The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 726 - Drag Queen Indoctrination Hour

Episode Date: May 20, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, PBS has teamed up with the New York City Department of Education to bring drag queens and children together. We will discuss the never-ending efforts to groom and sexualize children today. And Five Headlines including: a Democrat congressman righteously screaming at Republicans for not living in reality. But what the hell do Democrats know about reality? And Joe Rogan gets in trouble for daring to suggest that there might be some anti-white sentiment out there. And in our Daily Cancellation I will respond to the popular YouTuber who tried to DEMOLISH me for my views on masking.  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, PBS has teamed up with the New York City Department of Education to bring drag queens and children together. We'll discuss the never-ending efforts to groom and sexualized children today. And five headlines, including a Democrat congressman righteously screaming at Republicans for not living in reality. But what the hell do Democrats know about reality? And Joe Rogan gets into trouble for daring to suggest that there might be some anti-white sentiment out there possibly. Plus, China institutes a new divorce law that's way better than our divorce laws. we can learn something, at least with that when it comes to divorce. And in our daily cancellation, I will respond to a popular YouTuber who tried to demolish

and destroy me for my views on masking. All of that and more today on the Matt Wallstead. So I wonder sometimes just how brazen it has to be, just how in your face, how obvious, how outrageous before everyone fully understands that there is a very real plot to groom and sexualize our children. This is not something happening out on the fringes. It's not relegated only to weirdos and sex. offenders driving their creepy vans around town, though many of the people doing it may be sex

offenders, whether convicted or not. I'm not sure how many of them drive vans, however. The point is that the cultural powers that be are praying on children and doing it out in the open, often with little resistance from the public. Far from resistance, oftentimes they're applauded. Sometimes they do it with the help of tax funding. And that brings us to a report from Mary Margaret Ollahan in The Daily Caller. She writes, quote, a children's show on PBS, featured drag queen and author Little Miss Hot Mess singing, dancing, and reading a book about drag queens to an intended audience of three to eight-year-olds.

The episode is part of the series Let's Learn, a public television series produced in partnership with PBS member station WNET and the New York City Department of Education. This according to the spokeswoman, Lindy Horvitz. She's the spokeswoman for WNET. The spokeswoman emphasized repeatedly that Let's Learn is not a PBS series but was made available to PBS stations. The Little Hot Mess episode first aired March 31, she said,

and WNET has received only a small handful of messages complaining about the show. A tag on the PBS website says, Let's Learn helps children ages 3 to 8 with at-home learning. One-hour programs feature instruction by educators and virtual field trips. I don't know if the drag queen thing is an educator or if that's a virtual field trip. I don't know. There it is. They only got a small handful of messages complaining.

As long as only a few people are complaining, then surely there's nothing wrong. Or perhaps we can use our own judgment to determine whether this is appropriate for children. Here's a clip if you can stomach it. We are going to sing and dance it out. So get your singing voices ready. And we're going to start with our hips. The hips on the drag queen go swish swish swish swish swish swish swish swish the hips on the drag queen go swish swish all through the town the hair on the drag queen goes up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up the hair on the drag queen goes up up up up up up up up up the hair on the drag queen goes up up up up up all through the town.

The shoes on the drag me go stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp. Let me hear it. Stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp. The shoes on the dragon go, stomp, stump, stump, all through the town. So, there it is. I hope that guy felt as stupid doing that as he looked. Just a cross-dressing man singing about his hips to a group of elementary schoolers. And we haven't gotten to the best part yet.

That comes at the very end. Let's watch that. The dance of the dragling goes twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl. The dance of the dragon goes twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl. All through the town, big finish. Excellent. Give yourselves a round of applause. I think we might have some drag queens in training on our hands. So drag queens in training. He's again talking about three-year-olds. As I always like to emphasize, anytime this subject comes up. And unfortunately, the subject of drag shows for children comes up quite a bit. But as I like to emphasize, drag is burlesque for gay men. That's what it is.

So if your mind and soul are so numb at this point that you don't viscerly and immediately understand why this is outrageously inappropriate and grotesque, just imagine a scenario where a female burlesque performer from Las Vegas was brought in in full costume to talk to young children and encourage the four-year-old girls in attendance to become burlesque dancers. I bet we have some burlesque dancers in training here. Imagine that. Though I've been making this point, this comparison for a while, and I must admit that it may be losing its punch a little bit, as we may indeed be reaching a point where people, where a few people would object to a burlesque dancer recruiting four-year-old girls. It's hard to find a shared frame of reference when making moral arguments these days as we are surrounded by amoral lunatics and perverts, sadly. But in any case, the point remains that drag is an inherently sexual fetish.

thing. Often the drag queens have names that make that fact explicitly clear. Never mind, by the way, we're not even covering the fact of how degrading all of this is to women, which is one of the first things that comes to mind every time I see something like that. Drag is a gendered form of blackface. It is a gratuitous parody of womanhood, a caricature. It makes a cartoon of femininity. That's what it's designed to do. It appropriates and demeans and degrades. And I would say that no matter the ages of the spectators. But when you consider the ages here, the whole thing takes on an even more sinister light. Now, I can make this argument, and I have many times. But what I wish I could really do is toss the ball back into the other side of the court. I would like for

those who are okay with this or in favor of it, actively in favor of it, to explain why. Because they never really do, if you notice. Reading stories to children is great. I'm all for that. Singing songs to children is great. I'm not going to be the one to sing them, but that's good too. But why do you want a man in a female costume to do it? Of all the candidates to sit and read a story, why that? It's not like there's a shortage of people who can read stories to kids, and so we're forced to hire drag queens to do the job that Americans won't do. That's not the case. No, this is done for a reason. What is that reason? The most will ever be told is that. that we need the drag queens to promote tolerance and inclusivity.

But again, why do you need drag queens specifically for that purpose? Why are they the ones carrying the tolerance torch for children? Well, perhaps the word tolerance here is actually quite apt. The tolerance that the left is after is it is tolerance, but it's tolerance in the same way that we might talk about pain tolerance. or tolerance of alcohol. Another term might be conditioning or desensitization. The idea is to expose the kids to all forms of debauchery and weirdness early on

so that they're numb to it and less able to resist it, less interested in resisting it as they grow older. Now, just to amplify the point, consider for a moment the Cinderella remake, which is currently in the works by Sony Pictures. The new film will feature, of course, a, quote, diverse cast, including a, quote, genderless fairy godmother called Fab G, played by actor Billy Porter. Let's listen to Billy Porter, because this is kind of instructive.

Here he is in an interview a little while ago explaining his role and why he thinks that it's so profound. Let's listen. What hit me when I was on set last week, how profound it is that I am playing the fairy godmone. mother. They call it the FABG. Magic has no gender. Um, we are presenting this character as genderless. At least that, that's how I'm playing it. And it's really powerful. You know, this is a classic. This is a classic fairy tale, um, for a new generation. And I think that the new generation is really ready. You know, the kids, are ready. It's the grown-ups that are slowing stuff down. That is true. That quote.

Put that quote on a t-shirt. Put that quote everywhere. Yeah, like kids are okay with it. A couple questions immediately come to mind. Like, why is the dude wearing my grandmother's fake houseplants on his head? And why does he look like he's smelling a fart after every sentence that he utters? But anyway, oh, the quote at the end there, you hear that goes back to the anchors that They say, oh, yeah, put that quote on a t-shirt, put it everywhere. Well, what quote are they talking about? The kids are ready. To be clear, that's the quote that the two weirdos at the end are referring to.

That's the quote that got them all excited. The kids are ready. Or as the guy on the left paraphrased it, the kids are okay with it. He actually said that. I don't know about you, but to me, the kids are okay with it and the kids are ready sounds less like a rallying cry for the masses and more like the rationalizations of a predator. And that's not far off the mark, in fact. I mean, that's what it is? After all, what are these people think that the kids are ready for exactly? What do you mean they're ready? Ready for what?

According to the left, the kids are ready to adopt all of their most radical sexual dogmas. And they're ready, quote unquote, because adults have conditioned them for it quite intentionally. But in truth, of course, kids are not ready for any of this. They're not ready for drag queens. They're not ready for gay, gender-bending fairy godmothers. They're not ready to have the left's gender identity madness foist upon them. They're not, quote-unquote, ready because they're children. And they should be allowed to remain children, to remain innocent, to remain in a stable,

comprehensible, understandable reality where boys are boys and girls are girls. That's what they're ready for. That's what they need. But our degenerate culture has, as always, other ideas. Let's get now to our five headlines. You know, sometimes it can feel like we are surrounded out there in the culture and all of the institutions, especially all the corporations and companies, are against us. And many of them are. You know, that's the truth. But not all. And when we find

a company that's on our side. It's so important to support them. Companies like Charity Mobile, the ProLife Phone Company, 5% of your monthly plan price goes to the ProLife, Pro Family Charity, of your choice. And there are a lot of great perks to come with it as well because it's a wonderful service. New activations and eligible accounts, get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping. There's no contracts, there's no termination fees. There's no risk with a 30-day guarantee. So if you're thinking that you might want to change cell phone companies, then give Charity Mobile a try. And you're also going to love it. You're also going to love the fact they have live customer service based right here in the USA. Free usage alerts, free apps to monitor your credit,

and all the while you're helping to build a culture of life in America, supporting a pro-life phone company. You can turn everyday living into effortless giving for the charity of your choice, and it really becomes the ultimate win-win for you. So call Charity Mobile at 1877474-362 or chat with them online at Charitymobile.com, new lower monthly plan prices and a new plan with a higher data limit. Existing customers automatically get the new lower plan prices, no need to contact us and ask for them. So again, charitymobile.com. All right, and I should let you know, by the way, that you will be, unfortunately, deprived of my presence tomorrow. I'm not going to be here, taking one day off.

And I am going on a quick trip for a few days, and I'll be driving. It's 11 hours I'm driving rather than take a plane. That's how, I've always been someone, I'm going to air on the side of driving as much as I can get away with it to avoid a plane. But at this point, especially now, with all of the regulations they still have in place, you've got to wear a mask the whole time. They just made it absolutely miserable. It was already miserable flying. I already hated it. And over the last year, they've done everything they can to make it even more uncomfortable and degrading and dehumanizing. And it's, I will, yeah, I will drive 11 or 12 hours easily rather than get on a plane, even if that trip would have been an hour and a half. I'm quickly reaching a point, especially if they don't lay off this mask. asking stuff, which on planes, who knows if they ever will? But I'm quickly reaching a point where it's going to be like, if I, if I can't reach you by car, then I'm just never going to ever see you again because I'm not getting on a plane. All right, let's start here. House Republicans yesterday opposed a measure to form a commission to investigate the events of January 6th.

They want to have a January 6th commission to investigate because we haven't investigated. enough. There aren't enough investigations already. There are, as far as I can tell, like dozens of investigations into this, into, you know, people trespassing in Capitol Hill. Federal, local, D.C., all levels of government, various agencies, they're tracking these people down. Anyone they can find. Any little old grandmother who, you know, crossed the, cross the threshold. into the building for 15 seconds. They're sending SWAT teams to our house to put her in prison for 17 years.

But it's not enough. We need more, more investigations. As far as investigating the rioting that happened and terrorized our cities for months on end and in which dozens of people were killed and billions of dollars was a damage was inflicted, no, we don't need to investigate that.

So obviously this should be opposed. Republicans should oppose it. And not every Republican did. I think 30 plus were on board with the commission. It should be opposed for that reason because, again, of the double standard. But also because you absolutely know that this is going to become a political, which, it's already a political witch hunt. But a January 6th commission, that's all it's going to be. transparently, it's going to be a political witch on. So, Republicans opposed it, and that led to a lot of

stunned reactions by Democrats. They were taken aback, offended, stunned. How could you not be? We were under siege. We were attacked. Our lives were in jeopardy. You don't want to investigate this more? How dare you? That was generally the reaction, summarizing. But Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat, obviously, from, I think, Ohio. He, they were all competing to get on cable news and to have the most self-righteous kind of reaction. But I think Tim Ryan managed to take the cake. Let's watch his performance.

German is recognized for 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentleman from New York and the other Republicans who are supporting this and thank them for their bipartisanship. To the other 90% of our friends on the other side of the aisle, Holy cow. Incoherence. No idea what you're talking about.

Benghazi, you guys chased the former Secretary of State all over the country, spent millions of dollars. We have people scaling the Capitol, hitting the Capitol police with lead pipes across the head, and we can't get bipartisanship. What else has to happen in this country? Cops! This is a slap in the face to every rank-and-file cop in the United States. If we're going to take on China, if we're going to rebuild the country, if we're going to reverse climate change, we need two political parties in this country that are both living in reality and you ain't one of them.

I yield back to balance of my time. Well, who, then who, which political party is living in reality, Tim? Your political party is living in reality? Oh, yeah? One quick question. Can a man get pregnant? I wish someone had stood up and asked like, hey, Tim, you're living in reality over there. Can you get pregnant?

Curious. Just see what he says. Because they could have asked him that, hey, Tim, can you personally, as a man, are you able to get pregnant? He would not be able to say no. He wouldn't be able to say no to that. I don't know. Say something like, oh, no, I haven't tried. Possible.

And that's living in reality to him. I have no interest in defending Republicans. You know, they have no interest in defending themselves. So I'm not going to get up here all angrily defending my side. I don't even consider Republicans to be on my side. They're not on my side. So it's not, he could scream at Republicans all he wants. All he wants.

I don't care. But the idea, the notion that Democrats are living in reality. And the great irony that he says that right after. saying we need to reverse. If we want to reverse climate change, we need to live in reality. What? You know, Tim,

because what is going to prevent us from reversing climate change is that we live in reality. And in reality, you can't flip a switch and control the weather. You can't reverse the climate. You can't come up with a government policy

that's going to change the weather, you maniac. Oh, that's reality, too. Reality two is that there's a policy that a government can put in place to change the weather, to make hurricanes go away. My God. And it's delusion on top of delusion because right before that, he's pretending to care about cops. This is an insult to all of the rank and file police officers that I just decided to start caring about a couple of months ago, but only in this one instance. it is really hard to watch Democrats pretend to care about cops

you want to talk about not living in reality yeah they have found there is there is one there's just one okay and test test me on this because maybe find me an example of another one but as far as I can tell there is one dead cop there's only ever been one

that these scumbags have cared about. And that was Officer Bryant-Signac, and they cared about him because they thought his death was useful to them, and then they stopped caring when they discovered that, oh, actually, he died of natural causes and wasn't killed by the rioters at all.

So they, for the sliver of time when they thought that, either they thought that the riders killed Siknik or they thought they could get away with pretending the riders had killed him, that's when they cared. That's it. There's a brief moment of time when they cared about a dead cop because there are thousands of other dead cops that they've never said a word about and don't give a damn about. And meanwhile, Tim Ryan and all the rest of them, they're out there telling people that cops are trying to track them down and kill them.

this fantasy of racist cops hunting black men and murdering them in the street. You think maybe that's an insult to the rank and file? How do you think the rank of file feels about that? How do you think the rank and file police officers feel every time one of them is in a life or death struggle with an assailant with a with a criminal dirtbag and has to use lethal force because they've been given no choice? And they know that you are going to throw them directly. under the bus, accuse them of being a racist murderer, and do everything in your power to

destroy their lives and destroy their family's lives. How do you think the rank of file feel about that? I know how they feel because I hear from them all the time off the record, and sometimes on the record. These people, man, completely shameless. And it's, it's, the scary thing is that it's almost convincing. You watch that, and if you had no frame of reference at all, and you watch that little spiel from from tim ryan you would almost think that he that he really believes that they actually gives a damn about cops but he cares about reality that he's really he just wants justice and he's offended that other people aren't on board with it you might believe it if you didn't know any better he's not a bad actor but the fact that they're such

convincing liars is what is so scary. Not all of them are, but some of them are. All right, number two, Joe Rogan got in trouble this week for some offensive comments that he made on his podcast. And I'll play the clip. This is a clip. It went viral. People were upset about it. And it's kind of a where's Waldo type of thing. Can you spot the offensive moment in what he says here? It's not as easy as you might think. Let's listen. You can never be woke enough. That's the problem. It keeps going. It keeps going further and further and further. down the line and if you get to the point where you capitulate where you agree to all these demands it will eventually get to straight white men are not allowed to talk right because it's

your privilege to express yourself when other people of color have been silenced throughout history it will be you're not allowed to go outside because so many people were imprisoned for so many years i mean i'm not joking no i know i know it really will get there it's that crazy you know we just got to be nice to each other man and there's a lot of people that are taking advantage of this weirdness in our culture, and then that becomes their thing. Their thing is calling people out for their privilege, calling people out for their position.

You know, it's crazy times. It's so easy. It almost takes the fun out of it, in a way. It's so easy to be controversial. It's so easy to upset people, to be provocative. You don't even have to. have to try. I wish you did have to try. I'm accused of being a provocateur contrarian. I'm just trying to upset people. I wouldn't put it past me to do that, okay, because I do enjoy it when a bunch of

morons are upset. I do enjoy that. I do enjoy that spectacle. And when they're all screaming at me, I think it's hilarious. But no, I don't have to try to provoke it. I'm really, because I can simply express really common sense viewpoints that I, of course, totally believe and get that kind of reaction. So that's what you just heard there from Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan provocateur. What did he? Nothing about that was surprising or even arguable. Yeah, there's an anti-white male sentiment out there. Of course there is. It's impossible. It's impossible. to not notice it. It's everywhere. In fact, if I were to take issue with anything Joe Rogan said, it's the part where he said, we're getting to the point where if you're a white male,

you're not supposed to talk. In fact, in many corners of society, and according to a lot of people, we're already at that point. There are a lot of people that think that Joe Rogan should stop talking because he's a white male and is privileged and doesn't understand the lived experience of oppressed people or whatever nonsense. So we are already at that point for a lot of people who think that if you're a white male, you should just stop talking. All you have to do is listen to them and they'll tell you.

They've told me, I hear that all the time. That is one of the most common rebuttals to my completely common sense, non-surprising ideas and positions. One of the most common rebuttals is, well, you're a white male. which isn't a rebuttal at all, obviously, but it's simply to point out my sex and race

is supposed to be enough to shut down the argument. So yes, we are at that point. Another thing that's common sense and obvious is that we're at the point of an imminent alien invasion. Yes, we're back to the aliens again. Number three, this is from the Daily Wire. It says a forthcoming report on the Defense Department's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program

and its investigations into unidentified aerial phenomenon is expected to be, quote, difficult to explain, according to officials close to the matter, and it will contain information about UFO sightings all over the world, not just those reported by the American military. The report is expected shortly as the end of the 180-day countdown, which began when President Donald Trump signed a $2.3 million dollar coronavirus relief bill into law in December. He's nearing. CNN reported at the time that a stipulation that the director of national intelligence and the Secretary of Defense had six months to produce information about the threat identification program was tucked into the committee comment section

of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. So this is one of those things where you kind of sneak an unrelated item into a bill that has nothing to do with it because really probably the UFOs have nothing to do with coronavirus relief unless the aliens are coming and are going to help us out with that. Maybe they have a cure for all diseases possible. But it seems like it was. snuck in, even though it's unrelated. Normally I'm opposed to that, but if it involves UFOs, I will make an exception. Pentagon sources told the Daily Wire, the report will likely be released

June 1st. I am so excited for this. This to me, this is like probably how most people feel when there's a new Star Wars movie or Marvel movie coming out. I feel no excitement about that at all. But this to me, this to me is that. that's how excited I am for this. I know I'm getting my, and much like the Star Wars or Marvel movie, your hopes way too high and it's a disappointment, that's probably going to happen here as well. The only additional thing I'll say about the alien issue.

Okay, for all of those, I only want you to take this into consideration, for all of those who have confidently declared that there's no way this is space aliens, that can't be it. It's got to be this or that explanation. Now, I agree, as much as I hate to admit it. And I've said all along that the reason why I think the UFOs are from aliens, 85% of my reason is emotional. I want it to be true. And so I am being swayed by that. I fully admit that that's the case. But even so, if I would put the emotions to the side, I'd have to admit that, I'd have to admit that, on the list of possible explanations, probably space aliens, it's not at the top,

but it's on the list. Like it's in the top 10 at least of possible explanations, and that's exciting. But for those who have ruled it out, and there are a lot of people that I've talked to who seem to have, including people, I must say, here at the Daily Wire, who have ruled out that explanation. Like, it's not even possible.

That can't be it. well, how can you do that? Because in order to come up with some idea of the probability that these are aliens, you need to know about some of the background probabilities. So, for example, we would need to know, in order to assess the probability that the UFOs are from aliens, with any degree of accuracy, we would need to know whether there are other intelligence, beings in the universe, where they are, how many of them are out there, how many civilizations, and what technology they have. You would need all of that information in order to accurately

assess the probability that any particular unidentified object is from a space alien. But we don't know any of that. We have zero clue. We have no idea. So if there are intelligent civilizations all over the universe, including right next door, if our surrounding solar systems that are still 20 plus trillion miles away, but in a galactic terms are right next door, if our surrounding solar systems are full of intelligent life, which is possible, then that would make the alien explanation for the UFOs much more plausible. But if we're alone in our galaxy, certainly if we're alone in the universe, then that means it's impossible that those are aliens.

If we're alone in the galaxy, even, if there's just one intelligent civilization per galaxy, that would still make 100 billion intelligent civilizations. But that would make the possibility of the, you know, that would make the probability of the alien explanation much lower. But that's the point. We don't know any of that. We have no idea. Which means that, of course, I can't sit here and say, oh, they're definitely aliens. But I'm not saying that. Nobody is saying that.

Those of us who are open to it were only saying it, it could be. there's something going on here that's right now unexplainable. Somebody has technology that's hundreds of years beyond what we think is, what we currently think is possible. Like we know all of that. And it's just a matter of who. So the open-minded, and I'm not normally in the open-minded camp for most things, but in this case I am, the open-minded among us are saying it's possible if it's the alien explanation.

For those who are saying it's not possible, I guess what I'm asking is, you have this information about the universe. Why aren't you sharing it? You could have a Nobel Prize by now. You have determined somehow that we're alone in the universe? You've proven this? Well, give your findings to the Nobel Committee. What are you doing just sitting around with it?

Oh, you don't know. You have no clue at all. You have absolutely no idea what is out there in the universe. None. And yet you're confident that you could say, I mean, I look up with the sky. I don't see any aliens up there, so they can't be there. Come on.

It's absurd. Speaking of absurd, I've had this on the docket for a few days. I'm going to finally get to it. This is from barons.com. Pablo Picasso's Femm Assisi Pre de un fanatre. I know I nailed that pronunciation. Achieved $103 million at Christy's live stream 20th century auction in New York. New York Thursday night, marking the first time of painting has sold at auction for more than $100 million in nearly two years.

The price places Femm among Picasso's top ten works at auction, according to Giovanni Bertazzoni, Christi's vice chairman of 20th and 21st century art. It was the highlight in the evening of huge sales that realized a total price of $415 million. This is what the rich people are spending their money on, and I have to agree. Maybe I have to agree with the socialist on it. Maybe the socialists do have a point. The rich people are out of control because you look at this painting, sold for $100,000, $103 million. Don't mean to undersell it here. That, $100 million for that, my four-year-old has drawn almost something that looks exactly like that.

If I could do it, forget about my four-year-old. If I can draw it, it's not great art. There's not even the correct number of fingers on the lady. Look at that. She's only got four fingers. And then her other hand has no fingers. It's just like, what is she wearing? A mitten?

And she's got some massive growth on her head. Someone told me I was completely... Okay, that painting there's garbage. That's trash. That's not real art. That's bad. The rich people are out of control. Spent $100 million on that.

You might as well... You might as well do be like the Joker in Dark Night and put all the money in a big pile on the ground and burn it. You know, that would be performance art. More meaningful. than this trash painting. We all know, right? Everyone knows that Picasso,

these Picasso paintings are garbage. And we all know that, but some of you are pretending otherwise because you want to seem sophisticated. Someone told me, I was complaining about this on Twitter, and someone said that, well, you don't know anything about art. That's great cubism.

That's the cubism technique. I admit, I don't know what cubism is, but I assume that cubism is another word for making garbage paintings. I don't care with the technique. It may have, this may be a perfect, masterful application of that technique. So what? Anyone can invent a technique and then they're, and then come up with a painting that's a perfect representation of, so what does that mean? Who cares?

Here's a technique that I think I invented. I have a new tech. I haven't named it yet, but it's a very, artistic technique where I just, you know, drink some water and then spit it out on a canvas. I didn't quite invent that. There's, there are similar ideas, Jackson Pollock, but, uh, and I can make a painting and I say, you know, this is the, uh, the, the, the, the, the, you know, the regurgitation technique, I'll call it. I'll make a painting and say, this is a perfect example of the regurgitation technique. Now pay me $500 million for it. Uh, am I jealous? Yes. Am I jealous that, uh, um, I'm not, um, I'm

jealous that I didn't think to do this and make 100 million? Absolutely. I'm envious. All right. Let's move on now to reading the YouTube comments as I scroll ahead to see if I have any. I do. Major Tom Fisher says, in defense of they as a singular pronoun, I prefer using it over he, she, if I'm talking about someone whose gender I don't know over the internet. I also sometimes prefer to use it for transgender instead of lying to the person that they're really the gender claim to be, although using their name may be a more effective tactic here. Yeah, I think my strategy with pronouns, as I've said all along, is I'm going to use the grammatically, linguistically correct pronoun in any given situation if I know what it is. But that's why I stipulated

yesterday. The thing with they is normally it's for plural when you're talking about more than one person. But it can also be validly used when you don't, when you're talking about an unknown sort of an unknown quantity. You don't know who they are. You don't know their name. You don't know their sex. And you could use they in that case. So sure. And yeah, I do prefer that over he, she. I think he, she is ridiculous. But you could also use he. Now, this is falling out of fashion because it's considered patriarchal or something. But traditionally, in the English language, if you don't, if you're talking kind of generally about people or you're giving an example of a person, sort of a hypothetical person, you just go with he. You don't need to say he or she or even they.

But yeah, they is fine in that case. But if you know who the person is and you know whether they're male or female, then, no, I would not use they. It doesn't make any sense in that context. Joshua says, I think this transgenderism issue is crazy. But if a grown man wants to be called a woman, that doesn't affect my life. So I don't see why we should care. Conservatives is going to lose lose if we keep focusing on these pointless issues that people in the mainstream public don't really care about. Okay, Josh, what issues do you think? What issues do you think people care about? What should we focus on instead? I'd like, are you going to tell me taxes or something like that? Tax policy? Is that what moves the hearts of men? Tax policy? Yeah, it's all a distraction.

The reality is a defending reality and science and the English language. That's a distraction to you. And you'd rather move on from reality. Oh, cares about reality. What do we need reality for? What does reality ever done for me? You know, let's look at the tax rates. Can we get those down a few, a smidge or two?

That's the battle. That's what's going to get people motivated. Come on, Josh. How can you even come here? Josh, with that weak sauce, you're coming to me with that. Go somewhere else with that. Haven't you heard me shouting about that exact line of thinking a million times? You know what? I almost banned you from the show, but I'm not going to because I think you need to be more exposed to what we're doing here. Evan says if you're gay, you like people of the same sex.

If you're bisexual, you like people of both sexes. Even if you're transsexual, it's pretty well defined. queer, pansexual, and non-binary are ill-defined terms that you can slap on yourself without needing to actually explain what the hell they mean. And that's exactly right. That's the whole point of it. Let's see. Hi Matt. I'm against capital punishment and I'm also against putting murderers in protective custody. Let them out in the prison population. Whatever happens happens. Yeah, I can understand that argument. And when we were talking about yesterday, the horrific case of the 18-year-old guy who goes into a four-year-old's room, kidnaps him, brings him outside, and murders him,

and leaves him on a bloody puddle on the sidewalk dead. That's why I said something like that, I would hope. You know, you hear cases of someone being in the general population, the prison guards. Maybe they get distracted for a second. You know, the shoes untied. They've got to bend down and tie it. They're just not paying attention.

And when they're looking the other way, anything could happen. You hear cases like that. Maybe that case will happen here. It wouldn't upset me any. But as a policy, you can't do that. And the reason why you can't do it is it's just, it creates an unsafe, chaotic environment in the entire prison for the prison guards too. So, I mean, in reality, as much as it wouldn't bother me to just start feeding these people into the piranha tank, as it were, is going to create an unsafe environment across the board for everybody.

So you can't do that, which means that really you don't have much of a choice when you've got someone like this who's killed a child. You're the kind of criminal who commits a crime so heinous that even other murderers don't want to be around them. You got someone like that, for the sake of the safety of the prison and maintaining some kind of civilized order,

you have to segregate them and protect them, basically. And so now you're making this extra effort. It costs more money. And the idea that we have to do that for 60 plus years for a guy who goes in at 18, rather than just removing him permanently from society and from the earth, that to me doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's see. Finally, last comment says, all Daily Wire backstage shows should be done in a hot tub,

and the water from that show should be bottled and sold after. You disgusting freak. You want to buy our used bathwater. Revolting. Gross. You're banned from the show. Anyway, how much would you pay for it? Let's talk. You know, it seemed like everything was normal,

and then one day you look around, and everyone is sucking on these weird pens with steam coming out. And that's what the kids call vaping these days. We know that vaping has completely overwhelmed, the country, and it's one of the most popular things right now. That's why Wondry's new podcast miniseries is really interesting. It's called The Vaping Fix.

It's a story of Silicon Valley idealism, blind ambition, and how the now infamous e-cigarette company, Jewel, hooked a new generation on vaping. In 2015, the founders of Jules set out to create the iPod of e-cigarettes, a perfectly designed device that would disrupt the tobacco industry and help traditional smokers quit, but their fruit-flavored vaping options, high levels of nicotine, and youthful influencer endorsements

led to consequences that would put millions. at risk as plumes of vape clouds surround schools across the nation, parents, politicians, and the government demand answers. Was this Jewel's plan all along, or did ambition blind them from seeing the pitfalls of their invention? Hosted by Laura Beal and from the team behind Dr. Death and Bad Batch comes The Vaping Fix. Listen to the Vaping Fix on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, or you can also listen early and ad-free by starting your free trial of Wondery Plus in the Wondry app. They say sticks and stones may break my bones and all that. We know that words aren't hurtful, but the erasure of them is. I know this I talk about all the time,

and Michael Knowles does too. Enough to write a whole book about it called Speechless, controlling words, controlling minds. In it, he breaks down the history of political correctness and what the future will resemble if it's not stopped. So just head to speechlessbook.com to pre-order your copy today, or if you want an extra personal touch, text Speechless to 5345 to pre-order a signed copy. Don't wait, pre-order your copy today and understand the PC police better than they even understand themselves. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today, the focus of our daily cancellation

is a guy named Kyle Kalinsky, who's a YouTuber. He has more subscribers than me on YouTube, but then I have more followers than him on Twitter, so the question of which of us is a better person remains therefore undecided. I guess we'll have to compare Facebook friends. Anyway, Kyle dedicated a segment of his show recently to addressing me

and an argument that I've made about masking. The title of the video with this segment is conservative weirdo, really, really mad at maskwear I don't deny that I'm probably a weirdo, but not because of my masking stance. That is, without question, the least weird thing about me. Kyle is specifically upset with me over a recent tweet of mine on this issue. I believe I've already addressed this tweet on the show, but here it is for your reference. Again, I wrote, wearing a mask when it is not medically necessary is grotesque and unhuman,

an attack on society itself. It feeds paranoia and fear. You're treating air like it's toxic and other humans like they're nothing but vessels of disease. It is disgraceful, arrogant, and offensive. Before we get to Kyle's rebuttal, let's just once again consider the point that I'm making. I stipulate that I am referring to medically unnecessary masks. I realize there are, for example,

people with serious illnesses or compromised immune systems who might wear a mask and would have worn one before all of this. There are other scenarios too. Like, let's say you have severe allergies and you're out cutting the grass. I've always seen some people wearing masks because of that, no problem. I'm not talking about any of those categories or similar categories. What we're talking about is the medically unnecessary masking. So as for that, let's take it line by line here. I call unnecessary masking grotesque and unhuman. That's correct. The only problem here

perhaps is the redundancy. It's grotesque because it is unhuman. Humans acting in unhuman ways are always grotesque. And I would say it's unhuman. It's indeed an attack on. in a rejection of human society, when you walk around as if each person who even passes by you on the sidewalk might infect you with a disease and kill you. To treat your fellow humans as disease carrying rodents who are very likely to make you sick, even just by being in your general vicinity for a few moments, is to my mind severely dysfunctional behavior. It is not mere caution. Okay, a man who washes his hands periodically throughout the day and after using the bathroom, before making food, et cetera, is cautious and practicing good hygiene.

We should all be cautious like that. But a man who scrubs at his hands for 45 minutes at a time until they're bleeding is not cautious. He's sick. He's deeply disturbed. And the masking that I'm referring to is worse in some ways than that because the masker is projecting his pathologies outward, broadcasting them, wearing them on his face, literally.

I also say that it feeds paranoia and fear. I think that's pretty self-evident. It's the height of paranoia for a physically healthy person who's not at any significant risk of COVID, either because of vaccination or prior infection or whatever other reason, to walk around as though they might get infected if they allow themselves to breathe fresh air for a few moments. Paranoid? Yeah, absolutely. That's paranoid. And yes, it feeds paranoia in others. Again, it projects it outwards, encourages it, spreads it. Spreads it much like the disease that it's ostensibly supposed to be protecting from. As for disgraceful, arrogant, and offensive, well, yes, I would call it arrogant.

To treat your fellow humans like they're nothing but a threat to you. Like they're sick, diseased, toxic, plague-carrying rats. I would call that arrogant, absolutely. Offensive? I mean, what does offensive mean? An act is offensive if it's insulting, rude, disrespectful, and derogatory. I do believe that the word offensive is way overused. I often complain about its overuse, but I never said, I never said that nothing is offensive. Obviously, some things actually are offensive. The word means something, and that meaning applies

sometimes. Just because I object to its overuse doesn't mean that I object to its use, period. And in this case, yes, I would say it is offensive to treat other people that way and to treat society that way. Okay, so I have now reiterated my points and explain them. I've argued my case. I wanted to do that ahead of time before we got to Kyle's rebuttal of the conservative weirdo, i.e. yours truly. So I wanted to just as for, you know, to set the stage, that's all of that. Explaining it. Now let's listen to Kyle. Now the conservative, now that the government agencies decided, if you're vaccinated, you don't really need to wear it inside, conservatives are aggressively coming out to, I guess, do their version of an end zone dance.

So there's this guy Matt Walsh, who's a conservative commentator, and here's what he says. Wearing a mask when it is not medically necessary is grotesque and unhuman. An attack on society itself. It feeds paranoia and fear. You are treating air like it is toxic and other humans like they are nothing but vessels of disease. It is disgraceful, arrogant, and offensive. So now you have the anti-mask brigade is becoming militant in their anti-maskness.

That's what we're currently watching. Look at the language he's using. So the government admits like, okay, vaccinated people don't need to wear it inside. And this is what this guy's reaction is. Wearing a mask when it's not medically necessary is grotesque, inhuman, an attack on society itself, it feeds paranoia and fear, and you're treating air like it's toxic and other humans like they're nothing but vessels of disease. It is disgraceful, arrogant, and offensive. Offensive. These are the guys who call other people snowflakes 24-7. These are the guys who go after the libs for being triggered. These are the guys who make fun of safe spaces. It sounds like this guy needs a safe space for masks. So listen It's easy to dunk on this guy and

Have fun with it It's easy to dunk Then why haven't you? Get around to it Kyle You can start dunking anytime If it's so easy At least pull off a couple of windmills Just to show us what you got

I mean you're saying it's so easy to dunk On this absurd position from a weirdo And yet all you've done so far is repeat my argument In an incredulous voice That doesn't count as an argument raising your eyebrows and restating what I said in a mocking tone is not a rebuttal. A parrot could literally do that. A bird could do that. Just without the eyebrows, I suppose. Let's see if Kyle gets around to actually making an argument of some kind at some point. So let's continue.

You shouldn't be offended. If somebody's outside and they're not wearing a mask, that's fine. They don't need to wear a mask. Everybody relax. If somebody's outside and they are wearing a mask. They're being overly cautious, but that's totally fine. That's totally fine. If somebody's indoors and they're not wearing a mask and they're vaccinated, that's fine. If somebody's indoors and they're wearing a mask and they're unvaccinated or vaccinated, I think that's fine. I think it's fine. I don't know why this became the ultimate like culture war issue, but I just want to be clear that everybody participating in it looks colossally stupid. And honestly, looking back at a tweet like this in retrospect from the future,

and this guy being considered an intellectual on the right, kind of embarrassing for the right. I mean, this guy, saying stuff like this, it's like they're proudly wearing their anti-intellectualism, you know, and it's just sad. I just sort of feel bad for this guy who's 100% caught in the culture war and stuck and he's like brainwashed by it to the point where he says deranged stuff like this well thank you for your pity kyle i don't need it though not for this anyway a month from now i'll be going on a vacation with four kids driving 16 hours and i'll need your pity for that so please store it up for that sort of emergency as for the tweet you're responding to i feel great

about it in fact we are in the future right now and i'm looking back on that and i couldn't be happier that I said it, especially because nothing you have said in response to it qualifies in any way as an argument. You seem very sure that my argument is incomprehensibly stupid, and yet you're unable to actually explain why. Your entire rebuttal is, yeah, but I think it's fine. I think it's fine. It's fine. I'm glad you do. But you say that I'm anti-intellectual. And I never claim to be an intellectual in the first place. I care less, but label you put there. But to show off your own intellectual prowess, you have eviscerated my position with eloquent rhetorical flourishes like, he's a weirdo, this is stupid, and my favorite, I mean this

guy, saying stuff like this? That was my favorite counterpoint that you raised. I mean this guy, come on, saying this stuff, forget about it. Very profound points, Kyle. I don't mean to pick on you, but this is a serious problem these days. And you just provide us with a handy example of the problem. people seem to think that scoffing counts as an argument. They think that if they encounter an idea that they consider extreme, all they have to do is smirk and laugh and say, that's extreme. And that'll be sufficient to debunk the idea.

It's not. And it's especially not in my case because I'm not embarrassed to be labeled extreme. I don't care. Extreme just means I've taken a position that's outside of mainstream thought. And considering that mainstream thought is so often shallow, superficial, half-baked and misguided, I'm quite pleased whenever I find myself outside of it. And the mainstream thought on masking right now is that although masks have existed for hundreds of years

and almost everyone went about their lives without them and showed their faces and breathed the air and interacted with other neighbors with other people and their neighbors like normal humans, now all of a sudden there ought to be a tectonic shift where it's considered normal or even advisable to cover your mouth and nose whenever you leave the house, as if the very air itself is radioactive. My point is that my extreme view is actually just the mainstream view of 15 months ago and every point before that. The only difference is that I am not floating with the tide of mainstream opinion. I'm not going to radically recalibrate my view of the world and of society every time our culture tells me that I should. If that's your approach, so be it. But it's not mine.

And so for that reason today, unfortunately, I have to say that our friend Kyle is canceled. And we'll leave it there for today and for the week. I'll see you back here on Monday. Have a great day, great weekend. 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 Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other daily web. our podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's 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 Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair 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. Democrats change their tune on property destruction and mostly peaceful protests. Demi Lovato identifies as multiple people now, and a listener writes in to offer her personal account of the dark side of transgender ideology. Check it out on the Michael Null's show.