The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 298 - Tribalism Is Leading Us To A Dark Place

Episode Date: July 18, 2019

Today on the show, all we seem to get from our leaders is tribalistic demagoguery. It is bringing us to a dark place. Also, Scarlett Johansson runs afoul of the PC mob. And a feminist devises a chair that will end the scourge of manspreading. Date: 07-18-2019 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, we're going to discuss how tribalistic demagoguery, which is a plague in our society, and it is leading us down a dark path as a society. Our leaders on both sides, it seems, many of them anyway, are eager to encourage radicalism, encourage chaos, violence, civil unrest. So we're going to discuss that. Also, Scarlett Johansson has run afoul of the PC mob. And finally, a feminist has devised one of the possibly maybe the dumbest invention of all time. We'll discuss that also today on the Matt Walls show. Well, everything is very stupid right now. Everything is stupid and everything is gross. And everyone is an idiot.

That is, you know, that I think that when they write about this era of American history in the history books, that should be the subheading. Well, not everyone. Not everything. thing. That's just how it feels sometimes. I'm sure that you've felt it as well, if I'm being totally honest. And I hate to be such a downer, but I think that we are headed to a very bad place in this country. And I am worried about that. In all seriousness, I'm worried that people are going to start dying soon. And what we need from our leaders,

what we need from the people in charge right now, no matter what party they belong to, is calm and clarity, moral, certitude, strength. But we're not getting that. We aren't getting it from hardly anyone on either side. What we're getting is demagoguery and tribalism. And when your leaders are all demagogues and tribalists, and when you live in an intensely stupid time where stupidity is rampant, and when you live amidst moral decay as we do,

then you're going to get civil unrest and violence and bloodshed. When you mix all those factors together, it's inevitable. History proves that it's inevitable. You know, this isn't a game. When I talk about this and I say, well, I'm worried that we're headed towards civil unrest. I'm worried that we're headed towards chaos, you know. And there are two reactions that you often get from people when you say that. One is, ah, you're being a drama queen.

It'll be fine. The other is for someone to say, okay, well, I'm ready. Let's do it. Fine with me. I think both reactions are stupid, which is, I mean, that's the theme here, stupidity. If you say, okay, I'm ready, let's do it. That's fine.

I don't think you know what you're saying. Because you've been fat and comfortable for far too long. You know, you think this is all a game. You watch Netflix seven hours a day. You play video games and eat Doritos. You aren't ready. I mean, this is all entertainment to you. The moment the crap hits the fan, I mean, really hits it, for real this time.

I think your tough talk will go out the window in an instant. And you'll see that this isn't a game. The problem is that it's so much, that we see it so much as a game right now. When we're on the internet, when we're watching. watching TV. We're hiding behind screens. We're insulated. But it's not. This is real. As for the idea that this is, well, it's dramatic. I'm not trying to be dramatic. I just think that we all have this thing in the back of our minds. And I have it too. I'll admit. Where we look around and we can see that things are pretty bad and we can see that they're getting worse,

culturally speaking, societally speaking. But we just assume that it'll all work out in the end. That when it comes down to it, it's not really going to affect us. It's not going to affect our family. It's not going to come to our front door. That there's a certain line that will never be crossed, an imaginary line that we think is there. And we think, well, it will never go beyond that. The real civil unrest and chaos and so on, we think, it's just, it's something that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, it happens over there. It happens and other parts of the world happens in other eras and in history, but not here, not right now. We're immune to it, we think.

And we tend to think that way instinctively, because that's the reality we've known so far to this point. And as human beings, we will always assume that past reality will be future reality. We always assume it. Past reality is future reality. Now, when we say past, we mean our own past, the things that we've experienced personally. we just take it for granted. Humans also always struggle to take a historical view of present circumstances, to look at things with a wider lens. But the truth is, look, Rome fell, civilizations fall.

They fall all the time. That also is inevitable. It will happen eventually. Every civilization will fall. Ours will, one way or another, eventually. But I think we are speeding up the process right now. So again, what we need from our leaders is clarity and calm and resolve. I don't say weakness.

I don't even say moderation, depending on what you mean by the word. I certainly don't mean that what we need are a bunch of political moderates. That's not what I mean. I just mean that we need something other than tribalistic demagoguery. From our leaders and from ourselves, from each other. I mean, in general, we need something other than tribalistic demagoguery. but that's all we seem to get from anyone anymore. And it's not because when I say that our leaders, you know, in D.C.

are all a bunch of tribalistic demagogues. It's not, I don't mean that they're a bunch of supervillains, and that's some of them kind of are. But that's not necessarily why a politician would be a tribalistic demagogue. It's your tribalistic demagogue because it's easy and it's politically useful. It's just a very, it's easy to be that way. way. And it can be politically useful. And it's also dangerous. Weak self-centered people will always choose the easy and politically useful route. And we've been electing a lot of weak and self-centered people, which is why it does in the end always come back to us. We can't blame this all on

the elites and the politicians and all these groups that it's easy to blame. I mean, who puts them there? we're electing these people. So every time you turn on the news and you see these absolute idiots embarrassing themselves and the country, remember, we put them there. We, I mean, whoever's there, we put them, we elected, whoever it is. In whatever position they're in. If it's an elected office, we chose them. All right, so that's my doomsday ramble to kick things off today.

Just some general thoughts to ponder and hopefully. to put a little smile on your face and give you some hope this afternoon. I want to speak, though, more specifically. And I'm going to start by mentioning this again because it's so important. I know I've been hammering on this this week and last week. Recently, I've been hammering it. But that's because the media is ignoring it. People are ignoring it.

Politicians are ignoring it. So I'm going to try to compensate in my own small way by harping on it. As you've heard from me, over the weekend, a deeply entrenched member, of Antifa staged a terrorist attack at an ice facility. The Democrats have not condemned this. Just like they didn't condemn the Antifa riot a few weeks ago where they assaulted a journalist, put them in the hospital with a brain bleed, and then attacked other people with wrenches or with lead pipes and crowbars. They didn't condemn that either. They didn't denounce it. They didn't say anything. It's the same with this. And when I say Democrats haven't denounced it, I mean, none of them

have. None. They're all ignoring it. They're all sitting back. It's, it's amazing. Now, I guess I have to allow for the possibility that a few, maybe one or two, have said something. I don't know. It's not like I've personally polled every single Democrat elected official in the country. But the vast majority have not. I haven't heard any denunciations from any of them. So by a large, it's been total silence. And when I, it's actually not silence. And this is one point I wanted to make and bring up. I've been saying that, oh, the Democrats are silent about this. That gives them too much credit. It would be better if they were silent. Silence is better than what we're getting. Best thing would be if they stood up, showed some moral clarity, some leadership, some strength, and stood up and said,

no, this is wrong, we can't do this. Tried to calm the angry hordes. That would be the best. They're not doing that. Silence would be. you know, really second best, although very shameful. It's not even silence. It's worse than that. Because what we're actually getting is demagoguery from the left, from Democrats. Demagoguery that implicitly encourages, and maybe even explicitly encourages Anteem. In some cases, explicitly encourages them, but encourages them either way. So AOC says that ice centers are concentration camps. Now, that's, that's demagoguery. That's tribalistic. And it's dangerous because you say there are consequences to call it to that kind of rhetoric, that kind of language. When you're a person of influence, when you're in a position of leadership, God help us. And you say stuff like that. And you know that there are radical militants on your side who are big fans of yours. How are they going to interpret that?

You said it's a concentration camp. I mean, if it actually were a concentration camp, then people would be perfectly justified in waging a violent assault on it to liberate the captives. If there actually were real concentration camps in this country, then you'd be totally morally justified in violence to shut it down.

But, of course, there aren't concentration camps, and that is not a concentration camp. But when you say that and people believe you, you are implicitly encouraging them to treat it like a concentration camp. And so that's what this Antifa guy did. He went there and that's all he did. He went with a gun and explosive devices. And he treated it like a concentration camp. He reacted the way a normal person would if there was a concentration camp.

The only thing that made it abnormal and wrong is that it wasn't actually a concentration camp. So she's encouraging it. Without saying it explicitly, she's encouraging the violence. This is what I'm talking about. When you say that, they're concentration camps. You say they're all a bunch of racist bigots who want to enslave you. America's fundamentally racist. This is the handmaid's tale.

Women are persecuted. They want to take us back to the 1950s. They want to blah, blah, blah. When you say that, you're encouraging the militants on your side. If you don't mean to encourage them, then when the militants act like militants, and they take your words literally and they respond violently, as they have been doing, you would at that point speak up and say, no, no, no, that's not what I want. Let me rephrase. Let me clarify here. I don't want you to do this. And you'll adjust your

rhetoric accordingly. You'll look and you'll say, oh my gosh, you know, I called it a concentration camp. Yeah, it was hyperbole. I was trying to make a point. Now that they're doing this, let me stand up and say, listen, guys, I'm totally opposed to what they're doing. for X, Y, and Z reason, but it's not a concentration camp. Okay, let me, let me step back from that. If you didn't want violence, if you didn't want chaos and civil unrest,

that's what you would do. That's not what the Democrats are doing. Instead, they are continuing with the rhetoric. They are escalating their rhetoric as the violence escalates. And so what other conclusion can I draw than that they want this? Okay, so meanwhile, if I'm up, if I'm here talking, denouncing tribalistic demagoguery,

then I'm not going to engage in it myself. So let's look at the other side as well. Over on the Republican side, we have, as I'm sure I don't even need to play it. You've already seen it all over the place a million times just in the last few hours, but I will anyway. So on the other side, we have this moment at a Trump rally last night, a moment that is getting, shall we say, a lot of attention. Watch this. obviously and importantly, Omar has a history of launching vicious anti-Semitic screams.

Okay, let me say, first of all, just to begin with, it is obviously hypocritical of the media to give this kind of stuff so much attention while ignoring, completely ignoring, Antifa terror attacks, Antifa assaults on journalists, all of which, of course, are much more dangerous, much more newsworthy than a chant at a rally. So the conservatives that are making that point, I agree, yes, of course.

At the same time, though, putting that aside, I mean, it's really easy, and you'll notice a lot of conservatives do this, a lot of conservative media people do this. it's the game they play where something like this happens they don't like it like something like this chant they don't like it personally they disagree with it they may even be repulsed by it but they don't want to say that

because they don't want to risk alienating their audience it's always going to be easier in these tribalistic times to just stay tribalistic at all times to stay on the tribal line at all times that's always going to be the easiest path it's going to be the safest for you it's going to ensure the best ratings

the most clicks and so on. So the game from conservatives is to just something like that happens, and it's only, the next day, it's all what about, what about, what about, what about. Yeah, yeah, that happened, what about this, what about this, what about this? I have no problem with the what about thing, because it's true that this stuff is happening, there are terror attacks, you know, Antifa's a terrorist organization, this is all happening too, and we should be talking about that. And when you see the media and you see Democrats trying to ignore that and instead put all the emphasis on something like this, then we have to say, we have to, we should point out that, hold on a second.

There's also this thing going on over here. We can't ignore this. I mean, we can't let them set the narrative. We can't, we can't just go along with, we can't let them lead the conversation. So that's true. But at the same time, we are cowards if we do what they do and just completely ignore this kind of stuff on our own side. we're cowards. And you know what?

It's the worst kind of cowardice because it's cowardice that dresses itself up as sort of tough talk, you know, that kind of thing. Because a lot of the conservative cowards who want to ignore the stuff on their own side, they try to position it as,

you know what, I'm taking the fight to the left. I'm not going to... No, you're a coward, and you know it. Especially if you're in media. You're a total coward. The reason you're doing it, the reason you're ignoring it is because you don't want to upset your audience.

The only reason that is the reason, period. Any conservative media person out there who ignores the, you know, problems on their own side, the only reason for it, the only reason is because they don't want to upset their audience. If they give you any other reason, they're lying. They're cowards. So, as far as that chant goes, yeah, it's obviously wrong. I mean, it's wrong and repulsive and gross. Look, Iohan Omar, I detest her. I think she's a bad person.

I can't, I couldn't, I, I do not hold back at all in criticizing Omar. I'll put it that way. I think you know that. I've spent many, many segments on this show talking about all of the things that she's done and said. In fact, just two days ago, I played a clip of her being asked about the Antifah thing refusing to say anything, kind of smiling and smirking, I find that detestable. I find it disgusting. I do think this woman is anti-American. I do think she hates America. I certainly think she hates someone like me and probably many of you watching right now. I do think she's a part of the

problem. You want to talk about tribalistic demagogues. I mean, she's like this is, she's, she's one of the top offenders. But she's an American citizen. So Chantyanty's a lot of, sent her back is just, it's not only morally wrong, it's just so incredibly stupid. You just look so dumb. You look, you look, whatever you want to say, you do look like a dumb bigot when you say stuff like. You just look like a dumb bigot that no one, just no credibility, nothing to offer, you look like an absolute moron. That's how it looks. That's how it comes across. And, I mean, is it actually racist to say that? I mean, no. It's, it's, it's, The word racist has a certain meaning.

It's not technically racist. If you say, send someone back to a different. It's not technically, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a morally disgusting thing, but it's not technically racist. But you certainly are going to come off like a racist. And as I said a few days ago, this is not a winning conversation to start parsing and splitting hairs and say, well, it's not technically racist. I mean, racism is this. I mean, that's bad, but it's not racist. I mean, racist is this.

That's racist. It's similar. It's racism adjacent, but it's not quite racist. Losing conversation. She is an American citizen. So calling for her to be sent to another country is wrong. Now, it also is true that it seems very likely that she's guilty of defrauding the immigration system. If that's the case, then she should be tried and convicted and punished. We should stipulate, though, that the very credible accusation, and there's been serious report, surprisingly, there's been serious reporting done by this, done on this. And the accusation here, the credible accusation is that she defrauded, as I understand it, she defrauded the immigration system, allegedly, to make her brother in American citizen, not to make herself. She came here when she was, I don't know, eight or nine years old.

So some people have justified this by saying, well, look, she defrauded the immigration system to become a citizen. So she's not a real citizen. So she should be deported. Even if that were true, that's a crime. She needs to be convicted of it in a court of law. We don't just deport people because they're accused of a crime. I think we can all agree that even Ilhan Omar is entitled to due process. Well, in fact, I think we probably can't all agree on that now.

I think things have gotten so bad and so tribalistic. There are probably a lot of people who say, ah, don't screw that. send her. She didn't get due process. She doesn't like the Constitution. Send her away. I think there are a lot of people actually have that attitude now. But in reality, she does have the benefit of due process. But in any case, the claim is not that she herself became a citizen through defraud. It's that she helped someone else become a citizen.

Now, I don't know what the, can you lose your own citizenship for doing that? I don't know. But that's, you've got to be tried and convicted and then the punishment. comes. Calling for someone to be just summarily deported because you don't like them is wrong. And we should also say, as a sort of secondary consideration, it is politically disastrous. It just is.

The image, the sound, that footage of a bunch of white people at a Trump rally shouting, send her back in reference to a minority woman. I mean, it's just like I said about the Trump tweets. You can say all you want that you don't have a problem with it. You can justify it. You can say it's not racist.

You can say whatever. You can give whatever justification you want. I don't agree with them. But you can give it. When it comes to a political conversation, there's really no debate here. That is politically bad. And amazingly, there are people who even, I was having this argument on Twitter today. There were people Trump fans saying, oh, no, I think it's politically good. I think it's

going to help us. Really? You think it's going to help us? You think there are people who are not committed right-wingers who are going to be more inclined to vote for Trump because they saw a bunch of people under Trump rally saying, send her back about a minority woman. You think there are people, you think there are non-committed right-wingerers who are going to be more inclined because of that? You're insane if you say that. You don't, you have absolutely no understanding of our culture and the way the way things are right now. You certainly, you especially don't understand voting demographics. Let me tell you something.

Donald Trump won in 2016 because he won Pennsylvania and Michigan. And you won Pennsylvania and Michigan because Hillary Clinton had depressed turnouts in places like Philadelphia and Detroit. Those voters didn't show up in large numbers like they needed to for her to win those states. if in 2020 there are massive turnouts in those urban centers, especially places like Philly and Detroit, Trump will lose. The math doesn't, you could say all you want. You won in 2016.

You said this in 2016 and you were wrong. Okay, great. It's not 2016 anymore. The math just doesn't work. This isn't magic here. If she gets huge turnouts in these big cities, in these kind of in these what have become swing states, I suppose now, he'll lose. There aren't enough other voters to compensate.

It's a mathematical reality. You can't get around it. And stuff like this, these kinds of moments, those are going to be put in ads. They're going to be played ad nauseum over and over and over again in places like Philadelphia and Detroit to get those voters out. That's why it's politically designed. morally wrong, also politically disastrous for that reason. Because that is going to

motivate those urban voters to get out and vote against this. Because they're going to believe that not only Trump is racist, but that he is at the head of a racist movement of people who want to

deport them from the country. That's what they're going to believe. It doesn't matter if it's not true. Trump is making it and his and the people at that rally are making it very easy for his opponents to paint that as the reality. All right. I've been wanting to talk about this. Scarlett Johansson, obviously a left-wing Hollywood actress, aren't they all?

Has, are they all? Is there, is there a, we could think of us, a few conservative actors, male actors in Hollywood, a few. But are there any conservative female actresses in Hollywood that actually get roles? I was out of it. Maybe there are a couple. I can't think of the top of my head. Anyway, so left-wing Hollywood actress has gotten in trouble with the PC mob several times in recent years. She played a character in a movie a while back that was originally Asian. The source material, she was Asian. So that was a problem, of course. It's not a problem as we've gone over. It's not a problem to take a white character and turn them into a different race.

You can make Ariel Black, but to make changes the other way. that's a problem, that's a huge outrage, that's not okay. Those are the rules now, just so you understand. And then she was going to play a trans character in an upcoming film, but there was so much outrage about that, that she was forced to withdraw from the role. And finally, in an interview, when asked about this stuff, she actually decried the PC, I think she even used the word political correctness. And she said, this is a quote from her, she says, as an actor, I should.

should be able to play any person or any tree or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job. And she's right, of course, exactly right. But she's faced major backlash now for those comments and predictably, of course. And now I think she issued something like an apology, kind of retracting, backpedaling from that, from that brief moment of truth that escaped her lips. She's now saying, oh, never mind. And this is another example of the left eating its own, so we understand that. But what she's saying is true. And that's why this whole thing is so dumb. Because number one, it's acting.

You're pretending to be something that you're not. That's what acting is. That's why we can award actors and say, oh, this person did an especially good job of acting. Doing an especially good job of acting, the reason we could say it's a good job of acting is that what we're really saying is this person did a really good job of pretending to be something that they're not. It's what acting is. The other issue is that we talk about representation in Hollywood, and that's a big deal now, that we need all these different groups represented. They need to be represented.

Okay. Well, if you're talking about trans representation in Hollywood, how many trans people exist in the country? It's a very small percentage. One percent? I mean, less than that? So if there are only a few trans people in the country in existence, and then there are only few trans people in Hollywood, well, that right there is proper representation.

In fact, there have been studies done on this, and I don't have them in front of me, but there have been studies done showing that if you break things down demographically by race and all that stuff, you'll find that everyone is pretty well represented in Hollywood. In fact, many times the minorities are overrepresented. because it wouldn't be, it's not like, if you've got, you know, 50% of white actors getting roles and 50% of black actors getting roles, 50, that's, that is, that is a disproportionate

representation. So if by representation, you just mean that things should be equal in terms of their percentage and, you know, in society, and that should be reflected in Hollywood, well, then we're pretty much, that's where we are. So there's no problem here. And anyway, there wouldn't be a problem, even if, you know, if it was, if it was 90, of a certain race getting jobs and 2% or if it's 50-50 or if it's 75,

whatever the percentage is, it doesn't, that doesn't matter because it should be whoever's best for the role gets the job. Whoever's best at doing it should get the job. No matter what their race is, it doesn't matter. This isn't a competition. And here's the other thing. The last thing that strikes me, especially when it comes

to this issue of trans people and you hear that, well, trans people should play trans characters. which as we've already gone over is very stupid because the whole point is you're pretending

to be something you're not but even beyond that I thought isn't it okay if you're a if you are a quote trans woman which means that you're a man

identifying as a woman wouldn't you want to play women just regular women in a role isn't the whole your claim here is that you're a woman

just like any other woman so to me it just strikes me as oddly unwoke for the liberals to be saying, well, trans people should play trans characters. Shouldn't you be saying that trans people should play non-trans characters?

Because trans women are women, so they should just play women? Isn't that your perspective? What you're calling for here doesn't even make any sense based on what you usually say. So that, that to me, it just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense. But this is what you get from identity politics is

a lot of nonsense. All right. thing I want to mention before emails. And I just saw the headline here. So I'm looking at the article now. We will experience this together for the first time. This is in the Daily Wire. This is from Paul Bois.

A feminist student specializing in 3D design and craft from the University of Brighton has ushered mankind into a new era of sexual equality by designing a chair that prevents man spreading. So it's a chair. Reports from the Daily Mail says a university student has a won a national award. She won an award for it. Oh my gosh. A national design award she won for this for a chair that stops men from man spreading. Layla Laurel created the piece of furniture to stop men from widening their legs and encroaching on other people's space. The chair does nothing

revolutionary, simply positions two pieces of wood so that the man sitting down must keep his legs together. And then there's also a, I believe there's also another chair. So there's a chair for men that, yes, squishes their legs together. And there's also a chair for women that encourages them to spread their legs. So that they're the ones now man spreading or woman spreading, I guess. The whole thing is completely stupid. You know, when it comes, feminists are complaining about stupid things all the time, obviously.

And so it's hard to point to one particular thing and say, well, this is the dumbest thing that feminists have complained about. But man-spreading, that really might be the dumbest feminist complaint of all of them. And that is saying quite a lot. That really might be the, of all the claims of persecution,

this one is the most erroneous and fallacious and ridiculous. I know that feminists, and if you're a feminist that somehow is listening right now, listen, I understand, I know that you struggle with subjects like biology and anatomy, not to mention

logic and everything else. But especially biology and anatomy as a member of the left wing, I understand you struggle with that. You don't have a lot of understanding. So let me, without being graphic, I'm going to, so I'm going to try to put this delicately without getting into too much detail. But you see, there is an anatomical reason why men will spread their legs when they sit down. There's an anatomical reason why men don't sit with their legs.

push together. You know, you could look it up if you need more information, maybe take a look at a biology textbook. You're probably going to want to find one that was written before, say, five years ago, because who knows what those things say nowadays. But look at a trustworthy biology reference, and maybe you'll understand. But there is, so yeah, it's actually not a patriarchal conspiracy. When men are sitting on the subway with their leg spread, they're not trying to hurt your feelings. It's not to patriarchy. It's not even, this might be shocking for you. It's actually not about you at all. I know that's surprising. So pick yourself up off the floor after hearing that. You see, there are some things that you as a feminist, maybe you don't

know, you don't know this, but there are some things that aren't about you. Yeah. Right. So this is, this is one of those things. It's not about you. It's got nothing to do with you. They have their leg spread more than you spread your legs because they have anatomical differences with you that make it so that men have to sit differently. Otherwise, it's extremely uncomfortable and actually unhealthy. So that's all I'll say about that. All right, Matt Wall Show at gmail.com is the email address. This is from, I didn't get the name of this person, unfortunately.

This is from someone says, hey, Matt, I was trying to come up with a definition for man or woman that would fit with the transgender worldview. I think it would require four definitions. One, man, a person who feels they are more masculine than feminine. Woman. Two, woman, a person who feels they are more feminine than masculine. Three, masculine, those traits that tend to appear in people with a Y chromosome. Four, feminine, those traits that tend to appear in people with no Y chromosome.

Obviously, these definitions only work for the ideology that says there are transgender people, but only two genders. And not for the gender is a social construct crew. You may have already argued with this argument. and if so, I apologize. Yeah, well, so it's a Herculean effort on your part to try to come up with even if it's a wrong definition, as you're aware, I know this isn't your definition. You're trying to help the left out here,

which is very charitable of you. But Herculean effort to try to take their worldview and see if you could come up with at least a coherent definition for man and woman that would be consistent with that worldview. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to do. You're attempting to do something that's impossible. because their worldview, especially with respect to gender, is completely incoherent and contradictory. So there's no way to define terms that won't end up being coherent and incoherent and contradictory.

The problem is you say, well, okay, this definition works for someone who believes that transgenderism is a thing, but would also say that there are two genders and gender isn't a social construct. the problem is that that group doesn't exist. People who believe in transgenderism are going to say that gender is a social construct. In fact, that is an integral part of their whole worldviews. They think that it's fluid. It's on a spectrum. Which means that ideas like masculine and feminine in that case obviously cannot be defining

for, cannot be objectively defining. for man and woman. Because they would say that masculine and feminine, these concepts are completely arbitrary, total social constructs. As a society, we just invented them out of whole cloth. There's no objective reason for them at all. And so, therefore, they're illusory.

And you can't tie them to a definition of man. So that doesn't work for them. But good attempt, though. This is from Greg, says Mr. Walsh. Awesome discussion of gender slash sex on Wednesday's show. I love your heuristic regarding asking transgender advocates to define what a man or woman actually is. Brilliant. This will henceforth be dubbed the Walsh Protocol.

I like that. The Walsh Protocol. I've always wanted to have my name on a protocol. And so, or a rule. Yeah. So Walsh Protocol or Walsh Rule. So I'm a fan of that. The entire, because I'm a theocratic fascist, of course, so that's why I'd be a fan of that.

The entire topic essentially boils down to warmed over nominalism and shoddy postmodern word games. But if gender is merely a societal construct, as the radicals claim, then we can slash should probably discard the idea of gender altogether. After all, once a person's gender can be potato or bicycle, I think the concept that has been completely divorced from reality and it has no objective meaning. Yeah, I think you're right, Greg, and you're right to observe that because that's kind of what's happened here, where

this phony distinction between gender and sex was invented by the left. Whereas, in reality, gender is really just a completely linguistic concept. It's got nothing to do.

People don't have genders, really. You have a sex. You don't have a gender. And you certainly don't have a sex which is distinct from your gender or a gender which is distinct from your sex. These are, at most, these are interchangeable words. But what the left tried to do is they try to create them as two completely separate concepts

so that people, rather than words having a gender, you could have a masculine or feminine word, that's what it should be. But they try to take that linguistic concept and put it on people and say, well, now people have genders and sexes, and the two could be completely opposite.

But what you're finding, which is, which is absurd, clearly. But I think what they found is that, well, okay, they don't want to say, it used to be, okay, well, you've got a biological man, but his gender is woman, because that's what he identifies as, which is sort of another way of saying that, well, he's just, he's a feminine man. but they don't want that. What they want to say is, what they're claiming now is, no, a man who identifies as a woman is a woman. There's no distinction between a trans woman and a woman.

These are the exact same thing. So now I think what they've done is they've actually discarded the concept of gender themselves. Because now they're saying that sex is fluid. Sex is on a spectrum. biological sex is on a spectrum. It is fluid. That's what they're saying now.

So I think what they did is they introduced this concept of gender in the beginning in order to promote the whole idea of gender spectrums and everything else. The idea that you could transition from one to the other. Now that they've sort of implanted that into the public conscience, I think what they're doing now is they're going and they're they're taking gender back. They're saying, well, we don't really need this anymore. It's had its day. It's done what we needed it to do. We don't need it anymore.

We'll throw it out. All right. This is from Jenny. Says, hello, Matt. Thank you for the work you do. I really enjoy your show. I'm curious if you know of any good music that isn't Christian.

I get tired of listening to the same songs over and over again. I enjoy some of them, but I would like something different sometimes. I recently searched for clean pop music or something like that. The songs that came up had no bad language and it wasn't over-sexualized. However, the meanings. of the songs were still horrible. Most of the songs were just stupid. Why can't there be quality music, or am I missing it?

I hope you can help. Well, I think there is a lot of quality music. Unfortunately, I can't really recommend anything because I guess if you like pop music and that's what you're looking for, then I don't listen to that music myself, pop music. So I can't, I don't know. Maybe someone else can write in

and give some recommendations for pop music that's actually good and not totally vulgar and also not Christian. I, I, there's probably not a lot of it. I assume it probably does exist. I just can't, I don't know, so I don't listen to that music. But what I can say, generally speaking, is that there is good music today. There are great bands out there that are making really good, thoughtful, interesting music.

They're not Christian. They're just, just like there are great movies. I really hate it when I hear from, from Christians, there's something Christians say a lot. nothing but terrible movies these days, nothing but terrible shows, nothing but terrible music. That's not true. There's a lot of great stuff. There's a lot of garbage, yeah. There's a lot of great stuff. A lot of great stuff. You know, I think that, I mean, certainly when it comes to TV shows, where I think everyone basically recognizes we're in the golden age of TV shows. I mean, there's so many, it's an embarrassment of riches. Every year there's another great work of art kind of television show that comes along. multiple in that category.

I think it's the same with movies. Now, if you're looking for movies in the theater, the kind of big box office smashes, well, they're all going to be trite and redundant and superficial and all of that. But movies that go right to streaming, movies that maybe aren't in theaters for very long, there's a lot of great movies out.

I think it's kind of an illusion where we think, all the great music was in the 70s, all the great movies. Back in the day, they had all the good stuff. Well, no, that's not really true. It's just that we only remember the good stuff from the 70s and the 60s. There was bad stuff, too. We just don't remember it because it was bad. And so our view of it now is, oh, they had nothing but classics.

But that's not actually true. So anyway, that's a long rambling way of saying that I guess I can't answer your question, but I'm sure there is good stuff. I know in general, it might not be genre as you generally listen to, but there are good bands out there. And I think it's a good idea for Christians to branch out and to not stay in that sort of Christian entertainment box because it really is okay to listen to a song

that's about something other than God. I mean, it's great to listen to songs about God. Don't get me wrong. But we're not required to only listen to songs about God or Jesus or only watch movies that are about God. And really, if it's a song about love, if it's a song that touches on anything true and real, then in a sense it is also about God, though indirectly.

All right. Finally, let's see. This one's from John says, I've been reading and studying a lot about the conquistador Hernan Cortez, in fact, he's my favorite conquistador. Obviously, he's hated now and slandered, but I personally believe his bad reputation is undesirable. well, we're coming up on the 500th anniversary of Cortez's expedition. November 8th, 2019,

will be the 500th anniversary of the entrance into Mexico by Cortez and his men. I think we should be celebrating Hernan Cortez, the civil rights activist. In my opinion, he is the greatest civil rights leader of all time. He did, after all, stop human sacrifice, even if it did come at the price of destroying a civilization. That's quite a qualifier. So, Mr. Walsh, I hope you'll be celebrating Cortez Day 500, celebrating the end of human sacrifice and bringing the bringing of the Catholic faith to a new land. Yeah, I've talked about Cortez before. I think I read a book, oh, geez, I'm trying to remember that.

Richard Lee Marks, I believe, was the author of a book. Book is called Cortez. I thought it was a great book. I don't know. I stumbled across it at some used bookstore. Not a well-known book by any means. Written, I don't know, written 10, 20 years ago or something. I thought it was a great book.

It's an amazing story about Cortez. that he was able to come with his relatively small band of conquistadors and overthrow an entire civilization. And it certainly was a violent process. We can't make any, we can't deny that. It was very violent, especially with their final sacking of the Aztec capital. It was just total bloodshed. It was a massacre.

But we should also say that Cortez was along the way, as he was tangling with the Aztecs, he also made alliances with other Indian tribes in the area who were eager to ally themselves with Cortez because they hated the Aztecs. Because the Aztecs were enslaving, impressing them. The Aztecs would come in and demand human sacrifices. I mean, the Aztecs were coming and stealing their children and their wives. and ripping out their hearts and consuming their limbs. I mean, this is just grotesque, satanic stuff. The Aztecs, as you mentioned, human sacrifice.

I mean, they sacrificed tens of thousands of people. There was one period, which I'm sure you're aware of, a few years before Cortez showed up, where in a period of three or four days, they sacrificed something like 80,000 human beings to christen a new temple that have been built. I mean, think about that. 80,000.

When you consider the process, the way they did it, you put someone down on a stone slab, you rip out their heart while they're still alive, cut up their limbs, roll them down the temple steps, and then at the bottom, oftentimes their limbs would be consumed by the Aztec priests.

Horrifying. It's difficult to believe that this ever really happened, but it did. Imagine just the pile of dead bodies and limbs that must have been there. And that's something that the Spanish found, as they were getting deeper and deeper into Aztec territory, they would stop at these temples and they would find blood, blood all over the place, piles and piles of bodies and skulls and bones. Horrific. Absolutely horrific.

So, as I was saying, these other tribes were eager to enter into alliances with, Cortez. Sometimes they would fight Cortez first and then be defeated and then realize that, okay, maybe we should team up with them. And the reason they were eager is because they, like I said, they were being oppressed and enslaved. So when they finally entered the Aztec capital and there was a total bloodshed and slaughter on a massive scale, much of that, though, happened on the part of the other Indians who were taking out their rage on the Aztecs. And so most of that slaughter was sort of Indian on Indian slaughter, at least the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I agree with you. I think Cortez was obviously a flawed man, but a great man. And he put an end to one of the worst human rights abuses the world has ever known. And he ultimately toppled possibly the most savage. civilization that has ever existed. And that's not a racist term here, okay? When I say savage, I mean, the practice of cutting out the hearts of tens of thousands of people

and eating their bodies. That is savage in every sense of the word. I will then join you in celebrating Cortez Day 500. I'm on board for that. And we will leave it there. Thanks, everybody for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed. Hey, everybody. It's Andrew Claven,

host of the Andrew Claven show. Trump's crowds are angry about Ilhan Omar and their chanting, send her back. Should we clutch our pearls, thump our chests? Thump our pearls, clutch our chests. Sounds like a porn film. But we'll figure it out. Plus, it's Mailbag Day on the Andrew Claven Show.