The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 164 - The Left Applauds The Sexual Exploitation Of A Child

Episode Date: December 18, 2018

A New York Times editorial argues that the planet would be better off without the human race. On a not entirely unrelated note, an eleven-year-old boy danced in drag at a gay club. The Left, of course, applauds. Date: 12-18-2018 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, a professor wrote an article in the New York Times asking whether humanity should commit mass suicide in order to protect the planet. We'll talk about that. Also, an 11-year-old boy danced in drag for men at a gay bar. This is the normalization of child sexual abuse, and it is happening right now as we speak. We'll talk about that today on the Matt Wall Show. Yesterday, you may have heard that President Trump tweeted about the need for good border security, except you spelled it. B-O-A-R-D-E-R, like cupboard or snowboard. And that actually got me thinking. It got the creative juices flowing.

And before you know it, I had this whole idea for a blockbuster film that was all based on this one typo. And it may seem kind of weird to base a movie on a typo, but they base movies on a dumb things these days. So why not on a typo? So here's my idea, just very quickly at the top. And if you know any Hollywood producers and you can pass this along, this is a my idea. Okay, just, just imagine this. The movie is called border security, spelled Trump's way, B-O-A-R-D-E-R, and it stars the Rock as an elite snowboarder recruited by the government to guard

in Mountain Military Institution against an army of genetically modified Yetis. Okay. Of course, Kevin Hart will be his sidekick in the movie. I don't have all the scenes and dialogue worked out yet, but I need a lot of snow puns in the movie. And then I need a scene at the end of the movie where the Rock is battling the head Yeti guy, and he finally wins the altercation, and he's about to throw the Yeti into an oncoming avalanche. And then he says something like, says something like, I think you need to cool down. And then he throws, which I know that that kind of plagiarizes Arnold Schwarzenegger in Batman Forever, but that's fine. And if the Rock is not available for this film. Then we can change it a little bit, and it could be Liam Neeson as a grizzled ex-snowboarder

who has to come out of retirement to rescue his kidnapped daughter from a gang of Eskimo human traffickers. And I definitely need a scene in that movie like the Ben Hur chariot race scene, except with sled dogs. So anyway, that's, I'm just, that's my idea, Hollywood. And I'm throwing it out there for free. I will only need $5 million. it's free except for the $5 million that I would need if you decide to make that movie. All right. A lot I want to discuss today. Ben Shapiro has an interesting piece in The Daily Wire about a professor at Clemson, philosophy professor, Todd May is his name.

And he wrote an article in the New York Times called Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy? So you know this is going to be good. And it shouldn't be good. It shouldn't be a good article. It shouldn't be interesting because it should be a really short article. Would human extinction be a tragedy? That's the title. And then the body of the article is, yes, the end.

That's what it should be, right? Because it's a very obvious answer. But that would be an odd article to put in a newspaper. So he has more to say than that. And as I'm sure you can imagine, he is not so sure that it would actually be a tragedy. Basically, he concludes that human extinction would be a tragedy from a human perspective, but it would also potentially be a good thing. And he goes on to explain that humans are cruel and barbaric and so on,

and we're destroying the planet, we're killing animals. And maybe the world would be better without us. Here's one segment of his article that Ben quotes. It says, to make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means.

First, human contribution to climate change. Second, increasing human populations encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity then is the source of devastation of the lives of unconscious animals, I should say, on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. If this were all to the story, there would be no tragedy. The elimination of the human species would be a good thing. Full stop. Now, May acknowledges that poetry and art, this guy teaches at a college, by the way, May acknowledges that poetry and art and so on are good, but he says that all the misery we bring to animals and plants outweighs that. And then he gets to his proposal.

And I like that he offers a solution because I'm a solution-oriented guy. But actually, I'm not. All I do is complain about society. So I'm a complaint-oriented guy. But he is a solution-oriented guy, and that's good. But his solution is a little problematic. His solution is potentially mass suicide or killing all the babies. That's his solution.

He says, one might ask whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, I have a final answer to it. I'm not going to commit suicide so that squirrels and cows don't suffer. That's my answer. So I have no problem answering that. My answer is no. I'm not going to. So if everybody gets together and says, hey, Matt, we're going to have a mass suicide, you know, for the sake of the horses.

My answer is going to be, no thank you. I appreciate the invitation. Very polite of you, but I'm actually, I'm going to go watch TV instead. Although I don't have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand, to demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering since those human beings will not exist and therefore

not have lives to sacrifice. The two situations then are not analogous. It may well be then that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy. I don't want to say this for sure since the issue is quite complex. But it certainly seems a live possibility, and that by itself disturbs me, says May. Yes, it disturbs me too. It disturbs me that you teach at a college, though this is exactly what I would expect from a college professor and from the New York Times. It's exact. And there's a reason why this is from a college professor in the New York Times. And it's crazy, for one thing. You expect crazy things from college professors these days.

It also shows you that this is a pretty mainstream view on the left. A mainstream attitude, I should say. Now, the exact proposal of, well, maybe we should all kill ourselves. If not, we'll kill the babies. That exact proposal may not be accepted by everybody on the left. But the attitude, the general nihilistic attitude that humans are obliged. on the earth. That is definitely mainstream. In fact, I doubt you could find very many people on the left who would substantially disagree with it. I doubt you could find that. But there's a problem here.

Okay. Well, there's many problems. But I'm just going to deal with the logical problems. The moral problems of mass suicide or killing babies, the moral problems there are so obvious that either you see them or you're way too deluded to be convinced by a guy on Facebook. So I'm just going to leave that to the side. Let's talk about the logical problems with this rather nihilistic approach. Specifically, specifically with the approach that says the earth will be better off without humans. Okay. Now, number one, if you believe in God, well, now we are. getting into the moral aspect, I guess. But if you believe in God, then obviously it makes no sense to say that the planet is better off without humans, because in that case, the planet was largely

made, maybe not only, maybe not solely, but was largely made for humans. Now, so then, of course, it doesn't make any sense that we're better off not being on the planet that was made for us. don't believe in God, and I assume that this professor doesn't, if he's entertaining the possibility that we should all kill ourselves, then I assume he doesn't believe in God. But if you don't believe in God, then it makes even less sense to have this kind of attitude, because there's no basis by which to call a human-less planet good or better. There's no, these are value judgments. These are moral value judgments. And from the godless perspective, moral value is a human construct.

So if there are no humans, then there are no moral values. Nature cannot see itself as good. And there's no indication that animals have any moral sense whatsoever. So in order for the earth to be good, in order for it to be better, there must be human beings on it. And then you're left with a paradox. And in order for the earth to be better off without humans, there have to be humans around to declare that it's better off. Otherwise, it's just nothing.

In a morally relativistic world, that means that humans come up with the idea of morality. If there are no humans around, there's no morality. It's just existence. And it makes no sense to call it better, good, worse, anything. You can't use any of those terms whatsoever. The second thing is, I see in this logic the same flaw that I see in vegetarianism. Okay. If you're going to say that it's wrong for us to kill animals, for instance, what are you basing

that on? Are you saying that we're all equal to animals, thus we have no right to kill them? But if that's the case, then why are you expecting more out of us than you expect that you expect that of other animals if we're equal to them. Animals kill each other all the time. Animals eat other species. They eat the same species. They eat their young. They eat their mates. They kill each other over territory, et cetera. So if we're equal to animals, then there's no reason at all to oppose us killing animals because we're just acting like we are just being one of them. The fact that we're so much better at it, the fact that we're more efficient

and better at killing animals, that doesn't mean anything. If lions could kill their prey in a more effective and efficient way, they would. They just are too stupid to have figured it out. We figured it out. So again, if we're equal to animals, it makes no sense at all

to say that we shouldn't kill and eat animals in that case, because that's what animals do, right? And in that case, in fact, if we're equal to animals, then it's kind of presumptuous not to kill and eat animals. I think it's almost, if we're equal to them, it's almost rude not to kill and eat them because it's presumptuous.

It's like we're pretending to be better than them or something. We're taking this kind of like holier than now approach. And I'm sure if the cows could speak, they would say, dude, you're not better than me. Okay, who do you think you are? And then we would say, yeah, you're right. You know what? I guess we should eat you.

That's how that conversation would go. But if you say that we shouldn't kill animals because we are superior to animals, we are rational, we know better, then I could take that same logic and I could say that our superiority gives us the right to use animals to our benefit. So either way, you know, either we're equal or we're superior to them and whichever one is the case, it just doesn't make logic. sense at that point to say that it's wrong to kill and eat them. Now, granted, this article only specifically takes issue with factory farming, and I grant that you could take issue with factory farming while being okay with eating meat otherwise. So I'm just talking about vegetarianism in general here, but I still think that my point applies to this particular argument, because he says that we may be better off killing ourselves partly for the sake of the animals,

but if we're equal to the animals, then our domination of the planet is perfectly natural and perfectly normal, and it's perfectly animalistic, which is what you would expect from animals. It's exactly what the dinosaurs did, though, in a different form, but they dominated the planet and in many ways made it inhospitable to other forms of life

as they were the age of the dinosaurs for millions of years, and they were the dominating force. I know they were wiped out by an asteroid, but nobody would say that, you know, they should have all killed themselves because they weren't giving other forms of life a chance. So if we are superior to animals, then, again, it makes no sense to call for our extinction. Now, we could go on all day dissecting the problems with this logic. The real point is, simply that there are people in America who really do think this way, okay, really do think like this, who really do see humankind as a curse on the planet. And you notice that these people are never willing to go first. They aren't going to remove themselves from the gene pool and get the

ball rolling. No, they want others to do it. Just like the people who complain about overpopulation. You'll notice they complain about overpopulation, but they never seem to put themselves, in the over category, right? They're just population. Everybody else is over population. Or more commonly, the over are the babies and the unborn babies. They're the ones who are extra.

And that's kind of the attitude that this article takes as well. Which brings us to a whole other problem. Okay, if you're going to say that we are in some ways equal to animals and we should value animal life, even plant life, then how do you not apply that logic to unborn babies? Because you can't, there's no question that unborn babies are living. There's no doubt about that. They are living creatures. And if you're going to extol the value of animal life, then you can't make rationality the basis. The basis. by which a creature is accorded value.

Because in that case, then animals aren't worth anything either. So an unborn baby is a living creature. So then in that case, and why penalize them? You notice his argument, this is so common on the left, where they say, well, you know, we need abortion because of overpopulation, humans are destroying the planet. Why are unborn children penalized for that? they didn't do it.

Okay, so you're not blaming the cows and you're not blaming the squirrels or whatever for destroying the planet. You'd say, well, they didn't do it. It's not their fault. Fine. Well, the unborn children didn't do it either. Why do they have to pay the price? It doesn't make any sense.

And if you're talking about, well, we need to make the planet a better place for the sake of animals, yeah, what about making the planet a better place for the sake of our children? What about making a better place for the sake of our unborn? I mean, you're worried about, you're worried about how the planet is for deer and foxes and chipmunks, but you're not

worried about how the planet will be for our children? No, for our children, you say, yeah, well, we'll just kill them, we'll get rid of them. But, you know, we need to really fix things for the sake of for the sake of Ardvarks. It's just, it is a, it is not only a morally deranged point of view. It is completely and totally illogical. All right, an article on the Daily Wire yesterday by Amanda Presti Giacomo, who by the way, I saw her at the Christmas party, and I asked her how to pronounce her last name because, you know, I use her articles all the time for my show,

but I can never quote her because I wasn't sure to pronounce the last name, but I didn't want to pronounce it wrong because she's a co-worker. So I got the right pronunciation. So now I can finally give her credit. Anyway, article says on December 1st, an 11-year-old boy dressed in drag, danced on stage in a sexual manner at a gay bar in Brooklyn called $3 bill. The child, Desmond Napoles, or Nopoles, was dressed as a Gwen Stefani lookalike, full drag makeup, a blonde wig, a crop top, as he bounced around on stage to no doubts like a girl, and collected dollar bills from male adults viewing the number. This is not made up, okay? This happened.

The Daily Wire has reviewed and confirmed the performance through video and photo posts on social media, but has chosen not to link to the exploitative footage. The performance first flagged by YouTuber Yosef Oziah was promoted on Eventbrite by $3 bill. The promotion says, only a New York, a nightclub that makes you go, whoa, reads the promotion, featuring upcoming legend from television in the runway. Desmond is amazing performing live. This stage, this dance floor, this house is ours as long as we protect it. So the article goes on from there.

The boy has been on the drag circuit. He appeared in a drag, and I think it appeared in some kind of drag music video when he was six years old. His family, as you may have guessed, is totally supportive. They would have to be because as a child, your six-year-old doesn't get involved with this kind of stuff unless you're putting him into it, right? a six-year-old boy should have no clue what a drag queen is. A six-year-old boy should have no idea what it means to dress in drag. So if your six-year-old boy is into that, it's because you introduced him to it and got him into it because you are a pervert and a deranged nutcase. And they also appear to have monetized their son's sexual exploitation.

They have merchandise now, among other things. Now, what can I say about this that I haven't already said? What we're seeing here is child sexual abuse, plain and simple. Obviously, the parents should be in jail. So should the owners of this bar. So should everybody who knowingly attended the drag performance of a child. But mainly the parents. The parents are sexually exploiting their own child in plain view of everyone.

and rather than being arrested, rather than being condemned, they are applauded and celebrated. Now, there's just one additional point I want to make about this, and I've talked about this kind of thing many times, but I want you to imagine for a moment, okay? Imagine that this was an 11-year-old girl being paraded around, all dolled up,

dancing on stage with a bunch of men at a bar throwing dollar bills at her. Okay, just imagine that. Imagine it is a girl dressed in the way that drag queens dress, dancing on stage, and there are a bunch of men hooting and hollering and throwing dollar bills at her. Now, of course, there is no moral difference at all between that situation and this. there is not even the slightest smallest difference. It is exactly the same thing. And yet, if there were a video of something like that happening, there would be national outrage. Everybody involved would be arrested on sex abuse charges and deservedly so. And we all know it.

Who in the world would stand up to defend something like that? no, this is only tolerated because it's a boy with gay men. That's the fact. And as much as the LGBT community likes to complain about persecution, the truth is that they get special treatment as always, right? Because they can get away with pretty much anything because everyone is so deathly afraid of being called homophobic. you know, that's the, that is the one label. That's the one thing that nobody wants to be stuck with.

Nobody wants to be a homophobe. And so we're just going to, if we look at it, we say, well, it's the gay community doing it. That means that we can't, we can't complain. We can't criticize it. Well, as we just need to get over that. I mean, I, I'm over it. I've been over it. But all the rest, we just need to get over that. You need to get over your fear. If you're deathly afraid of being called homophobic, you got to get over that fear. Because that fear is being, just like you got to get over the fear of being called bigoted or racist or sexist, which isn't to say that it's okay to actually be any of those things. The point is that you can be called any of those things, even if you are not those things, obviously. that those labels are used to shut down legitimate debate and legitimate discussion and legitimate criticism. And so you should be morally opposed to actually being sexist or bigoted or racist or anything like that. But you cannot be afraid of the label. You can't be afraid of people

exploitatively, coercively, trying to manipulate you by throwing that label at you. and when it comes to labels being used to manipulate, coerce, exploit, and everything else, homophobic is the number one, possibly second to transphobic. People are so afraid of that label for some reason that they just, many people will let even something like this go without criticism. What we see is this is not a slippery slope anymore, okay? we don't need to worry that all the stuff that's going on is going to lead to the normalization of pedophilia.

We don't need to worry about that it might happen because it is happening. We need to worry about the fact that it is happening right now, that we are watching it happening. This is an 11-year-old boy dancing for guys at a gay bar having dollar bills thrown at him. That is the normalization of pedophilia. Look, it's happening right now.

We're here. It's not a slippery slope anymore. We're not looking further down the slope and saying, oh, we might end up there. We are here right now. It is happening right now. Pray for the country. That's all I can say.

And pray for this, you know, more than that, pray for this poor young boy who just has been exploited for as long as he's been alive, practically. And he needs a lot of prayer and a lot of help, and he's going to need a lot of counseling once he finally breaks free from the grip of his monstrous, despicable parents, he's going to need a lot of counseling.

All right. Finally, today, as we get ready for Christmas, I wanted to settle once and for all a discussion so that it doesn't need to continue. I'm going to give you the definitive Christmas movie rankings. Okay. these are the top five best Christmas movies in order from good to great. And I emphasize that my list is objective.

It is scientific. And as such, it is absolute. And when I am dictator, everybody will be required by law to affirm the truth of this list. And all infractions will be punished by death. All right. Number five, It's a Wonderful Life. fifth best Christmas movie classic

number four Christmas story number three Home Alone number two Charlie Brown's Christmas and number one John Carpenter's

The Thing Now that's the movie about the research team in Antarctica being hunted down and killed by a shape-shifting alien Now the movie technically doesn't take place on Christmas doesn't have anything to do with Christmas at all really

but there's lots of snow, and there are also guys with beards. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes it a Christmas movie. And just to settle that debate, here are the criteria to determine if something is a Christmas movie, okay? It need only meet one of these criteria. Number one, it has to take place on Christmas, or it can take place in the snow, so that the thing, the Revenant, Fargo, the Shining Christmas movies. number three, there's a guy with a bushy white beard, so Lord of the Rings, obviously.

And number four, if it makes you feel merry like the Princess Bride, then it is a Christmas movie. That's all it takes to be a Christmas movie. Or if we want to get really technical and theological, which maybe we should be when it comes to what we call Christmas films, then really, actually, there are almost no Christmas films at all. Because in order to really be a Christmas movie, right? It would need to either be a movie about Christ and about the Christmas story, or at the very least, Christ would need to feature prominently in it. And even a movie like It's a Wonderful Life, which is a wonderful movie, and I love it, but Christ is barely mentioned in that movie. So, are there any actual Christmas movies? There are a lot of holiday

films. There are a lot of very good holiday films, but as far as actual Christmas movies, I mean, left with that cartoon a few years ago about the donkey that carried the Holy Family to Bethlehem. So that's a Christmas movie. I think they made a movie a few years ago about the Nativity story, but there really aren't that many actual Christmas movies. So maybe instead of my idea at the top of the show about the border security movie, maybe if Hollywood could make some actual Christmas movies for a change, and then we could circle around and still do the border security movie.

which by the criteria I laid out would actually be a Christmas movie because of all the snow. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening. Godspeed. Hi, I'm Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, they use the word conspiracy theory to insult ideas that actually make quite a lot of sense. We'll be talking about that.

We'll also be interviewing veteran cop Adam Plantinger on what cops know that you should know, too. That's on the Andrew Claven show with Andrew Clayland.