extensively reported on the incident. The controversial play in early September during the match between Hawassie Dam High School and Highlands High School, quote, shows the female volleyball player getting hit and collapsing and then staying down for a substantial amount of time. Outkick continues. Incredibly, a YouTube user posted the video on their page as a career highlight for the trans volleyball player. This is a highlight now. The video slows down, draws a green circle around the player, and then shows the vicious spike hitting off the face of the young female with a shocking velocity. And so this is now circulating on YouTube. I guess it's not known for certain that the trans player who did this is the one who put the video up. You could probably assume that.

I don't know who else would. But this is now being counted as an athletic highlight for this player, viciously injuring a woman. And of course, does the player care that this girl was injured? We can assume not. because they never do. If they cared about the female athletes, they wouldn't be there in the first place. If they were taking into consideration the safety, the feelings, the perspective of the real female athletes they're competing against, they wouldn't be there competing against them in the first place. The fact that they're there means that they don't care.

They're just not taking into consideration. All right, I wanted to mention this briefly as well. This is from the intelligents, sir. It says a second woman has come full. to accuse Herschel Walker, the Republican Senate candidate in Georgia, who has compared abortion to murder, of pressuring her into getting an abortion three decades ago. In a press conference held by celebrity attorney Gloria Allred on Wednesday in Los Angeles, the anonymous woman claimed that when she was carrying her, his child, he demanded that she terminate her pregnancy,

going so far as to take her to an abortion clinic, to see it through. She said, quote, I don't believe Herschel is morally fit to be a U.S. Senator, and that is the reason I'm speaking up and providing proof. Appearing on a blank screen on Zoom to protect herself from what she feared would be reprisals, the woman said she was romantically involved for six years with Walker during his NFL days, hopscatching from game to game with him, while he was married to his first wife. She learned that she was pregnant in April of 1993 when the two were living in Dallas, and he played for the Cowboys.

Walker, according to Allred, gave her cash to pay for an abortion, but when she arrived at a clinic, she was overcome with emotion and left. The woman said Walker was upset. She didn't go through with the procedure, and the next day drove her to a clinic and waited outside until it was done. An apologetic note from Walker followed, according to Allred, but he immediately distanced himself from her. Okay, so this is a claim from an anonymous woman relating to something that allegedly happened three decades ago when Herschel Walker was still actually playing in the NFL. And we are getting this through Gloria Allred. it is just, it's really kind of amazing to me

that women who are making accusations and want to be taken seriously are still going to Gloria Allred. Do you not understand, which I guess you don't, that the moment Gloria Allred is involved, most people immediately dismiss it. And for good reason, because she's a grifter and a fraud

and a scam artist. So if you're teaming up with Glover, lawyer all right. I'm just not interested in what you have to say. You want to be taken seriously, go somewhere else. I find a different lawyer. Doesn't need to be Gloria all red. Although you're going to have trouble being taken seriously when you're coming out two weeks before an election, 30 years later, to make a claim for which you have no evidence. If you want to make a claim against someone, you've got some time within that 30-year period. you know, it would be better to come forward.

When you wait until two weeks before an election, you're just not going to be taken seriously. It's simple as that. Variety has this story. Harvey Weinstein's defense told the jury during his trial that there is absolutely no evidence against their client and that every woman who will testify in his trial is an actress who will be playing a role on the stand,

all to fit the narrative of Me Too, which they characterized in an asteroid of a movement that burst forth like a supernova with Weinstein as the poster child. Weinstein's attorney Mark Worksman told him, that they should prepare to hear a fire hose of false and unprovable allegations from women who agreed to have consensual sexual interactions with Weinstein, but years later are now embarrassed and lying about what really happened. Look at my client, worksman said, pointed to Weinstein.

He's not Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Do you think these beautiful women had sex with him because he's hot? No, it's because he's powerful. Weinstein's attorney told the jury that Hollywood has changed today, but back of the day, transactional sex was par for the course. Sex was a commodity for rich and powerful men like my client. Weinstein's attorney said, even getting its own nickname, the casting couch. So that's the defense that they're offering now in this new trial for Harvey Weinstein,

is that this is, you know, the transactional sex, everyone did it. I don't doubt one part of what he says. All the stuff about him being innocent, that's nonsense, of course. But one part, it doesn't achieve what he seems to want to achieve, which is to excuse the fact that he's a raping scumbag who will and should die in prison. and probably should get the death penalty, although he's not. It doesn't mitigate his own guilt. He's just as evil as he ever was. Everyone was doing it is always a bad excuse.

It's especially a bad excuse when we're talking about sex crimes. But it is certainly true that Hollywood was and still is crawling with sexual deviance and people who use sex to exploit and control and gain power, men and women both. The claim that transactional sex was the norm. Yeah, I believe that. Still is, probably. Even though they tell us that, oh, Hollywood's clean up his act. Tend to doubt that.

And a lot worse than transactional sex, in fact. Weinstein didn't invent it. You know, they're presenting him as a sort of a sacrificial goat that was offered up. Kevin Spacey is another one that's made that claim. And in a sense, sure. It's like any mob movie. If someone's going to be the fall guy, he's got to be high enough on the ladder to make everyone feel like they solve.

the problem by getting rid of him. And in the case of Weinstein and Spacey, problems were solved by getting rid of them. I mean, people that they would have abused and victimized in the future now have been protected from that. But there's no reason to think that the underlying problem has gone away, or that all of the offenders or even the worst offenders were actually caught in the net. I mean, think about it. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and quote-unquote killed himself right around when all the Me Too stuff was happening. And yet how many of us? Epstein's associates have been arrested? How many of his clients? They have a book listing his clients. How many of them have been arrested? How many of his high profile, wealthy, powerful clients

in Hollywood, media, government have been taken down. None. Zero. Not one. I mean, it's amazing. Epstein was a wealthy, globetrotting sex trafficker who evidently trafficked to nobody. Nobody's been arrested? How does that work? So yeah, yeah, there are a lot of other fish in the sea that we should be catching. Bigger fish too probably. But Harvey Weinstein was the, uh, one of the few scumbags in Hollywood. They, they, they, during the Me Too movement, it was kind of like they were, you know, all these sexual deviance and degenerates and predators, and they selected a few from this group that would have to go down. And good riddins. They deserve it. The only problem is all the other Weinsteins that are still out there. And will remain because, you know, we've just

moved on and pretended that the problem of sexual deviance in Hollywood was somehow solved. And of course it wasn't. All right. Let's get now to the comment section. Jay Lambert says, I'm 100% in support of being ableist and agist when voting. I don't care about a wheelchair or an eyepatch or whatever, but I definitely want a person without mental limitations. And you don't have to be pre-retirement per se, but I don't want a person who is so old that they have become senile and incontinent.

Yeah, if that's what ableist and agus means, then, you know, if that's what ableist and ageist means, And yes, that is we should bring that into really every area of our life, which is just as I said yesterday, recognizing people's limitations. Everybody has limitations. So recognizing what those limitations are. And especially if you're selecting someone to fulfill some sort of role, whether the role is President of the United States or anything else, you've got to keep those limitations in mind.

That's ableism and ageism now. Okay. Well, then I guess that's what we are. Nadine says if Hallmark did their research, they would know that Matt became even less of a germaphobe after COVID. That's exactly right. So in the character playing Matt face in the Hallmark film yesterday, you know, a germaphobe didn't want to shake hands. Now, I was never afraid of shaking people's hands. But before COVID, I probably would have identified myself as in some ways a germapope.

but my contrarian nature took over. And so during COVID, when everyone else became a germaphobe, I actually became less of one. I Am Dunn says, I had a stroke two years ago and have had lasting effects from it. Fortunately for me, I didn't suffer cognitive damage, but instead have other physical issues. As a result of these physical issues, you would not hire me to be a professional baseball pitcher. That's not ableism, but rather recognition of actual limitations. Fetterman is suffering from cognitive issues. The position that he's wanting to be elected to requires that he have full cognitive abilities

to recognize that he doesn't is not ableism. It's reality. Well, you know, one of the excuses now that we're hearing from Democrats is that he doesn't actually have cognitive defects. He can still understand everything fine. It's just that he can't communicate. Which even if that were true, an ability to communicate in the legislative. in the legislature, you'd think would be rather important.

But also, it's, it, how could we know if that's true? You know, it's hard, their claim is that he still has, he still understands, he's just not able to communicate. We don't know how much he understands because he can't communicate. And so it's just a question of whether or not you want to roll the dice and put him in the Senate anyway. Which, of course, we shouldn't. Rose says, you know Matt, we're quickly approaching the Christmas season, and I'll be reminded yet again of how the pampering of oddballs in society began, which was Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. In that animated television special, two non-conforming characters are shown to suffer, thus making their social circle feel guilty, and they're then embraced for the features which made them objects of shock and dismay. Their society's exterior threat is literally defanged by the two weirdos.

and is rehabilitated in a sort of demasculinization surgery. Then as a cherry on top, when intended, everyone is forced to make accommodations for various oddities in the shape of damaged toys handed out by a woke Santa. I think this planted the seed for the exaltation of victimhood. Change my mind. I'm not going to change my mind because I could not agree more. I couldn't agree more.

I mean, first of all, Rudolph in the show is just lame. He's annoying and lame. I wouldn't want to hang out with him either. He's a grading personality. And then it turns out that he's also hideously deformed. I mean, you've got to give people something, right? If you're going to have the deformity, at least compensate with a good personality, if you don't check any box at all, then, like, what do you expect the other reindeer to do?

Of course, they're not going to invite you to play their reindeer games. And by the way, is it really reasonable to expect that people won't point and laugh when your nose literally lights up like a light bulb? what's the expectation here that they're going to see that and go oh your nose lights up cool no problem and then just go about their day I actually think that the other reindeer

in the show handled it pretty well all things considered I don't know it's like if the Daily Wire hired some guy he came to my office first of all just coming to my office would be a problem but he shows up and he's got this huge freakish light up nose

I would go and demand that he's fired. It's a distraction. It's disturbing. Could be contagious for all I know. Couldn't agree more. Let's get now to the daily cancellation. Well, if I had to explain race relations in America to someone who just crawled out of a cave that they've been living in since birth, or to someone who simply relies on the corporate media for their information, which is effectively the same thing as living in a cave, I think that I would probably show them this. It's a clip making the rounds on the internet, though it was initially produced a few years ago by a YouTube channel called Jubilee. In fact, it's from the year 2019, which means that the sickness that it inadvertently reveals

has only gotten worse. 2020 was the year that broke many white people who had not yet been broken and further broke the ones who were already broken. And so this was right before that. In the clip, which is harvested from two longer videos, a group of black people and then a group of white people are asked to react to the statement, I am proud to be black or I am proud to be white, respectively. And then by walking to different sides of the room, they must indicate whether they agree or disagree with that statement. So you can already sort of guess where this is going, but let's watch. Three, two, one. Well, all right, y'all. That's what I'm telling you. I'm glad that we all strongly agree. I am proud to be white. Three, two, one.

Yeah, can there be a middle? All right. Yeah, I pick a side. I don't know what I should think of it. Don't hate you guys. I don't, I almost went there too. It's like so hard. I think like guiltily, like, I'm like happy that I'm not oppressed,

but I'm not proud of like things people have done in the past. When I think of being proud of something, I think of something I worked for. So, as expected, the black group has no problem walking immediately to the strongly agree section, indicating that they are indeed very proud to be black, but the white group is hesitant to answer at all, deathly afraid that whatever they do or say might end up being racist. Ultimately, most of the room decides that they are not proud to be white, while even the couple of brave souls who go to the agree side of the room still admit that they feel guilty about their answer. Now, you might argue, as the dude in the jean jacket

begins to argue at the end of the video, that being proud of your race doesn't really make any sense? Now, how could you be proud of something you didn't accomplish? What does it mean to be proud of a characteristic you were born with or a situation you were born into? Isn't pride something that should be rightly reserved for actual achievements, things that we strive for, things we earn? Now, I'm sympathetic to that argument, though, this definition of pride would also preclude most of us from saying that we're proud to be Americans. I was born in this country. I didn't work for or achieve my citizenship. So can I not say I'm proud to be an American? It would also mean that we can't say we're proud of our families or of our communities.

In fact, very often we use the word proud to describe our feelings about things that we didn't actively and personally accomplish. Maybe that means that we should be using a different word in all these contexts. Perhaps rather than saying proud to be, we should be saying happy to be or grateful to be. But this is all academic, because whether it makes logical sense to be proud of your race or not, the point brought forth in the video is that only white people feel. uncomfortable saying so. The attitude in our culture is that it's okay to be proud of your race, more than okay, unless you're white. The longer version of the video makes this clear as one of the subjects explains that it's actually racist for white people to be proud of their whiteness,

but it's not racist for black people to be proud of their blackness. And here's why. It's like saying, I'm a proud white person is a completely different saying than saying I'm a proud black person. Because when you hear I'm a proud black person, I think empowerment, I think strength, I think courage, I think, you know, all these amazing things that the black community has done

and accomplished throughout the years. But then when you say, I am a proud, or I'm a proud white person, already there's so much, like, hate involved in that. There's hate involved in being proud of yourself if you're white. She says that black people have accomplished many things through the years,

and so when they say they're proud to be black, that's what they're proud of. But white people have accomplished many things as well. Many of the greatest scientists, innovators, inventors, explorers, philosophers, leaders, artists, civil rights heroes, have been white. So can we not be proud of that? Again, if you want to argue that it's technically illogical for anyone to have pride tied to the race, that's a perfectly consistent position. But that is not what the people in the video are saying. And it's not what our culture teaches us or condescending.

us to believe. We're told that pride in your race is a privilege that white people are not granted because rather than being proud, we ought to be wracked with guilt and shame. I mean, that's the message. Elsewhere in the video, they also debate whether white people have a culture. Here's what they say. We're all technically white. If you're from England, if you're from Australia, if you're from wherever, South Africa. You know, we all have these crazy places we come from and these people were around and we get those ideas from those people. But that doesn't mean us as a whole have no culture. But as a white person,

it's not really a culture. You can have culture like, I'm hella Irish, obviously. And that's a culture. But just being white is not a, it's not a culture. I can't relate to you just because you're white. I think you could say that for any ethnicity, though. If we were all black, could I relate to you guys?

If just because of the color of our skin? Yes, because they go through very similar experiences, like they'll get discriminated against and you're not getting discriminated against because of your skin color. They can both relate to that. But I also feel like with culture, we branch out, we try different things, we want to do different things, so maybe we've lost a little bit of our culture. Maybe we're creating a new culture.

There you go. Now again, it's true that the term white is very broad and encompasses many different backgrounds and cultural traditions, but the same is true of black. A black person could be from various continents, dozens of different countries. So if it makes sense to say that a black person born in Cincinnati, whose family has been here for five generations, somehow shares black culture with someone who lives in Kenya and that those two are of one culture with a black guy in Jamaica, then why can't white people have a culture too? Gene Jacketman in the video says that the difference is oppression and racism.

All black people experience oppression and racism while white people don't. This becomes the default answer to explain away any double standard or inconsistency in how the races are treated. Someone just shouts racism, and that's supposed to answer the question. But the answer assumes, first of all, that it's true that white people don't experience racism, but it's not true. We'll get back to that in a moment. It also assumes that experiencing racism being victims counts as a culture. It doesn't. Speaking of racism, the participants are asked about that subject as well. Can white people be victims of racism? And here's how they answer. Three, two. I don't know what that is.

explain it okay what is it I'll stay here before I decide reverse racism is like someone being racist against you because you were white like do you believe that someone can be racist against a white person yeah I grew up where it was completely like Hispanic culture I was constantly made fun of because I was white oh white people can't dance white people look stupid whatever they shouldn't say white people can't dance but they can't no yeah I can't dance just putting that out there. But I mean, like, being honest, though, like, they would say those mean things to me and more hurtful things than that. It's like a hard pill to swallow because if I turned around

and said, black people can't dance, I'd get hell for that. But then if someone says the same words to me, it's somehow okay because you have to look at the difference of it, though. And I relate to you. I grew up with all Latino or black friends. I had very few white friends. And, yeah, I got made fun of for being like the white girl. I was gringa. And I didn't take offense to it. because the huge part about racism is that there's hate and oppression behind it. And as a white person in America, I do not feel oppressed. It's hard to watch. To be clear, I don't believe in reverse racism either.

There is just racism. So when a black person hates a white person, that isn't reverse racism. It's just racism. The very phrase reverse racism assumes that racism itself is a white invention, which it is not. Racism is simply hating someone or thinking less of them because of their race. It's the belief that a certain race is inferior to your own. That's racism. And that's a belief harbored by some members of every race and directed out towards every other race.

If you travel outside of the predominantly white Western world, you'll find explicit, unapologetic racism everywhere you go. Cultures where they hate other races and don't even bother hiding it. The fascinating thing in the video is that the woman arguing against the existence of quote unquote reverse racism actually admits that she has been hated and mocked for her race, yet she says that doesn't count as racism. In fact, she doesn't even take offense to it, she says. She will stand there and allow herself to be spit on and belittled for her race. She deserves it because she's white.

Now, I don't want to make any assumptions, but I'm willing to bet that that same exact woman takes offense to many things. Like, it is not difficult to offend that sort of person. But if you're not white and you're heaping racial scorn on her, that that's when she has a thick skin. That's really the point of the video. And it's why, you know, you would get similar answers if you pulled any random selection of white people in this country, especially younger white people. And especially today, after the great anti-white awakening of 2020, white guilt is an epidemic. It's a spiritual and mental disease afflicting millions.

Just think about what these people admit to believing. That they're not allowed to be proud of their race, but other races can be. That they don't have a culture. That they don't have a racial identity. They don't even have the moral right to object to being mocked or insulted. It's pathetic and sad. It's also terrifying. Because nothing good comes from this.

There is no happy end. there's no positive, wholesome conclusion when a society singles out a certain race in this way, points the finger of blame at it, and tells the members of that race that they don't have the moral right to feel and act and say things that other races do. This sort of thing only ever leads to violence, misery, catastrophe.

But it's not happening in a vacuum. As I pointed out before, we live in a culture of self-loathing. White people are taught to hate their own race. race, boys and girls are taught to hate and reject their own sex, citizens are taught to hate their own country, kids are taught to hate their own parents and their own families. It is a culture at war with itself. People trying to scratch and claw their way out of their own skin. That's not the way to build a functioning society, which is why ours barely functions at all. And so I must say to the white people in this video, though they are so self-loathing that they

probably would agree with me when I say it. I'll say it anyway, that you are all canceled. And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow, Godspeed.