The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1087 - The Real Objective Of The Speech Police

Episode Date: December 22, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Stanford publishes an extensive list of benign, everyday terms that are now considered offensive. Meanwhile, a Canadian organization puts out an "activity book" to explain assisted suicide to children. How are these two issues related? I'll explain. Also, Zelensky gets a hero's welcome as he visits the United States to beg for more money. And parents at an "all ages drag show" attempt to explain why they're choosing to expose their children to sexually explicit content. Their answers are not exactly convincing.  - - -  DailyWire+:   Become a DailyWire+ member and tune in for Ben Shapiro’s Book Club TONIGHT at 8/7 Central: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Ascension Press - Start the Bible in a Year podcast and get the reading for free: https://ascensionpress.com/walsh Charity Mobile - Mention code 'WALSH' when you call 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at https://charitymobile.com/.  Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/  - - - 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 Well Show, Stanford publishes an extensive list of benign everyday terms that are now considered offensive. Meanwhile, a Canadian organization puts out an activity book to explain assisted suicide to children. How are these two issues related? I'll explain. Also, Zelensky gets a hero's welcome as he visits the United States to beg for more money, of course. And parents at an all-ages drag show attempt to explain why they're choosing to expose their children through sexually explicit content. Their answers are not exactly convincing. We'll talk about all that. And more today. on the Matt Wall Show. If you're someone who has always wanted to read and understand the Bible, but you're not sure where to start, then check out the Bible in a year podcast from Ascension.

The Bible in a year podcast is currently the most popular religion podcast in the U.S. Millions of people have listened to it. And twice it's hit the number one spot on Apple Podcasts. In the Bible in a year, Father Mike Schmitz reads the entire Bible in 365 daily episodes, providing helpful commentary, reflection and prayer along the way. What better way to start the new year? You can find the Bible in a year with Father Mike Schmitz for free in your favorite podcast app or on YouTube. Plus, you can follow along with a special reading plan to help you better understand the story.

Unlike any other Bible podcast, Bible in a year follows a special reading plan that organizes the books of the Bible in a way that helps listeners understand the story. Get this reading plan at ascensionpress.com slash Walsh. If you want to start reading and more importantly understanding the Bible this year, go to ascensionpress.com slash Walsh to download the reading press.com slash Walsh to download the reading plan for free. So you've probably heard about the new harmful language policy at Stanford University. Much has already been said about it, but as usual, I think that people are missing the most important point. So first, if you aren't familiar, let's get you up to speed. Breitbart reports, quote, Stanford University published a list of words and phrases deemed harmful language. The school plans to eliminate this language from its websites and computer code,

and also suggested words and phrases to serve as replacements. Stanford's IT department recently launched its elimination of harmful language initiative, which is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford. The goal of the elimination of harmful language initiative is to eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased, disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit, bisexual, bias, language in Stanford website and code. The guide reads, of course, the guide is largely made up of perfectly acceptable language used by Americans, for example, it advises readers to say U.S. citizen instead of American because of how

harmful that term is. Before listing the harmful words and the replacements, the university issued a trigger warning, but even the term trigger warning has been deemed harmful, so the school instead used its replacement, content warning. And it says content warning. This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace. From there, the so-called harmful language was broken up into 10 different categories, abelist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person first, violent, and additional considerations. So those are all the categories. Now, I read through the entire report, making sure to pace myself, as I was warned, it took me about

18 hours because I had to keep stopping for mental health breaks. I broke out into uncontrollable sobs at least a dozen times. It was a deeply traumatic experience, but it was necessary and it was educational because you have to do the work. And there are hundreds of banned words on this list. I think it goes up to a thousand words or something. And we can't go through them all, but we can't highlight just a few. So under the ablest category, we're told right off the top that addict is unacceptable. It's suggested that instead we use person with a substance use disorder. And the reason is that, as it explains, you should use person-first language. This is also why person of color is acceptable, but colored person is considered unthinkably racist.

It's likewise, you know, recommended that you should not say gay person, but rather person of gayness. I mean, that last one I made up, but that's the implications here. Other ableist terms include basket case, which is a term offensive to both crazy people and basket weavers, I guess, not to mention baskets themselves. Blind study is no good, but because it furthers an ablest culture to say blind study. Instead, you should use masked study, though I imagine that next year's edition will rule out masked study because it marginalizes people who wear masks, obviously. And we should not say crazy, crippled, handicapped, lame, insane, mentally ill, or OCD. On that last one, it suggested that instead of saying OCD, we say detail-oriented.

So example sentence, Bob has locked himself inside his bathroom for 17 hours and is delusional muttering to himself as he washes his hands over and over again until they bleed because he suffers from being detail-oriented. And this is only a partial sample of the ableism category, and that's just the abelism category. As we move on to ageism, we are commanded to stop saying senile, instead it's recommended that we just use his name, Joe Biden. In the colonialism category, we're informed, much to the surprise of everyone in the world, that the term Philippine Islands is racist. And we should consider just saying Philippines instead. Apparently the Philippine islands are, I don't know, self-conscious about being islands, having a bit of an inferiority complex

because they're excluded from the main content. And I don't know, and this is why it's best we don't call attention to it. I'm not exactly sure. Then there is culturally appropriative language like brave, guru, chief, tribe, obviously. There's gender-based language we shouldn't say, like ballsy, guys, ladies, mailman, man-hours, man-made. There's institutionalized racism language like black hat, black mark, black bald. I guess that's gender-based and racist. Grandfathered, uppity, none of those are any good. And then there are just miscellaneous words that are offensive for reasons that can't possibly be explained, like convict, immigrant, prisoner, disabled person. All of these words in terms are no longer acceptable according to our cultural overlords.

the words and terms that we are assigned to replace them with will become, in short order, unacceptable as well. We must keep up to date on the language rules, follow the instructions, and not because the instructions make sense, but simply because they are the instructions. It's like a giant game of Simon says. And that leads to the point that is often missed. This kind of over-the-top speech policing, actually it has very little to do with being sensitive. This is the mistake that conservatives have always made, still make. We're told that the term Philippine Islands has become arbitrarily offensive, and we say something like, geez, people are so sensitive these days. But it's got nothing to do with being sensitive. Nobody is actually

offended or hurt by any of the words on this list. Nobody really cares. This is about exercising power. It's about control, for control's sake. It's really not, it's kind of like the linguistic version of that scene in Cool Hand Luke, where Paul Newman's character is forced to dig a ditch for no reason. And then once it's dig, they tell him, Doug, they have to, they tell me he has to fill it back in again for no reason. So the ditch itself serves no purpose. But that is its purpose. By forcing someone to do something totally pointless and arbitrary, you are controlling them. And you are controlling them in the most humiliating and demoralizing way.

Paul Newman knew that there was no reason to dig the ditch. The prison guards knew it. Everyone involved knew that it was pointless, and yet he had to do it anyway. It was a way of breaking his spirit, crushing his defiance, bringing him in line. And that is why they do this obsessive language policing. That's what it's all about. But it serves a deeper purpose too, of course. Yes, it's arbitrary.

No, there's no reason why one term is suddenly considered offensive, while another is appropriate. No, there is absolutely no meaningful distinction between the banned phrase disabled person and the recommended phrase person with a disability. And yet, through the force of sheer repetition, the person who abides by the language rules will eventually begin to perceive reality in a way that conforms with the rules. Most obvious example of this, of course, is the, is the pronouns. It is, as already covered, demoralizing, humiliating, degrading, to be forced to play along with someone's gender charade by using their, quote, preferred pronoun. Although the term preferred pronoun, by the way, is also now not allowed. That was on the band word list. You're not

supposed to say preferred pronoun. You just call them pronouns because it's not a preference, right? It's not a mere preference. This is like, this is what someone is in their inner self. Anyway, that's all true. And that demoralization, that humiliation, that degradation, that degradation is a big part of the point. But if that's all the left ever got out of it, they'd be happy. They're degrading you, demoralizing you, controlling you, that's good. But they get more than that. The person who follows the rules at first reluctantly and begrudgingly will often eventually begin to experience a change in perception as he degrades himself.

so too does his ability to perceive objective reality become degraded as well. So by controlling words, the left is also controlling minds. In fact, Michael Knowles wrote a book on that subject, as you may have heard him mention a time or two. So this week, I think, provides us, we have this example from Stanford. There's another example, though, that's far darker and not nearly as funny, not funny at all, in fact. As you've heard on this show, Canada has recently set out to become the suicide capital of the globe. Their medical assistance in dying program made, as they call it, casts a wide net, opening assisted suicide up to almost anyone, whether they're terminally ill or not,

eventually whether they're adults or not. Anyone can get it. And if you want to see how language is manipulated to change the way people perceive reality, you can find no example more stark, more disturbing than with the propaganda that surrounds and promotes this made program. Case in point, there's an organization called Canadian Virtual Hospice, and they've published an activity book, as they call it, an activity book about suicide aimed at kids.

Now, aesthetically, the activity book looks like any other kids' activity book with a kind of childish font and lots of illustrations and so on. Insaner times, you know, this would be, you see an activity. book like this, it would be an activity book teaching kids about the solar system or dinosaurs or something like that. Instead, in this case, in our dystopia, it's teaching them all about the wonders of suicide. But it's the language that is the most relevant for our purposes. So reading from the pamphlet, it says this. The term made is short for medical assistance in dying. The word medical means the science of medicine and assistance means help. So made means that medicine is

used to help someone with their death. A doctor or nurse practitioner, a nurse with special training, uses medicines to stop the person's body from working. When their body stops working, the person dies. This is done in a way that does not hurt the person. The medicine helps them feel comfortable and peaceful. A person has to ask for maid and then goes through a bunch of steps before it can happen. What are those steps? Well, next it lays out the steps that are used to actually kill the patient. And it says this, in the activity book for children. The three medicines work like this. The first medicine makes the person feel very relaxed and fall asleep.

They may yawn or snore or mumble. The second medicine causes a coma. A coma looks like sleep, but it's much deeper than regular sleep. The person will not wake up or be bothered by noise or touch. The third medicine makes the person's lungs stop breathing and then their heart stops beating. Because of the coma, the person does not notice this happening and does not hurt. When their heart and lungs stop working, their body dies. It will not start working again.

This often happens in just a few minutes, but sometimes rarely it can take hours. Notice the words being used here, most notably medicine. The person is not being given a toxic substance meant to kill them. He is being given medicine. Of course, in truth, this is the opposite of medicine. Medicine by definition is something meant to cure, treat, heal a person's body. A substance which directly and intentionally kills the person is not medicine. It is anti-medicine.

It is literally poison. Doctors are poisoning patients. That's what's happening. Even if you're deluded enough to support this barbarity, you should be honest about it. You should support it honestly. You should speak honestly about it. You don't support doctors giving medicine. You support doctors giving lethal doses of poison to their patients.

that's what you support. But to speak truthfully about it is to perceive it truthfully. And that is precisely what the death cultists do not want. It's what they wish to avoid at all costs. Because we're not supposed to see anything for what it is. Everything has to be cloaked in euphemism. Everything has to be shrouded under a layer of misleading jargon,

otherwise known as lies. And the jargon has to be. to change constantly to keep people on their toes. Very few people would go along with the left's agenda if they saw it and understood it for what it actually is. So they cannot be allowed to see it and understand it for what it is. That is what this is really all about. Now let's get to our five headlines. If we're going to change the culture and the dominance of large corporations that actively work to quiet our beliefs, we need to reassess our spending habits and start supporting like-minded companies. That's why you need to switch to the pro-life, pro-family cell phone

company, Charity Mobile. Charity Mobile has the same great nationwide phone service and coverage of other carriers, and they send 5% of your monthly plan price to the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice. You don't have to compromise on value or service. Charity Mobile offers the latest phones and tablets and live customer service based in the U.S. The midterm elections made it clear that the fight for the right to life will continue for unborn children. Pro-life causes then needs your continued support now more than ever. Charity Mobiles, special Christmas promotion includes a free phone, free activation, free shipping, and a free portable battery charger

for new customers while supplies last. Just mentioned promo code Walsh. Call 1877474-374-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com and mention offer code Walsh. That's charitymobile.com and mention code Walsh. All right. First of all, thank you to the ladies in the wardrobe department for my Christmas. I'm not wearing a Christmas sweater, but I'm wearing my Christmas.

gift from them, you know, instead, which is, I don't even know if you can see it on camera. I don't think you can, but it's a UFO sweater with a UFO on it. And I think that it was supposed to be some sort of gag gift. I don't know. But I mean, this is not the first time this has happened to me that someone gives a gift that's supposed to be a gag, but it's like unironically. I think it's great. And I'll wear the sweater all the time. Let's start with something that I wish was a gag. the president of Ukraine, Zelensky, visited the United States yesterday. It was a time of a great excitement for D.C. and for the media, though not for anyone else in the country. Like, no one else is excited about it, but they're excited about it. All of the Zelensky worship, most of it anyway is

relegated to those areas, D.C. media. Zelensky started the trip with a visit to the White House where he expressed his appreciation to the American people for all the money that we've given him, all the billions of dollars. He appreciates it. Isn't that nice? Let's watch some of that. Thank you so much, Mr. President. Of course, thanks. My father's in support. Thanks Congress. And thanks from our just ordinary people to your ordinary people. Americans. I really appreciate. I think it's very difficult to understand what does it mean when we say appreciate, but you really have to feel it. And thank you so much. Great honor to be here. And yesterday I was on the bus in Baham. That is the place on the east of our country. You know, all the details. We had so many forms. Isn't that very cute? He's so appreciative. By the way, can the guy put a damn suit on?

Can you wear a suit for the... I mean, I'm not saying that Joe Biden himself is worthy of any kind of special recognition like that, but you're visiting the United States. You claim to be so appreciative for it. You are going to the White House. The later he'd speak in front of Congress, spoke in front of Congress without a suit on. We're in a sweatshirt. And you can't claim...

So usually when you see this, he's doing all the interviews, and he's always got a t-shirt or a sweater on, a sweatshirt on. What we're told is, well, he's in the middle of fighting a war. He doesn't have time to worry about, okay, well, but yeah, you flew in a plane over here. I'm sure you had time to change into a suit. And it really is. It really tells you something. Like, that is a statement. If you go to the White House and then speak in front of Congress and you can't even take the time to put a tie on, that is a statement. And what is the statement exactly? is a statement of disrespect. If you're really grateful, then the first thing that you would do is think about how you're presenting yourself. How about to put that gratitude on display?

But he doesn't do that here, although he claims that he appreciates the help. Yet he was here to beg for more help, beg for more money, which led to his state of the Ukraine address in front of Congress. Post-Millennial has a report on that. The congressional chamber was a buzz with excitement on Wednesday evening in anticipation of Ukrainian president, Voldemir Vlensky's, Zelensky's addressing the body to ask Congress to make good on President Biden's promise to deliver another $45 billion in funding to assist their war effort against neighboring Russia. Zelensky was treated to uproarious applause from Congress as he took his place behind the podium to address the senators and representatives. Some members held up a Ukrainian flag, and Zelensky could barely get started with his ask for cash due to the extreme agilation, showered upon him, by American delegates.

He declined to wear a suit, stood before Congress in a sweatshirt. Sweat shirt. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presided over Congress, along with Vice President Camilla Harris, as they looked on with glee at the coming of Zelensky, who Pelosi had likened to World War II era, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Pelosi silenced the room, then presented Zelensky for a second time

to additional cheering, and they were cheering and cheering and sharing, and everyone was very excited. And again, there were some members that were flying Ukraine flags inside the halls of Congress. And Zelensky went on to thank Congress for spending American taxpayer dollars to fund his war before saying, is it enough? No, not really.

Congress chuckled appreciating his ask for even more U.S. dollars and weapons. We have that moment, actually. Let's watch the clip. So here is the front line. The tyranny, which has no lack of cruelty against the lives of free people and your support

is crucial, not just to stand in such fight, but to get to the toning point to win on the battlefield. We have artillery. Yes. Thank you. We have it. Is it enough? Honestly, not really. To ensure Bachmoud is not just a stronghold that holds back the Russian army, but for the Russian army to completely pull out. More cannons and shells are needed. If so, just like the Battle of Saratoga, the fight for Bahmoud will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom.

If your patriots stop the Russian terror against our cities, it will let Ukrainian patriots work to the fool to defend our freedom. Ukrainian patriots want to defend their freedom, and somehow that's our job and our responsibility. They ended, of course, more applause, applause, applause, people were very excited. And at the end, he snuck a little kiss with Nancy Pelosi.

I think we have that moment. Let's watch that wonderful moment here. Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with Epglis. a once-monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month- or longer dosing phase, about four in 10 people taking ebbglis, achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks,

and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librichizumab, LBKZ. A 250 milligram per 2-millimeter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults in children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to Epglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Epglis. Before starting Epgless, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit Ebglis.com or call 1800 LilyRX or 1-800 545-9.

I suppose there's no non-awkward way to kiss Nancy Pelosi, but if such a way existed, he certainly didn't find it. That was quite awkward. And then he gifted a flag to Nancy Pelosi and Camila Harris that I guess they can split. They cut the flag in half. What about that? Put the flag in a shredder and give little pieces of it to everybody so you can have a piece of the flag. But it was signed. I don't know who signed it. I guess some Ukrainians signed the flag. Which is, by the way, is like, not that I care if you choose to desecrate your own flag, but that is flag desecration. It's like signing the actual flag itself.

Okay, now look, as far as Zelensky goes, if I were in charge, maybe I'd welcome him into the country and then arrest him on suspicion of war crimes potentially. Because are we really just moving on from the fact that the Ukrainians fired a missile into Poland a few weeks ago, killed two people, and then claimed it was sent by Russia in order to hoax Western governments into a global nuclear war.

Have we just like forgotten about that? And the only way out of that, I mean, it's a fact that Ukraine, we have, there are facts on the ground here. The fact is missile was launched, killed two people in Poland. That's a fact. Fact, Ukraine blamed Russia for it immediately and then used that as another argument for Western governments getting involved. And so and then another fact is that actually turns out that the missile was sent by Ukraine. The only speculation here is whether they fired the missile intentionally as a false flag operation or if this was all some kind of mistake that they then blamed on Russia.

No matter how you slice it, it does not look good for Zelensky. And no matter how you slice it, he was using this false claim to try to get a America involved in a war that would kill millions of people, of our people. So that incident alone is enough reason to not celebrate this guy as a hero. But that's not even the point for me. Yes, Ukraine is actively trying to get us involved in a war that will kill millions of our people. Yes, that's true. Yes, Zelensky is, as he's been described, essentially an international welfare queen at this point, begging us constantly for money and receiving it, billions of dollars, while our own people

suffer. Our economy is in shambles. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our border is wide open. We're in bad shape. And we're taking food off of the table of our, you know, off of our children's plates and handing it to this corrupt foreign government. Our cities look like and basically are now refugee camps, people sleeping in tents. We've got these makeshift shanty towns in the middle of the street in major American cities made out of cardboard. Fetinal zombies staggering around. We got kids graduating high school that can't even read. And we're sending money to one of the most corrupt governments in the world in Ukraine. Like, we have the funds for that? Like, we can afford to worry about that. So yeah, all that's true and all that's awful. But even if it wasn't,

even if Ukraine was a wonderful country with an honest and trustworthy government and Zelensky was as, let's say Zelensky was as saintly a figure as they paint him to be, that would still change nothing about my perspective of the situation. And my perspective has always been the same from day one, that this is not our fight. Now you remember when this all started, months and months ago, I was willing to admit. I think I'm probably one of the few people in media, one of the few commentators or pundits that admitted from the beginning, I don't know very much about this situation. Before all this happened, I spent maybe a cumulative amount of like one minute of my life thinking about Ukraine's existence, if that. Because I'm focused on issues in America. I'm not thinking about Ukraine. I'm not worried about Ukraine. And what led up to this conflict and everything going on behind the scenes and all that, but I really don't know,

which is true of 99.9% of the people in this country and 99.9% of the pundits and commentators. It's just that most people in that class won't admit it. Like as soon as something happens, they all become experts on the subject, hoping that the audience will never stop to ask them, like, when did you... You've never talked about this before.

When did you become an expert, exactly? So I said from the beginning, I don't know anything about this. So, as I said from the beginning, like if it will, if this is actually important to average Americans, okay, if the outcome of this fight could have some direct, immediate, quantifiable impact on average Americans, such an impact that we need to worry about this or even get involved by sending money or manpower, then explain it to me. What effect does this have on us? Why should we care? From my perspective, this is not our fight. It's not our country. I don't see why we should care. But if you're someone who's hanging in you, put a Ukraine flag in your bio and all this kind of stuff, and you think that we should care, that average American families ought to care about what's happening in Ukraine, go ahead and make your case. Why should we care? How does this affect us? And they've had months and months to explain it, and they can't. Because the answer is, it doesn't affect us. That's the answer. The most they can. do, right? Basically, there are two talking points that hope to justify why Americans should be spending billions and billions of dollars there, potentially getting involved militarily,

as many people in our country, or at least in the governing class, have called for. Two arguments that I've heard. These are the only two arguments. One is the utterly fantastical, absurd speculation that Putin, that this is just the first phase in a potential war of, of, you know, global conquest and that Putin's going to move on from Ukraine and then start invading more countries and next thing you know he's going to be invading France and it's going to be World War II all over again. So that's the first claim. That obviously was absurd from the beginning and it hasn't happened. Okay, Putin is not going to, he's not going to be, we're not going to see Russian ships landing on our shores. That's not happening. Just isn't. So if that's not

happening, then the only other justification we ever hear is just this kind of vague, we have to protect freedom. This is Ukraine that are being invaded. It's like all these kind of vague, sort of ambiguous ideas about freedom and just sort of what's, these are good people that are being victim. Well, if that's all you got, then only. once again for the umpteenth time confirms my immediate instinctive reaction to this, which is it's not our fight. There are, you know, someone said to me on Twitter yesterday, they said, well, and I've heard this a lot, you know, Russia is invading Ukraine and it's happening whether you like it or not. You got to pick a side. It's happening. We have to pick a side.

Do we? Why do we have to pick a side? There are. There are bloody conflicts happening all over the world every day. You pick a side in all those? What about all of the wars of conquest and conflicts and all that sort of thing happening across the entire continent of Africa? Every single day. Groups of people warring against each other, trying, fighting over land and all the resources and all the rest of it.

Are we picking aside in all those? do you even know about most of those? Could you even tell me? What? Could you even describe what's happening there? No. This is happening all over the world. And yet this one particular, and no one says we should pick a side.

And most of those. Yet in this one particular conflict, we have to pick a side. Why do you think that? You think that because the TV told you to. That's why. It's because the TV. It's because the media has selected this one conflict. They could have selected any.

They selected this one and said, is the one that you care about. And then a lot of unthinking Americans said, well, then I care about that one. And they never stopped to ask, why that one? If Ukraine cannot defend itself and preserve its own existence, then it won't exist. That's just, countries have to be able to live and die of their own volition at a certain point. That's the law of, you know, that's just, that's the law of the jungle. That's the way, like it or not, that's the way it goes. If you want to exist as a country, you have to be able to defend yourself and your own interests. All right.

What else do we have here? Okay, so here's a story. It's from the post-millennial. Other outlets are reported too. Eight teenage girls have been charged with second-degree murder in connection with the death of a 59-year-old Toronto man. According to the Toronto police services, the teens swarmed the man and stabbed him multiple times before fleeing the scene. He was rushed to the hospital and passed away as a result of his injuries. The incident took place just around midnight on Sunday, 17th in Toronto, downtown Toronto.

The girls, here are the ages of these girls. Three 13-year-olds, three 14-year-olds and two 16-year-olds were located nearby and promptly arrested. So, you know, and we still don't know exactly what precipitated this or what exactly was, but a group of girls, teenage girls, kids swarm this guy and stabbed him to death. And I bring this up because it's another example of a point I try to make often on this show, which is that we, you know, we hear so much about hate crimes. But we don't have a hate crime problem in this country, or Canada in this case. Culturally, there isn't a hate crime problem.

There is an indifferent crime problem. And this yet again is that. Here you've got a bunch of teen girls, a bunch of kids, swarming and, stabbing a man to death. What were their surface level motivations? I mean, we don't know. But underneath it, I would not call it hate, most likely. This is the case for so much of the brutality in the inner city, the brutality gripping our communities. Also, it's the case for many of the mass shootings that we see. With these kinds of culprits, it's almost like hatred would be a step up. Hatred is, because hatred is human, it's emotional, it's passionate. If somebody is hateful,

there's like something you can work with there. A hateful person feels something, at least. He feels the wrong things, and he does the wrong things with those feelings, but there's something there. That's not what we see these days out in the streets. What we see these days are people who just feel nothing at all. They have no humanity, no, really no motivation, violence for the sake of violence. The real crisis is a lack of human conscience, and it has reached a real crisis level, especially in the cities. It's a Lord of the Flies situation. And we know, just as in that story, when kids are left alone on an island without any guidance from their parents, they turn into savages. As a fallen species, savagery is what you descend into. So we need strong family, strict discipline,

clear guidance, you know, a foundation of faith and moral formation in order to grow beyond those impulses and develop into decent civilized adults. Our consciences need to be formed. But that's not happening in so many of these communities and this is the result. All right. Let's do something a little bit less serious here. A controversy with slightly smaller stakes. So this video has gone viral. It's a video of a Karen, and that's how it's labeled anyway.

And this is one of the most popular genres of videos on social media are the supposed, you know, quote unquote Karen videos. And it's a video of a Karen, a white woman being put in her place allegedly, getting her come-upins. And for those not watching the video podcast, what the video shows, it shows this woman, this alleged Karen, in a context. confrontation with a neighbor in her apartment complex through through and this confrontation is happening through the ring doorbell camera he never comes to the door to actually talk to it but he confronts her because she apparently was messing with his welcome mat he had a welcome man outside of his door but it had a profanity on it apparently had the f word from what i read it was like it said f off i think in big block letters and she didn't like that so she flipped the the mat over so that the words weren't seen he's very upset about that and it led to uh this exchange, which will watch a quick piece of that. Excuse me, ma'am. Can you pick my rug back up?

Because I saw that you flipped it over early. It was not bothering you or anyone. Sir, I don't think it's appropriate. It does not matter. It does not matter what you deem appropriate. Nobody else has said anything about it. It does not give you the right to touch anything on my damn porch. You can go up there and tell your goddamn husband to come see me when I come home.

I'll be home at 5.30. Make sure you're out. Make sure you're there, ma'am. So you come down and talk. Take your shake-ass upstairs. So, do you want to talk to me again? How can I hit you? Look, I'm not trying to be ugly, and I'm not trying to cause any scene with you whatsoever. We live in a family environment here. I have children here, too. To me, having the F-word or near doormat is not respectful of anyone that lives here. And it's not respectful of you to touch my property. It's not bothering anybody. I have my neighbors across the house.

I'll pay you for your mat. I will pay you for your mat to get that out of here. I don't know what made you change it to something so ugly as that. But I'm not going to know. Okay, that's good. That's fine. And then he starts insulting or all the rest of it. First of all, this woman has not done or said anything that deserves to be labeled Karen.

and that's why, you know, as you know, I just, I hate that term because Karen is, it is simply a racist smear against white women. That is what it is. And so if you're one of these people that goes around using the term, just stop using it. Like that is, that is the etymology of this slur. It's where it comes from. It's originally a slur by black people on social media to smear and make fun of white women. That's where it comes from. That's what it is. It is a racial slur. And it is, and now it's at a point where it's just like, if you're a white woman between the ages of 40 and 80, then you automatically, you'll automatically fall into that category. And anything you do, if you get, if you, God forbid, get upset about something, you're automatically a Karen. And it's, I, you know, I don't, my mom is in that category of being a woman between those ages, a white woman. And so I'm actually not okay with, with hating an entire demographic of people like this. And I don't quite understand why. People just accept that.

And because we all know that if we started referring to black women with a stereotypical name, okay, if I saw a video of an angry black woman and said like, oh, this Shaniqua over there, if I said that, it would be judged horrifically racist. And yet, this is okay. And I'm just done with that. We got to be done with that. this double standard that we allow to exist. And you've got a bunch of hen pecked, cowardly white people who go along with it. It's oh, it's not the same thing at all. Yes, it is.

It's a slur against you. Have some damn self-respect. Now, second, any reasonable person knows that you are wrong if you go out of your way to put a sign with huge profanities on it right where kids are walking around. There's no good reason to do that. There's no justification for it. But some people are saying, well, she should have handled it differently. She should have gone to the property manager or whatever.

Fine. But I wouldn't have. If that was me, I would have picked the, I would have picked the mat up. And I would have thrown it away is what I would have done. Even if it's not my property. And you say, that's not your property. I don't care that it's not my property. Because, you know why?

I'm fine with people taking matters into their own hands like this. Because people are sick of this. They're just sick. of it. This is a good warning for all of anyone out there who thinks it's fun to be just an obnoxious jerk with no class and no dignity and no decorum and no sense of basic responsibility, you know, for the fact that you're an adult in society and there are kids around. Everything is vulgar now, right? Everything. Everything's just everything's vulgar and ugly and our kids are exposed to it and it's everywhere. And I can see where this woman's coming from. It's just you see this thing,

this stuff everywhere. And now this guy, this. This freaking guy has decided to put it on his welcome mat. Why? Can we get a break from it? Like, can I walk down the hallway in the apartment complex without seeing this stuff? People are tired of it. They're sick of it. And they should be. Okay?

And they're not going to go through the proper channels. You go through the proper channels and nothing happens. You know, the guy there in the apartment, clearly it's a black guy, you know, go to the issue. She's a white woman. So it's automatically there's the racial dynamic and she goes and she goes to property manager and then it, you know, who knows? The next thing is going to tell, it's like, well, your concerns don't matter because now there's the competition of identity demographics here. And, you know, so people don't want to go through the proper channels anymore. Take it matters into their own hands. I saw a video. This is, it's not a recent video. I think it was from a few months ago of a guy

on a plane with a big with a sweater that said F Biden on it but actually said the word, you know, the F word in big block letters. And he was and they were in the video, they're trying to throw them off the plane because they've got policy against having, it's not about, you know, it's not about defending Biden. You know, I'm not going to do that. But it's just, it's the vulgarity. It's the profanity. And they've got a policy. This is their private property. You can't walk in here with with huge, profanities on your clothing. But even that, there's people on the internet are defending it.

It's free speech rights. Oh, shut up. How about just a basic level of decency is all is being asked for. And I'm telling you people are sick of it. You walk around like that, you know, you're lucky if you just get thrown out. Eventually, people are going to, you're going to get a punch right in the face of what's going to happen. Because people are so tired of it, especially parents. up to get this ugliness and this vulgarity everywhere all the time and we are sick of it.

And these people that are just, they feel like they're not responsible to anyone. They do whatever I want. So she's totally in the right here. Okay, that was not five headlines. I think it was like three. But even so, we're going to move on now to the comment section. If you're listening to this show, odds are that you put a lot of stock into how you raise your kids. You understand that your children look to you to define their values.

and their perspectives of the world. That's why it's extremely important that you have a will in place. A will also determines how your financial assets are dispersed as well as your personal property. It lays out your health care power of attorney to ensure that your end-of-life decisions are carried out. You're just starting out and you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on an attorney, but you want to make sure that your savings, your belongings, and your family are all protected. You have to create your will at epicwill.com today. Epic will's early estate plan started just $119 and you can save 10% when you use promo, Walsh. So go to epicwill.com, use promo code Walsh to save 10% on Epicwills' complete

will package. That's epicwill.com promo code Walsh. Trust me, says a propropos of nothing, it just dawned on me this morning that the plural of Walsh is waltz. Maybe this knowledge will inspire the Sweet Daddy to finally dance for us. What? That's not. No, that's not, the plural of Walsh will be what? Walsh is? What are you talking about? Jordan L says Matt definitely plays on the floor with Legos and Star Wars action figures after all his kids go to bed. I'll play with those toys with my kids. We've never actually been a big Lego house, which I think it's one of the more wholesome and constructive toys that a kid can play with. But my kids have never gotten into it that much, actually.

Steven says, Matt, I agree with your stance on Big Pharma, but long COVID. is very real. I'm an engineering student, and over the last year, I've noticed a severe decline in my health, and subsequently my academic performance after having had COVID twice. I'm tired constantly. I can't get through my day, sometimes falling asleep at my desk for up to three times a day. My resting heart rate sometimes, resting heart rate on average is in the mid-90s and peaks at about 180 when I go upstairs. The worst and most frustrating symptom for me is the is, in fact, the brain fog. I can't think clearly enough to do math that I've been able to do since fifth grade. I can't keep more than two numbers in my head at the same time.

I trip over words. I jumble them around so much so that my friends notice and make fun of me for it. I feel like I've become Joe Biden. They've run every test on me possible from every blood test out there to an MRI of my brain, an ultra scan and monitor my heart. And they haven't been able to find anything out of the ordinary besides the possibility of long COVID. I don't know what to do about it, but my doctor has been giving me a medication to help with the fatigue, but I'm still struggling greatly with the brain fog.

It's the most frustrating experience, perhaps in my entire life, albeit a young life. Interested to hear your thoughts, SBG for life. Well, okay, I'll give you my thoughts. And look, I'm not saying that what you're experiencing is not real. Okay? Obviously, you're experiencing that, and it's a real thing. But can I sit here and certainly rule out with absolute certainty, the possibility

that it's tied to having had COVID? I can't do that. But what I can say is that, like, what you're describing, that there are, literally dozens of plausible reasons why you could be experiencing all of that. In fact, there are not only yet, but there are dozens of plausible reasons why anyone in society would be experiencing the things that you're experiencing. Can't focus on things, can't keep a train of thought for very long, feeling kind of foggy, tired, all that. This is just, these are experiences that are increasing in society in general, even before COVID.

and part of the reason is that we, that's, that's the world we live in now. I mean, we live in a world, how much time do you spend staring at screens every day? We live in an overstimulated, oversaturated society, and it makes it so people can't focus on things for as long as they used to. It robs us of our attention. Like, we need this constant stimulation. Otherwise, we get bored and start falling asleep and, you know, feeling fog, you're not being able to concentrate on things. So that's just like the general environment that we're all living in now. So is that the 100% explanation for what you're going through? I can't say that, but I do know that it's certainly a factor.

It's one of the reasons, you know, ADHD. The other thing is a lot of what you've described also gets labeled ADHD, which is why now, at least from that one study, they want to start treating long COVID, quote-unquote, with ADHD medicine. That's one of my many criticisms of ADHD when you hear people say, well, I can't focus on anything. I'm so distracted. Well, gee, I wonder why that is. When we live in a culture that is designed to distract you every second of the day, we are all surrounded by distractions every second of the day. You carry distraction around with you on your person, right, in the form of your phone. So you literally carry a distraction device around with you. We all do.

And then we sit here and say, I don't know why I'm so distracted. This is just to illustrate the point that there are so many factors and what you're talking about is so, although it's real, it's also so kind of vague and generalized that to point to any one explanation like, well, you had COVID. to me seems like there's no way that they could prove that connection. And they haven't. And so it's just kind of an assumption. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they had COVID. How exactly?

How is it that having COVID would then cause you? So if you're distracted right now and you had COVID nine and a half months ago and they want to say, well, the COVID is what caused that? How did it cause it? What's the mechanism by which COVID nine and a half months ago can still be making you distracted today. They can't explain that. So it is at best an assumption. And I think it's an assumption that we should be skeptical about until and if they can present hard evidence and proof and say, yes, COVID causes this. Here's how it does it. We've proved it. Here it is. Until they do that, I would be skeptical. Mike says, Matt, as a hater of all things that other people like,

That's not entirely fair. Just most things. I assume you will agree that Christmas story is overrated. Yes? I absolutely will not agree with that. I could not disagree more. In fact, I think Christmas story is rated exactly as it should be. I think it's for my money, you know, it's, some people say it's a wonderful life is in the running for this and I can see that, but Christmas story is the best Christmas movie. It is a it is it is it is rewatchable you know and it just it's a it's a great simple story. Um, and it's funny. It's amusing. It's all these kinds of different things. And that's all true. But it also has it just has this this quality to it that it's it's it's kind of hard to describe. I think that that's the case also with really good Christmas songs.

And there hasn't been a good Christmas song made in like 30 years, if not longer. They made a lot of different Christmas songs, but you hear all the modern ones. You hear any Christmas song that somebody, some pop star made two years ago, and you hear it and you're like, it just doesn't have that Christmas feel to it. I can't really explain it, but it's not there for this. And the same is true for a lot of Christmas movies, but Christmas story has that feel, has that Christmas feeling. And so I've, I've seen, I've probably seen it 50 times and I enjoy it every single time.

So you're wrong, sir. And you're a band from the show. Finally, Sky says, you truly are a crusader on porn, Matt. I don't really get it. I can't get that worked up about adults looking at porn online. No pun intended. As a man, many years you're senior. I remember when we had to fight for years just to be able to look at a naked woman in the magazine.

It was a battle that lasted for decades. It was a very valiant battle, sir. You were fighting for decades to look at naked women in a magazine? Do you ever think about just like getting married? I don't see throwing that freedom away because it offends the sensibilities of some people like you. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I don't think children should see it either, but in a free society, there are a lot of bad things. Taking away the freedoms is not an answer.

You know, sir, I don't even know where to begin here. First of all, what freedoms am I talking about taking away here? Now, it's true that, as I happily admit, I am in favor of just getting rid of all pornography, banning it outright. I absolutely reject the claim that pornography is free speech. It is not speech. You know, having sex with someone on camera is not speech. Whether or not you're saying something while you do it, it is not speech. There's no, like, message or opinion you're expressing.

It is prostitution. It's sex for money. That's what it is. But that's not what we were talking about this week, was it? We were talking about putting basic parameters in place to protect kids from it. We were talking about, you know, age verification for websites. So what freedom is being taken away? Is that your, so what freedom?

Describe, so your freedom, your right, your right to look at and have access to an unlimited supply of free pornography that doesn't require you to verify your age. That's your right. What is this? Is this a God-given right? Is this embedded in your soul from birth? Is that what you're, what are you talking about? Does it take away your freedom? when you have to show your ID before you buy a bottle of whiskey at the liquor store? Does that take away

your freedom? You know, if you have to produce age verification to gamble at a casino or online, is that, is that take, my freedoms are under assault? They're taking away my freedom. Does that take away your freedom? You know, if you want to go buy a cigar, a 13-year-old can't go in to the cigar shop and buy a cigar. Are you going to show up to the cigar shop with the picket signs? Stop robbing us. our freedoms. No, you're not. It's just with this. It's with this one particular thing that it's an egregious assault on your freedom if there are any parameters put in place at all. It's like this would require almost nothing of you. All it would require, it would require, like, however long it takes you now to access internet pornography. If we put these things in place,

It would take you, I don't know, an additional seven seconds, but you're not willing to spend that seven seconds just for the sake of protecting kids. Yeah, children shouldn't see it, but I... Children shouldn't see it, but I will do absolutely not one single solid thing to make sure that they can't. That's what you're saying. Very, uh, very noble of you, sir.

You're banned from the show, too. Whenever I get into a spat with someone on Twitter over something, I supposedly tweeted, it's usually because they didn't actually read what I wrote. Reading is a lost art on Twitter. It's a lost art across the entire country these days. But that's not the case on Daily Wire Plus. Ben Shapiro's book club is back tonight at 8 p.m. 7 p.m. Central exclusively on DailyWire Plus. This month's book is The Screw Tape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

Great book, of course. You can tune in to hear Ben discuss the novel and share his notes with you. You've got to be an all-access member to join in, though. If you want to join the fun, head to dailywire.com slash walsh to become a member today and join Ben Shapiro's book club tonight. That's dailywired.com slash Walsh. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Now, if they're going to be nice and nicely in keeping with one of the major and most unfortunate themes of the year, the final daily cancellation of the year, was dedicated to the groomers. In fact, because I'm a fair person, today we're going to give the groomers a hearing.

We are going to let them defend themselves. We are going to listen to whatever arguments they might be able to put forward in their own defense. I have long believed that it's not possible for us to make a more compelling case against leftism, then the leftist makes himself against himself if you simply let him speak. That was the idea behind my film What is a Woman, and today we will apply it to this. Specifically to the suddenly quite common phenomenon of the All Ages Drag Show. Last week, we told you about the All Ages Drag Show in Texas, covered by a journalist named Taylor Hanson. It was a Christmas-themed show, which is currently touring the country,

and which includes graphic talk about sex, graphic performances of simulated sex, half-naked and nearly fully naked men parading in front of the crowd, cross-dressing men with fake breasts, et cetera. It is graphic, it's sexual, it's obscene, and it's advertisers to all ages. How can it possibly be defended? Well, it can't, obviously, but the left is giving it their best try, as typified by this Twitter thread from a so-called investigative journalist named Stephen Monicelli.

It's very important to Stephen, apparently, that he defend the honor of half-naked cross-dressers who perform simulated sex acts in front of Eleanor. elementary schoolers. Very important to him. He's very passionate about allowing these sorts of displays. And he posted a lengthy Twitter thread with that goal in mind. Let's read through it. He says, quote, right-wing activists working with the Blaze TV and Texas Family Project must have realized that protests outside of drag shows, which often feature sexual language and are always outnumbered but don't look great. Don't look great. So they've taken the tactic of filming drag shows for selective outrage. Hanson and Sarah

Gonzalez from the Blaze are happy to play. fast and loose with the facts. Hansen claims the drag show that is touring Texas right now is family friendly. Their advertising doesn't say that. What it says is all ages welcome. This is not unlike an R-rated movie. Here's another piece of info about the show that's touring Texas right now, spotted by Parker-Molloyer. It explicitly says it contains adult content. Ah, okay. See, he got us. He got us. These aren't family-friendly drag shows. They're all-ages drag shows. Ha! See, that changes everything. What exactly does it change?

Well, that's not really clear. In fact, Stephen, in an attempt to defend the sexual performances for children, has only somehow succeeded in making them seem even worse than we originally suspected. He thinks that it gets the drag show off the hook to point out how it advertises the fact that it has adult content. But because he's a creepy degenerate himself, he doesn't see the problem with putting the phrases, adult content, and all ages, welcome on the same poster. The fact that they acknowledge up front that the event is sexual in nature and yet still make sure to note how all ages are welcome

only makes the pedophilic grooming nature of the whole affair all the more explicitly and horrifically clear. Because keep in mind something, the defense up until now has been that drag shows aren't adult oriented. That's what they've been saying. Now they admit that they are adult oriented. But that's okay because it says adult-oriented in all ages on the poster? What? So once again, we go from that isn't happening to it is happening and it's good.

This is always the process. This is always the trajectory every single time. Stephen compares this to an R-rated movie, once again, defending it in terms that only prove the opposite of the point that he's hoping to make. Also, although you technically can bring a child to an R-rated movie, movie? Nowhere on any R-rated movie's poster or in its promotional material will you ever see the words, All Ages Welcome. If the movie Eyes Wide Shut came out in theaters tomorrow and in all the previews it said, all ages welcome, we would agree that it's a major problem and extremely creepy at a minimum. Or maybe at this point we wouldn't agree. I don't know. After all, the other side of

this debate has now reached the point of outright defending sexual performances for children. But what about parents? Yes, the drag performers themselves deserve all the scorn and contempt that we can heap on them, but the parents who actually bring their children to these events deserve even more of it. How do they defend it? How can they, you know, what can they say for themselves? Well, fortunately, the aforementioned Sarah Gonzalez, who has been doing a lot of great work and important work on this issue, was on the scene for this. one drag show in Texas, and she asked the parents themselves why they're bringing their kids. And here's what they said.

Is it appropriate for your children? Yeah. I mean, I'm a little more, I'm not as conservative, but I mean, really it's not any different than, I mean, Disney, and Disney, they have similar things. Like, it's really not that far from it. I had sex of my father's boss in my father's office. Really? Honestly, like I'm bi-positive. To be age-appropriate for children?

Do I find this to be age-appropriate? Yeah. For my child, yeah. Hello, you're reaching for my t-uh. Do you mind me asking how old she is? She's 12. 12? Uh-huh.

She knows about sex and, I mean, she doesn't see sex. Yeah. I mean, she kind of sees simulated sex in the show. She goes to school. She sees simulated sex all time. Be a day. You know what I'm saying? You know what I'm saying?

I think it's exposing sex to them too young. Honestly, because there's, there's like, this is a little bit more forward, but there's, there's innuendo and all that kind of stuff in Disney. I mean, Shrek, I mean, I'm talking about, are you compensating for something? There's a lot of things that they don't necessarily get. I mean, it is sexualized, but like, it's, it is what it is. I just think it's the stigma around it that's, you know, which they don't care. I've raised them not to care. The stigma around what?

around, you know, different sexualities. You know, it's just, that's not any different than, you know, straight people. So you don't worry that this is like ruining her innocence or anything? No. She needs to know what's appropriate and know when to say, no consent

and what's appropriate and what's not And how will she know that if she doesn't see it in a safe way? So her argument is that kids are going to eventually be exposed to cross-dressing fetishists who simulate sodomy on each other anyway. So it's best to introduce them to it in a safe environment. In other words, according to her, kids are going to be sexually harassed and sexually groomed, so you might as well facilitate their abuse yourself. If you were wondering what these parents could possibly say for themselves, what defense they could possibly offer, how they could ever manage to justify their parenting choices, well, now you know.

They can't defend it. They can't justify it. The job of a parent, of course, is to fight tooth and nail to preserve your child's innocence. Protect their heart, protect their soul, protect their minds, not feed them to the lions intentionally because you figure that they're going to be consumed eventually anyway. But these are parents who don't care about protecting their children, obviously. To them, the most important thing is to signal their leftist enlightenment to the world. And what better way to do that than to offer up your own to the LGBT groomers? Putting their innocence on the altar as a sacrifice. This is what they're really doing. Only they won't say it out loud.

That is why these parents and everyone else involved ultimately claim the honor of being the last people of 2022 to be canceled. 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, well, no, talk to you next year. Godspeed.