The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 678 - Military Attacks Journalist. 'Anti-Fascist' Crowd Cheers.

Episode Date: March 15, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, under Biden’s leadership, the United States military will now condemn and try to intimidate journalists who criticize its policies. Is that a positive development? Also Five Headlines including controversy over a joke about feminists at the Grammys. Not as much controversy about the on stage strip show, however. And the Vatican makes headlines by affirming Church teaching that has been in place for 2,000 years. Finally in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the woke school in New York that has now banned the words “mom” and “dad” on grounds that they aren’t inclusive enough.  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, under Biden's leadership, the United States military will now condemn and try to intimidate journalists who criticize its policies. Is that a positive development? I don't think so, but we'll talk about it. Also, five headlines, including controversy over a joke about feminists at the Grammys. Not as much controversy, though, about an on-stage strip show, however. And the Vatican makes headlines by affirming church teaching that has been in place for 2,000 years. Breaking news! Finally, in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the woke school in New York that has now

banned the words mom and dad on grounds that they aren't inclusive enough. All of that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show. We discussed on Friday the reaction to Tucker Carlson's controversial comments about women in the military. And of course, when I say controversial, I mean that the point he made was indisputably correct and totally in line with science and basic common sense. As we know, you know, those kinds of comments. That would be the common sense comments are the most controversial these days. So to review briefly, Carlson reacted to President Biden's announced efforts to recruit more women, including pregnant women, into the military. Carlson pointed out that other countries like China are trying to masculinize their militaries while we are

apparently trying to feminize ours. That's not a good thing, he says, and I would agree. We know it's not good based again on common sense. Men are faster, stronger, more aggressive, more lethal. So it stands to reason that the more men you have in your military as a percentage, the stronger, faster, more aggressive, and more lethal your military will be. The less you have as a percentage, the weaker, slower, and less lethal you will be. Now, you don't have to have a PhD in mathematics to work out this equation. And if common sense judgments aren't your thing, then you can look at the empirical data. As mentioned on Friday, the Marine Corps did a study on this very subject a few years ago and found that all male units were better by every relevant measure

than mixed gender units. We also know that the Navy SEALs opened up the ranks to women a while ago, but no woman has succeeded in actually becoming a Navy SEAL, not because they're barred from entry anymore. I mean, they can attempt to become a Navy SEAL. They haven't succeeded in doing that, even when given the opportunity. Why? Well, because the SEALs are an elite force, and all of the apparently elite members of the military are men. Now further on the empirical front, the Daily Wire had this report just yesterday. It says the United States Army is reportedly considering doing away with its new gender-neutral physical test after test results showed that the majority of women failed while approximately 90% of men passed.

Officials are reportedly considering having different evaluation categories for men and women due to the physiological differences between the two. Hmm, physiological differences. Might be some significance to that. I mean, maybe there's physiological differences that make women less effective in combat. I don't know. Continuant says research showed that the Army Combat Fitness Test, which is the same for male and female soldiers, was leading to lower results for women with a knock-on effect for promotions, the Telegraph reported. An early Pentagon study showed that women were failing the ACFT at a rate of 65%.

65% while only 10% of men failed. A report from last fall found that 54% of women failed the test while only 7% of men failed it. The report said that Congress, which is controlled by Democrats, stop the new program from being implemented and the Army is reviewing whether it's fair. Congress does not want the test as it is currently constructed to factor into opportunities for advancement, according to the report. Okay, we have to ask ourselves, is it good or bad, generally speaking? when the army is getting rid of or lowering physical standards in order to be inclusive of anyone, including women. Would you say that our military is more or less effective, more or less intimidating, more or less

equipped to defend our nation when it lowers its physical standards in the name of inclusivity and feminism? Here's another question with an answer just as obvious. Is it good or bad when uniformed military leaders begin publicly attacking journalists who criticize government policy. What we've seen over the past several days is, I think, truly unprecedented, at least in modern American history. I can't remember anything like this ever happening.

I mean, the military has, of course, been severely criticized by the media through the years. As long as there's been a media, it has criticized the military and military policy. This is right and proper in a free country. We should have a media that criticizes the military. It's also right and proper that the military has had a policy of mostly ignoring these criticisms. We don't pay our military leaders to be pundits. They can do that when they retire.

A lot of them do. Fine. But it's better if they refrain while they're still on the job. And this had been the precedent until the last few days when branches of the military, including the Marine Corps, came out in an official capacity on their official social media channels and attacked Tucker Carlson by name. for critiquing their policies. U.S. Marine Corps, Master Gunnery Sergeant Scott Stalker posted on the U.S. Space Command's official government Twitter account going after Carlson, spouting a bunch of half-baked feminist

nonsense. Then an official Marine Corps account for the MEF Information Group joined in, chastising Carlson, calling him a boomer, and posting a picture of a female Marine carrying a male Marine. Perhaps not incidentally, they didn't post a video of this happening, only the picture, probably because they didn't want us to see that she carried him only for long enough to take the picture and then dropped him right away. The Pentagon also responded, so did Army General Paul Funk, head of training and doctrine command, and Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston. This is just a partial list of people currently in positions of leadership in the military responding in official capacities to this commentator on Fox News.

Now, the responses for the Marines are especially ironic and troubling. Ironic because it was the Marines' own study, which found that mixed gender units are less effective. So the Marines are now condemning a member of the media for agreeing with the results of their own study, which came out in like 2016. It wasn't 50 years ago. Also, troubling because it's the Marines, for God's sake. if they go full feminist, then I mean, what hope do we have? But of course, through all this, the media has cheered the military leaders who have put on their uniforms and delivered politically motivated rhetorical attacks in their official capacities as spokesmen for the military. That is, the people who panicked over the rise of fascism for the past four years are now applauding military officials for behaving exactly as military officials would behave under a fascist dictatorship.

I mean, can you imagine how the media would have reacted if military generals in uniform had chastised, let's say, Don Lemon for criticizing Trump's military policies? Can you imagine that? How they would react to that? Because again, the issue here is it's the military not simply defending itself, which, by the way, it's not its job to do that either. It's the military's job to defend itself and the country on the battlefield. It's not its job to defend itself on the battlefield of cable news. It's supposed to be above that and beyond that and focused on things other than that. But it's not just that.

It's not the military defending itself. It's these military leaders defending, defending rather President Biden's policies. They're coming to the defense of Biden's policies. because that is what was criticized, Biden's policies. Now imagine again, if this had happened under Trump. If Trump had his military leaders in uniform on TV and on the internet defending his policies, I mean, that would have been six months of outraged headlines right there, more than six months. We would have quite literally never heard the end of it.

And the media certainly would have considered it proof of their fascism claim. and they'd be right, actually, in that case. It would at least be evidence of fascism. Now, am I saying that Biden's government is fascist? No, I mean, fascist isn't the right word. But it is tyrannical and oppressive in its own way. Leftist governments always are. And this one, as we have seen, is surely no exception.

Let's get now to our five headlines. You know, one thing is clear that big tech companies, to put it, mildly have a lot of power in our country today and a lot of control over our lives. And as private entities, they can operate pretty much as they choose. That's why you've got to protect your personal data from big tech with the VPN that I trust from my online protection. That's ExpressVPN. When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers, so these companies can't see my IP address at all. That's going to give me privacy, which I need. And I think we all deserve when we're online. There's no reason why going online

should have to mean that you sacrifice all of your privacy, and it doesn't mean that because you can get ExpressVPN. My Internet activity becomes anonymous, and my network activity is encrypted. I recommend ExpressVPN to anyone who uses the Internet. So basically to everyone, I think we all use the Internet, so I'm recommending it to everybody. And the best part is you don't need to be tech-savvy at all

to use ExpressVPN. Like I always tell you, if you had to be tech-savvy to use it, then I wouldn't be using it or recommending it, but I can use it, which means that you can. All you have to do, this is what it comes down to, just download the app on your phone or computer and tap a button, and you're done. You're protected. It's that easy. Protect your internet activity with the VPN that I use every day. Now is the time to use it to give yourself a little bit of privacy and some control where big tech tries to take it away. Visit expressvPN.com slash walsh to get three extra months free on a one-year package. That's eXP-R-E-S-S-V-N-com slash walsh.

Well, I hope you guys are enjoying daylight savings time so far. Well, you know, we're a couple days into daylight savings. Can I just say, I don't like the daylight savings slander and defamation that goes on. I am, I'm a, I like daylight. If I'm the only one left in the world who does, I will say, I like daylight savings. It is, nobody knows why we do it. No one knows. No one can explain it.

It's something that we do. It's a sacred tradition. It's the sacred tradition of our. forefathers and their fathers before them. We take part in this mysterious dance of changing the clock back and forth. Nobody knows why, but we do it. And that's what makes it special. Also, you know, it's a big idea. You know, daylight savings, say what you want about it. It's a big idea, right? An interesting idea. We're actually manipulating or trying to manipulate time itself. And you don't get those kinds of ideas anymore.

Can you imagine if daylight savings never existed and the concept never existed? And then in the year 2021, someone suggested it. Like, let's say some politician suggested that we do this, came along and said, hey, you know how in the summertime it's warm out, we want to spend more time outside, but it gets dark around like 6.30? Well, what if we pretend that 630 is really 7.30? what have we all agreed to just pretend that the clock has moved forward in an hour, that we get an extra day of, extra hour of daylight?

If someone suggested that now, we would look at them like they're insane. We wouldn't even consider it. Yet because it was suggested decades ago, we all just do this. We go along with it. And I'm saying that like it's a good thing. It's, again, it's utterly pointless. No reason to do it, but we do it anyway. And I, for one, appreciate that.

All right, speaking of things that are pointless and have no reason to be done, the stimulus checks have started to go out this past weekend. NBC News reports, stimulus checks are starting to land in Americans' bank accounts across the country this weekend, just days after President Joe Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American rescue plan into law. This is, he signed the thing into law, and these checks started hitting almost instantly. People were getting them in their check, in their bank accounts. The third round of direct payments, which follows two previous sets of payments, are the most substantial yet, although some of the people included in the last deal won't be eligible this time. Those who make less than 75,000 or heads of households who make less than 112,000 are eligible for the full $400 payment. Individuals earning less than $80,000 and heads of households making less than $120,000 are still eligible for reduced payments. couples who file taxes jointly qualify for the full payment if they're up to 150,000

and receive partial payments if they make up to 160,000. I don't know why I'm reading this. I mean, if you got the money in your bank account, you already know how much you got. And then $1,400 or more for each child, including children over 18, including children over 18. But I know that. I'm just reading that now. Look, I already complained about this on Friday. People don't like it when I complain about this because people like free money, which I understand.

And we all know that giving millions of people who didn't lose their jobs. Now, I know that some of the people getting the money did lose their jobs and need the money. I understand that. But also, there are millions of people getting the money who did not lose their jobs and are not suffering any particular financial hardship. They're doing okay. At least they're doing as well as they were doing a year ago before the pandemic started. And give them all money. Why?

There's no reason to do it. There's no reasonable justification for this. And I think everyone knows that, but you also like free money, so you prefer if we don't talk much about it. And, of course, if you get the money, you don't want to feel guilty about it, which I've already said. Listen, if you get the money, I'm not saying you should feel guilty. They sent it to you. What else are you going to do with it? I'm not saying you send it back to the government.

Fine, you keep it, you spend it. Or better yet, save it. So I'm not saying that at all. But can we at least agree? or acknowledge that this is totally insane to be doing this, spending billions of dollars sending huge checks to people who don't even need it. And it's worse than that, in fact, because we set this arbitrary income line. Well, you know what?

There are going to be a lot of like single people who make under that income level, but are doing perfectly fine. They've got, you know, they don't have any dependents. They're doing well. They didn't lose any money. Maybe they even got a raise. I mean, with this system, you could have people who got raises during the pandemic and are actually making more money and doing better than they were doing before.

And they get checks. Meanwhile, you could have people, heads of households, people that have dependents and children, who suffered devastating financial losses during the pandemic, but get nothing because they still technically make over the totally arbitrary income threshold that was set up. So it's worse than simply giving money to people don't need it. You're giving money to people who don't need it instead of giving it to people who do need it. Instead of taking the time, putting the effort in to figure out who actually lost money during the pandemic, who lost their job, who actually suffered financial misfortune. Let's help them out.

Rather than doing that, we're going to send a check to some single guy living on his own. making $70,000 a year, doing perfectly fine. Let's send him a check. Why not? I can think of a lot of reasons why not, but we did it anyway. All right. Number two, the Grammys happened yesterday. Of course, I didn't watch those at all because I value my time and my sanity.

I am told, though, by the media that Cardi B and Migan the Stallion. I don't know if that's how it's pronounced. So Cardi B and Megani Stalion performed their hit single, of course, WAP. And I'm told by the media it was an X-rated performance. They were, it was basically a stripping on, not basically. They actually had stripper poles and they were stripping on stage. And this is, of course, being celebrated and what a wonderful feminist expression of female, you know, independence and all of an enlightenment and all of that.

So we've got that. We've got these filthy rich people on stage performing on a strip pole, network TV, you know, at a time of night when there are still plenty of kids that are still awake. And we're doing that. That's great. Fantastic. But the Muppets, we have to have a parental disclaimer on the Muppets. Now we've got to get rid of the Dr. Seuss books. And we've got to have a disclaimer on Peter Pan.

And in fact, we have to take Peter Pan, Disney Plus has taken Peter Pan and taking it off of the children's profiles on their streaming service because we don't want to expose kids to that and putting it on, you know, and offering that bit of insulation from the kids. Because we don't want to expose kids to Peter Pan or the Muppets or if I ran a zoo by Dr. Seuss. Don't want to expose them to that. But sure, these two women on a strip pole singing about their,

genitalia? Fantastic. I really, you know, I talk about this new version of Puritanism, and these are the new Puritans. We've talked about it plenty of times. These are the new Puritans. They get offended and are worried about the impact of cartoons, Pepe Lepeotu, cartoon skunk. They're worried about the impact of cartoons and children's books, but not Wop. And I really do prefer, It's this inverted Puritanism, and I really do prefer the old style Puritans. I didn't agree with everything they thought and everything they did, but at least they were coherent. You could say that much for them. Bill Burr, comedian, he did spark outrage.

Now, the strip show on stage, there's no outrage there. That's fine. All we can do. Because you don't want to, you have to celebrate that. What could we possibly say to criticize that? What are you? Some kind of prude? But we can criticize this.

Bill Burr, while introducing a Latino music category, made a joke. God forbid. He's a comedian. God forbid the comedian makes a joke. And this is what outraged a lot of people. Let's listen to it. All right. Hey, how many feminists are like going nuts? Why is this this white male doing all this latino stuff? And the Grammy goes... That's it. That was the whole joke. A lot of tweets. His name was trending. I think it's still trending on Twitter right now. People were upset about that. Well, I think in fairness, it was that. And also he mispronounced, because I guess he gave out a few awards in the Latino

music category. That's what he's making a joke about there. And he mispronounced the name of one of the artists with a name that, by the way, I can't pronounce either. Probably neither can you. So those two things, that's offensive. That right there, incredibly offensive. Not WOP and the strip show and all that.

Just so we know. Okay. more celebrity news. Sarah Silverman lashed out on her. I think this is on her podcast. She last out against political tribalism and had a lot of people on the right cheering, cheering what she had to say. They kind of saw it as her maybe defecting from the left a little bit. But let's take a listen and see what we think about it. Here it is. It's the absolutistness of the party I am in that is such a turnoff to me. It's so f***ing elitist. For something called progressive, it allows for zero progress. It's all or nothing. No steps toward all or fucking nothing. Again, righteousness porn.

And I've been thinking about this a lot, just in general. I just, I don't know that I want to be associated with any. party. I really, I think I don't want to be associated with any party anymore. It just, it comes with too much baggage. Every party. It comes with so much fucking baggage that no ideas can be taken at face value. And without ideas, what are we? Without a common truth, how can we talk about it? you know, Republicans might hear an idea that they would totally agree with, but if it comes from AOC, then they hate it. And of course, you know, to be honest, when I hear an idea that comes from a Republican, it's suspect to me. We all put, we all put too much shit on this stuff.

We no longer are able to be a nation of ideas. So that's, I agree with much of what she had to say there. Good points. Some level of insight there, which I could appreciate. And she's thinking about, you know, quote, her own side, criticizing her own side, thinking critical about it. All that is good. But once again, as the guy looking for the dark cloud within the silver lining,

I have to say some conservatives, anytime you see something like this from a celebrity, like a little bit of criticism of their own. side. On the right, we tend to way overreact. And we think next thing we know, she's going to be speaking at CPAC. Next year, Sarah Silverman will be at CPAC. And who knows? Maybe they actually will invite her. That's the thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they really did invite her to come and speak at CPAC, which would be a mistake because she's still not, I can appreciate what she's saying and agree with much of it. But she's still not an ally in any significant way. There's, if you're conservative, there is still a vast gulf that separates you from Sarah Silverman. She's not on

your side. She probably never will be in any meaningful way because the philosophical differences are simply too vast. And notice, and we get this a lot from some leftists who seem like they've, they're kind of leaving the tribe a little bit because they're criticizing their own side, but they're not really leaving the tribe at all. Because the tribe is defined philosophically. What is your basic worldview? They have the same basic worldview. It's just a disagreement over method.

You see, the problem with the reactions against leftism's excesses and its extremes, and that's what this is here, the problem is that it's only ever a reaction against leftism's excesses and extremes. Okay, but as the culture continues to go left, what was once considered an excess and an extreme now becomes normal. And so if all you're ever doing is, if all you're worried about is leftism's, you know, extreme fringes, and you're saying, well, we're being too extreme over here, if that's all you're ever looking at, then eventually you're going to be defending leftism's extremes because the culture keeps going left. as the culture goes left excess becomes normal leftism's excesses become normal that's that's the problem so what what really matters um what it will be really significant is a philosophical rejection of leftism a fundamental rejection of the leftist worldview now somebody does that and okay now they're an

ally. Now we really are on the same side. But if they're maintaining that basic worldview while saying, hey, gee, guys, you know, we're a little aggressive here. In the end, that's not really anything. I hate to tell you. That's not much of anything. And not to, you know, you could kind of, I still think one of the most fundamental questions we could ask, if there are a couple, but like, let's just take one. If someone is criticizing leftism for being too extreme, and it seems like they're on the left side and we're thinking, oh, maybe they're defecting. What if we were to ask them? Can men get pregnant in your mind? I know you're worried about leftism being too extreme, but can men get pregnant? What do you think? My guess is Sarah

Silverman would say, yeah, well, they can. Many of the people on the left who are worried about the left being too extreme, if you would ask them that question, they would say, well, yeah, sure, men can get pregnant. Now, if they're worried about leftism's extremism 20 years ago, they would be criticizing exactly that position. Now they hold that position while criticizing the left being too extreme. So you see how the process works. Because they've bought into the worldview.

They are adherence to that philosophy, to that religion. Totally. But yeah, it was a great point that she made. All the same. Number four, big news here. This is all over the headlines. Big headline news here. This one is from the AP. It says the Vatican decreed Monday that the Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex unions since God cannot bless sin. The Vatican's Orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response Monday to a question about whether Catholic clergy can bless gay unions.

The answer contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis was negative. The decree distinguished between the church's welcoming and blessing of gay people, which had upheld but not their unions since any such sacramal. recognition could be confused with marriage. The Vatican holds that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect, but that gay sex is intrinsically disordered, quote unquote. Catholic teaching holds that marriage, a lifelong union between a man and woman, as part of God's plan is intended for the sake of creating new life. This, as I said, is treated as, I mean, literally, the AP called it breaking news. Breaking! The Catholic Church does not endorse same-sex unions. Now, this is not breaking news. This was breaking news, I don't know, 2,000 years ago.

And it wasn't even breaking news then, actually. It's not breaking news at all. This has been the consistent teaching of the church since its inception for, literally for millennia. This has been the teaching of the church. But if you look at the reaction online, of course, people are reacting to this. I can't believe that the church, this homophobia from the church, what are they talking about? I can't believe they would arrive at this decision. It's not a decision.

This has been the teaching of the church for 2,000 years. it's just that the left they really can't believe that any institution in the world would defy them especially on an issue like this especially when it comes to sexual morality they simply cannot believe they really did assume that they're disappointed they simply assumed that the catholic church would change its official position on this subject because they think it should and to them it's so obvious that the church is wrong. So of course, two thousand years, who cares? Toss that to the side.

You know, do what we want. Everything should be changed according to our whims, because that's all that matters. Who cares about tradition? Throw all tradition to the side, all religion, everything throw it to the side. Just do what we want. That's not only what they want, it's also what they expect. It's their actual expectation. And so there is palpable disappointment that the church has not come out and reversed its position on marriage. Whereas for Catholics, we think, well, yeah, of course.

We knew that was going to happen. Number five, crazy story here from Fox. It says a Pennsylvania woman is facing misdemeanor charges after allegedly sending deep fake naked photos and videos of her teenage daughter's cheerleader rivals in an effort to get them kicked off the team or convinced them to kill themselves. Raphael Marie Spone of Chalfont was arrested March 5th charged last week with three counts of cyber harassment of a child and three counts of harassment.

Last summer Spone allegedly created doctored photos and videos of at least three teenage members of the Victory Vipers, a competitive cheerleading squad based in Doylestown. The image appears to show the high school girls either naked or in bikinis, drinking alcohol and smoking vape pens. And this was all, this is a deep fake. This was all faked. Obviously, it's not real. And now she's facing misdemeanor charges. First of all, how do you not have child pornography charges, felonies, for something like this? And I'm usually the last guy to advocate that we make new laws.

You know, I think we make new laws far too often. But here's one where I think we do need some new laws. I think you need serious jail time, not just on the child pornography end of it, which, of course, there should be for that. but with deep fakes, this is going to be a huge problem. It's already a problem. It's a huge problem. As this technology becomes more and more convincing, and when we get into video,

think about how easy it's going to be to defame someone slander them and how impossible it will be for them to prove otherwise, when you can simply manufacture a photo or a video of them doing some heinous, unspeakable thing, there's got to be serious, serious jail time for that as a means of dissuading people from this before it becomes a major problem in society. All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments. Jacob Lipski says,

first time watching Matt Walsh, he's much skinnier than he sounds on audio. Not sure how to take that. I sound like a fat person, I guess. You know, I'm going to take that as a compliment. Grace Health says, vacant look at Biden's eyes is something that sadly I recognize. It's the look my dad had a few years after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I love my dad so much. It would never have wanted him to go

through what Biden has allowed to happen to him. I'm grateful for Nancy Reagan who protected her husband's dignity and lived privately as Ronald Reagan succumbed Alzheimer's disease. Yeah, I mentioned the vacant look in Joe Biden's eyes when you watch him giving a speech. He really looks like he doesn't understand what he's saying. And I don't mean that as a joke. I'm serious about it. And it's not a joke at all. It's not funny that this is our president. And the guy has no idea what's going on.

But if you haven't noticed that, the next time you see him on TV, especially giving prepared remarks, which by the way, really the only kind of remarks that he'll give because they don't trust him to go off the cuff. But when he's reading the prompter, look in his eyes, you can tell he doesn't understand what he's saying. He's not there. And it is very similar.

If you've been around someone who struggled with Alzheimer's, it is a it's a very similar look because that's what he that's what he has clearly um Caleb Caleb says hey Matt I'm a conservative but I'm starting to worry about this dumb Qa anon thing like yesterday my mom said that Pope Francis eats children on an island what do I do well maybe he does you know has Pope Francis been on an island yes has he eaten something on an island, yes. It's all the evidence you need right there. And that, of course, for conspiracy there, that is all the evidence you need. All you need is you need a couple little things to sort of bookend it, and then you can fill in the middle part with whatever you want.

And that's considered evidence in your mind. Yeah, it is, look, there are plenty of people on the right who go for this. It's not a new phenomenon, by the way. They make a big deal about QAnon. But there's conspiracy theorists on both sides of the aisle. And there's been a segment of conservatives, a segment of people on the right who've always gone for this kind of thing. We just have different names we use for it. You go all the way back. First, you go further back than this, but think about Sandy Hook, I don't know what the number was. It was a significant.

It was a noticeable portion of people on the right who immediately decided, based on nothing, that this, that this, that. this event didn't really happen, it was all a fake, or these were crisis actors and all this kind of stuff. So this sort of thing's always been there. It's not a new phenomenon. It's a problem on the right. I think we should try to engage it, try to dissuade people from this. It could be very difficult to dissuade people from it because they're diluted. But we should also remember that it happens on the left too. It's a bigger problem on the left. Because the primary conspiracy theory there is the one that has led to the destruction of our cities, $2 billion of damage over the summer. The conspiracy theory that police officers are out hunting for black men to murder.

That is a conspiracy theory just as absurd and lacking in evidence as anything Q&N has come up with. But the effects have been far more devastating in my mind. And then another comment says, you're a prime example of why decent lighting and some hair can help somebody get way more views than they deserve. Well, thank you, sir, for that compliment of my lighting. I appreciate it as well. I want to take a minute to tell you about our sponsors, Paint Your Life.

You know, I've been telling you about Paint Your Life for months now, and I told you about the first painting we got. We got a Paint Your Life painting that we display proudly in our living room now. It's a painting of our kids and one of our favorite spots when we go on vacation. And we love it so much that now we're getting a second painting as well. That tells you everything you need to know about how we feel about paint your life. that we're getting the second one. And you can also get your first paint your life painting or your second, whatever it is. You get a professional hand-painted portrait created from any photo at a truly

affordable price. Choose from a team of world-class artists and work with them until every detail is perfect. It's a user-friendly platform and it lets you order a custom-made hand-painted portrait in less than five minutes. It's very quick and easy for you. All the hard work is going to be done on the end with their artists, but it's also very hands-on for you and they're going to be asking you all throughout, you know, and you're going to be giving feedback, If you don't like something, they can change it. At Paint YourLife.com, there's no risk. If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed.

And right now is a limited time offer. Get 20% off your painting. That's right, 20% off and free shipping. So to get the special offer, text the word Matt to 64,000. That's Matt to 64,000. Text Matt to 64,000. Paint Your Life. Celebrate the moments that matter most.

Terms apply, available at Paint YourLife.com slash terms. Again, text keyword Matt to 64,000. And, you know, we've been talking about it for a week now, But this is where it gets really exciting because this Friday, March 19th, it's coming up this week, is the premiere of Candice. Daily Wire's new talk show hosted by conservative lightning rod, Candace Owens herself. It's no secret that Candice has ruffled some feathers along her career. And I think there's going to be a lot of people talking about what she's got coming up. Now you'll get to see her like never before. In her new show, Candice shows her personal side to her guests and her live audience while she tackles the big political and cultural topics of the week with her signature blend of humor and insight. Don't forget, Candice starts this Friday, March 19th, and it'll be exclusive to DailyWire.

If you aren't a member yet, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code candice for 25% off. That's DailyWire.com slash subscribe. Use code Candice for 25% off. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. So today we're going to cancel with a vengeance, Grace Church School. Grace Church School achieves the double woke whammy of being both in Manhattan and Episcopal, which is just a long way of saying that the school is a nest of. of moral confusion and insanity.

Case in point, they recently released their inclusive language guide, and within this 12-page screed, the reader will discover that words like mom, dad, and parents are non-inclusive and therefore offensive and therefore should not be used. Now, we'll dive deeper into the guide in the moment, but first, here's a local news report about the controversy surrounding the guide,

including the reaction from the expectedly pathetic specimen who runs the school. We'll hear what he has to say as well. Let's listen. Grace Church School, an independent school in Greenwich Village, prides itself in welcoming students of all faiths or no faith at all. But now it's finding itself facing criticism for encouraging words that promote an inclusive environment. Like saying people instead of boys and girls and grown up instead of parent, since not all children are being raised by a mother and or father. One person tweeted Grace Church School in New York should be ashamed of themselves saying that you can't use the words mom and dad and you're supposed to use folks or family.

family. George Davison is head of Grace Church School. We're not telling people not to call their parents mom and dad. That's the silliest thing anybody ever came on. And it's not even a word police. It is rather a guide to inclusive language if you want to use it. Back in September, the school posted this inclusive language guide at the request of teachers and parents who wanted help in making sure their interactions were affirming and uniting. Parents we spoke with say they're supportive of the guidelines and proud the school is also describing best practices for discussing faith, learning differences, and physical disabilities. Like choosing the words physically disabled instead of handicapped. We can't love people together and assume anything about people.

And that's at the core of what this is about. Natalie Egan is the founder of Translator, which builds diversity, equity and inclusion analytic software for schools. She applauds Grace Church's pioneering spirit. As we look to the future, you know, it's really important that we start to shape our future leaders to be inclusive of all people, you know, regardless of anything. Whoever they are, it is what we're proud of. Whoever they are, it's what we're proud of. Well, I might critique that statement if I had the slightest idea of what it meant. Whoever they are, it's what we're proud of. But this is what wokeness actually is most of the time, total nonsense, literally. I mean, nonsense in the definitional sense of the word, as in things.

that make no sense. Wokeness is in practice a jumble of semi-coherent buzzwords mixed together in entirely incoherent ways. That's because the core idea, the only idea, really, is that feelings come before all else. The only thing that matters. The only thing, period, is how the individual feels. Well, certain individuals, anyway, a very select group of individuals, as it turns out. Wokeness is not only incoherent, but elitist and oppressive. It puts the feelings in psychological comfort of a tiny minority of the population above the emotional and practical concerns of everyone else on earth. How many people on the globe as a percentage would actually find references to mom and dad or even parents as offensive? How many would profess themselves otherized by such words?

What percent of people would have a problem with it? 0.1 percent, 0.01%, 0.001%. Whatever the percentage is, and whoever those people are and however numerous they are or aren't, they are all that matter. That's the message. It's only them. They're the only ones that matter. So let's take a look at this guide. It says right at the top,

the goal of this guide is to provide the community with more inclusive language that is aligned with the mission of Grace Church School. While we recognize hateful language that promotes racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are already addressed in our school handbooks. We also recognize that we can do more than ban hateful language.

We can use language to create welcoming and inclusive spaces. This guide addresses ways we can remove harmful assumptions from the way we interact with each other. Then there's a chart, and on one side it says, instead of, and lists all the phrases that you shouldn't use, and on the other it says, at grace we say, and it lists the alternatives. Remember how George Davidson, the head of the school,

assured us that they aren't banning words like mom and dad. Don't be silly. Why, that's the most ridiculous thing he's ever heard. They're only suggesting different words that you can use if you want to. Except that in the guide, words like mom and dad are framed as, quote, hateful language that promotes racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. And the alternatives are not offered as suggestions, but as things we say at Grace Church School. Not things we'd like you to say, but things you will say.

So as always with the woke brigade, they enact their insane agenda and then deny it and get away with denying it because the agenda is so insane that normal people can't believe anyone would actually want to do this. Now, looking at the chart, here's some of the banned words in their replacements. We'll go through some of these. So it says, instead of boys and girls, guys, ladies and gentlemen, at grace, we say, people, folks, friends, readers, mathematicians. That last one's kind of specific.

Instead of when reading a book rather than boy, girl on this page, say, child person, character. instead of using pet names like sweetheart honey or similar, say the child's name or child slash friend in the blue shirt. Yes, that's a great way to build. Rather than saying sweetheart or honey, just say, hey, kid in the blue shirt, get over here. And then, let's see, so that's a lot of gender stuff. And then with families, it says, instead of saying mom and dad, say grownups, folks, or family. instead of parents say grownups folks family or guardians instead of nanny or babysitter say caregiver or guardian

why is that better than nanny who knows but just because nanny is a word that people have used in the past and that makes it offensive let's come up with a different word that means exactly the same thing and there's no reason why one is better than the other instead of husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend, say spouse, partner, slash significant other. And then it gives you, so those are the language guides. And that goes into race and ethnicity. Instead of saying diverse or minority, say person of color. Instead of asking, where are you from?

Ask what is your cultural, ethnic background? And instead of saying, what race are you? ask how they self-identify. Well, that's important because they might identify as a race that they aren't. So you've got to make sure that we account for that. Now, a lot can be said about these kinds of Orwellian speech rules, but one thing that really jumps out is just how boring and sterile and flavorless they seek to make human communication.

Remove all the personality from it, all the character. Right? This is why we take sweetheart and honey and, you know, the kind of pet, names, especially that women will use for kids. Kid in the blue shirt. Child in the blue shirt. Organism in the blue shirt. Please come here presently. Take all the specificity out as well. You know, your mom and dad are folks. Your wife is partner. This is not only an oddly distanced and neutral way to refer to your own loved ones, but it also really doesn't tell the listener anything about them. I mean, a partner can be anyone. You could have a partner during a

science lab in 10th grade. Folks is a word that can be applied to your parents or to a random group of strangers. Yes, the real words, the better words, wife and mom and dad are exclusive, but that's the point. In order for me to know what you're saying, you have to speak in such a way as to exclude all of the things you're not saying. I have to know what you're not saying in order to know what you are saying. So the leftist rules are not only, not only lead to bland language, but the language that hardly succeeds in being language at all because it hardly conveys meaning, and that's what language is supposed to do. Now, one other point to make here, I said that these kinds of speech codes are meant to cater to a small minority, and they are. But the idea is to make it so that eventually

the small minority is not a minority. The language changes don't reflect changes and cultural sensibilities or tastes. They're meant to affect those changes, cause them. They don't reflect the changes. They're supposed to effect the changes. The school isn't so much saying that mom and dad are seen as offensive words to lots of people, but that mom and dad should be seen as offensive to lots of people. See, the rules from the left are prescriptive, not descriptive. It is prescription disguised as description.

The people changing the language want to change the way you see the world. They want to change your values, your beliefs. and change in language can be an effective way of achieving that. See, we make a mistake when we boil all this stuff down to the left just being overly sensitive snowflakes and all of that. Sensitivity really has nothing to do with it. The truth is a lot more sinister than that. This is brainwashing. This is just another form of indoctrination.

And for that, Grace Church School is certainly without a doubt. Absolutely. canceled. And we will leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles Show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by

Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Our technical director is Austin Stevens. Production manager Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Danny Damiko. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.

The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2021. Today on the Ben Shapiro show, the American military launches a full-scale public attack on Tucker Carlson. Team Biden pushes a new era of big government on the back of lies about an endless pandemic and the Grammys was full of pornography. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.