The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 913 - Public Schools Are LGBT Indoctrination Camps

Episode Date: March 22, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an elementary school holds a gay pride march right through the hallways of the school. Plus, the confirmation hearings for Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson have begun, and Democrats have already made it clear that any tough questioning of the judge will automatically be racist and bigoted. Also, the Daily Wire is now selling men’s grooming products. Like so much of what we do here, it’s a joke but also not a joke at all. And the mayor of Boston commemorates St Patrick’s Day by making racist jokes about white people. And the media tells us about a rise in ADHD among not only children but adults as well. Are so many of us suffering from a mysterious mental illness, or could there be a more logical explanation for our inability to focus?  I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Join Third Thursday Book Club now to be a part of tonight’s Q&A: thirdthursdaybookclub.com We’re exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL   Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E 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 in elementary school holds a gay pride march right through the hallways of the school. Plus, the confirmation hearings for Judge Cantanja Brown Jackson have begun, and Democrats have already made it clear that any tough questioning of the judge will automatically be racist and bigoted. Also, look, they would never treat a judge as harshly as Republicans are treating Contagia Brown Jackson. Also, the Daily Wire is now selling men's grooming products. Like so much of what we do here, it's a joke, but also not a joke at all. And I'll explain. And the mayor of Boston commemorates St. Patrick's Day by May.

making racist jokes about white people. Also, the media tells us about a rise in ADHD among not only children, but adults as well, are so many of us suffering from a mysterious mental illness, or could there be a more logical explanation for our inability to focus in modern society? We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Did you know that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you're helping these left-leaning companies donate to pro-choice causes and candidates? Common question I get from my listeners is,

What can I do to help turn the tides and the culture wars? This is what we talk about all the time on this show. Here's a great first step. Defund the abortionists. Don't let them take your money and use it to further policies that you don't believe in. Switch to Charity Mobile today and they will send 5% of your monthly plan price to any pro-life charity of your choice. Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones with no device or service contracts, plus great nationwide coverage. This sounds like a hassle, I assure you it isn't.

Charity Mobile makes switching your phone from your phone carrier very painless. their live customer service is exceptional. They will guide you through the process. And you can keep your number and your phone in most cases. Or if you want, you can take advantage of my special offer and get a free cell phone with free activation. If you want to take advantage of all this, all you have to do is call 1877474-362

or chat with them online at charitymobile.com. Mention offer code Walsh to redeem the free cell phone offer. That's charitymobile.com. Mention offer code Walsh. Join the fight for life and the fight for children by switching to CharityMobile today. You know, it's a scene that somehow isn't shocking or even mildly surprising anymore, like so many other things in our culture today,

what would have been totally unimaginable just a few years ago is now totally commonplace. Latest example is footage, which went viral yesterday, of elementary-aged students in a forced gay pride march through the hallways of a school. Now, I say this was a forced march because it's an activity the school came up with. I'm not sure whether the kids were allowed to decline participation or not, but even if they were, when you're a small child in the kind of school that whole, gay pride marches in the hallway. Even if you're allowed to not participate, you aren't really allowed to not participate. So here's the video, which was proudly posted by an administrator and then

quickly removed, not as proudly, but let's watch this. All right, so you see all the kids cycling through there. And these are all, these are very young kids as well that we see walking down the hallway. Some of them seem enthusiastic, others not so much, but they're all in the march, in the gay pride march, in the hallways of a school. in elementary school. And this happened, by the way, not in like Oregon or California or Vermont or one of those crazy left estates, but actually Texas. Doss Elementary School in Texas, in fact, is holding a whole week of gay celebration. It's their pride week this week, they call it, and it includes many activities besides the creepy parade you just saw there. Part of the festivities

are things that the school calls community circles in which the children will participate in conversations that, as the instructions make clear, must remain confidential. Students are told explicitly that, quote, what we say in this room stays in this room, and quote, remember to keep what happened in the circle confidential. And to make it even creepier, they, you know, capital T, capital C for the circle. It's the circle. Now, if the phrase, remember to keep what happened in the circle confidential sounds like something you'd be told at a cult meeting, and if what we say in this room stays in this room, sounds like something that a threat, sounds like maybe like a threat from a pedophile abuser, then you're starting to understand what our public school system is and what

it's all about. The Washington Examiner did reach out to DOS Elementary to ask about these secret circles, and this is what they were told. Quote, a spokesperson for the Austin Independent School District told the Washington Examiner, the school, the circles were confidential in the sense that makes students feel trusted and respected for their privacy when sharing in the conversations and that it should not be misconstrued to mean don't tell your parents. Circles are part of social emotional learning and are used for a variety of speaking topics, such as test anxiety, world events, internal conflict resolution, social justice, the spokesperson said, and the conversation template allows for a process and gives everyone an option,

an optional opportunity to speak. Everyone, not just parents, has access to the materials ahead of time. Every parent has the right to opt out of these activities. Oh, they give you the old opt out. Like once again, that's that's like opting out of the gay pride march when you're, you know, a seven-year-old at one of these schools. Yeah, you could, you could technically opt out, but there's a lot of social ostracization that comes with that. And also they're making it clear implicitly and probably explicitly that if you're not participating in all this kind of stuff, then you're a bigot. So now this would, what you just heard there, would already be a dubious excuse, even if you were predisposed to trust what schools tell you.

But if you've been paying attention at all, you do not trust the schools at all. And so the assurances they give about their secret gay pride circle meetings will mean nothing to you at all. And it should mean anything to you because the schools are, just as they appear and so often act, abusive cult indoctrination centers. They are what you might call alternative reality generators. Now, I've said before that the news media are, I would dub them reality curators. So they take little bits of what's happening in the world. They cut out the parts they don't want you to see. And oftentimes they will ban you from talking about those things that don't want you to see,

like what happened with the New York Post and Hunter Biden's laptop. And then all the parts they want you to see, they assemble them into the picture that they want to present to you. They operate according to a kind of ideologically driven algorithm. And when you're listening to the news media, that's really what you're getting, that you're getting an algorithm. The actual algorithms on social media are also ideologically driven, of course, in order to skew your perception of the world and reality itself. The schools, though, because they get the kids at such a young age and have them for so long, with hours every day of uninterrupted indoctrination opportunities, they go even deeper. They create an entire alternate reality. And after years of that, you end up with the sorts of college kids that I encounter, many of us have seen, protesting and so on, who seem like they're from some sort of,

other dimension, really. They seem like beings from another dimension. They live in a world that is almost no connection to the real world. That's why the left gets away with propaganda campaigns that are so blatantly false as to at first seem almost farcical. For example, yesterday Kim Manjone, who's a failed politician in California, tweeted a picture of a billboard with the word gay on it. That's all it says. It just says gay. And she captioned the tweet, how many of these billboards? do you want me to put up in Florida?

And it's just as gay. It's all says. This is obviously supposed to be in protest of the so-called don't-say gay bill. Now, my suggestion is that she put up one billboard for every time the word gay appears in the legislation itself, which of course means she's not going to be putting up any billboards at all. Because the word is not in the legislation. But the fact that the word doesn't appear in the legislation itself

and that the don't say gay bill is a total fabrication of the left. doesn't matter. Their strategy is very simple. They don't like the Florida parental rights bill, but they can't argue against it without sounding like a bunch of perverted freaks. So instead, they completely invent a different bill out of thin air and argue against that instead. They get away with it. You know, more than get away with it. In fact, they often win with this exact strategy because they run all the institutions and because they keep society supplied with a never- ending stream of people whose minds and souls exist in a fictional universe, a universe the left creates. Now, the good news, I guess, in a way, is that the people in charge of this

indoctrination are very stupid. As the left increasingly prioritizes ideological conformity over anything else, also the quality of what they produce has gone down and the quality of the people who are in charge of the indoctrination has gone down. This is why most Hollywood movies these days are so terrible. Hollywood, of course, has been liberal for a long time, but it used to, you know, it used to hire the most talented people to tell compelling stories, and the stories would often happen to have a liberal bent because that was the worldview of the people telling the stories.

Now they don't hire the most talented people. Their first, second, and third priority is to fill their diversity quotas and make films and shows that advertise their leftist purity. This means that what they make is more intensely ideological than it's ever been, but also that the quality is worse than it's ever been. The bright side of that is that the indoctrination is less effective, the more that the indoctrination is the primary goal. Christian movies on the other end of the spectrum have long had this exact same problem.

Now, their message is actually good, so that's the key difference, and it's an important difference. But all the films in the Christian movie industry care about is the message. They don't care about telling good stories or telling them well or having a good script, good acting. It's like they consider all of that to be secondary. And so they are far less effective at getting their message across because the movies are bad. Now, we see something like this in the school, too, where many of the people teaching our kids are indoctrinators and groomers, of course, and also extremely stupid. Case in point, two middle school counselors in Oregon were mad this week

that they couldn't fly their gay pride and BLM flags in school. So they recorded this tick talk video in their counseling office in protest. Watch. Okay, now you have to appreciate these two ladies flipping off the camera in front of a flag that says be kind to all. You also have to appreciate the caption on the video which miss spells the word aloud. And somehow that manages to be, you know, the most outrageous aspect of that video there. These are very dumb people with no discernible skills or abilities and double digit IQs at best. In many such cases, in the school system. But they don't need to be effective indoctrinators, really. Because unlike Hollywood and media and all the other institutions, who are less effective in indoctrination when their quality goes down,

in this case, the school system, they have your kids for so many years and so many hours in a day that it becomes a sort of war of attrition with your child's soul, with your child's mind. they just keep pushing until they wear their victims down and have them firmly in their clutches. But there is a kind of easy solution, if not easy, than at least simple, which is get your kids out of the system and keep them out. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, with the ever-increasing numbers of car makes and models, it's now impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront. You have, but you don't need to. This is the good news because you have computers.

at home with access to rock auto.com. You probably carry one around in your pocket all the time. All you got to do is pull it out. Go to rock auto.com. Why should you choose to spend 30%, 50%, 100% more for the exact same auto parts at a chain store or new car dealership? No example. No reason to do that. For example, a Delphi FG-1456 fuel pump assembly for a 2005-2010 Honda Odyssey is normally $353 at advance, which is a big chain store, but it's 216. at rock auto.com and I know exactly what I just read. They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet. Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, you can get everything you need and a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.

The rock auto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate. See all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer. Best of all, prices at rock auto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do it yourself. So go to Rock Auto.com right now. See all the parts available for your car truck. Right Walsh in there. How did you hear about us, box? So they know that we sent you. All right. I have to talk about this at the top. I, you know, I'm really a kind of a loss here. I feel betrayed, heartbroken, confused. Yesterday I'm at work in my office. You know, and I'm, and I'm at work. I'm at work. I'm doing important work. You know, trying to figure out what I'm going to talk about on my

podcast. Very important work. And I get a text for my wife and it says, this is, this is a what it says. This is my wife. She says, left my shopping cart in the parking lot. Just like that. There's no other, nothing, just that. She decided to send that to me. And I text her back and I said, why, what possible excuse could you have? You know how important this issue is to me. And her response, L.O.L. This is actually a form of just like psychological terrorism committed by my wife against me, callously for no reason other than her own amusement, I guess. And when I talked to her about it later, you know, more extensively, because it's like, this is the kind of thing, okay, we're going to talk about this when I get home. We're having a conversation about this.

And then she actually tried to hit me with the, let me, she didn't try to physically hit me. She tried to hit me with the excuse that she, you know, she had our daughter, our two-year-old with her, Emma, and, you know, the two-year-old was having a meltdown. And so she wasn't. doesn't. Don't get. This is me you're talking to. You don't think I've heard that excuse before? The child's crying and so you can't walk 20 feet and put the card away. This is what I have to deal with every day. All right, let's, we'll go here. The first day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Kintanji Brown Jackson started yesterday. And right out of the gate yesterday, Democrats, of course, laid down the racism gauntlet, as you would expect them to do,

and made it very clear that any difficult questioning that may follow by Republicans is racist. And keep something in mind about Democrats, of course. Now, they said that Justice Kavanaugh was the ringleader. of a gang of serial rapists. They said that Amy Coney Barrett was the, you know, a member of a handmade's tale secret cult, otherwise known as just, she was just Catholic, she's in the Catholic Church. So, but, but, but they, they really feel strongly that you should treat, um, Supreme Court nominees with respect and dignity.

They want to be very clear about that. So Corey, Corey Booker came out of the gate with this and, um, made sure to highlight just how he took a sort of a more passively passive aggressive approach, rather than explicitly saying if you criticize her, you're racist, which I'm sure he will say and probably has already said. But here he decided to, you know, just highlight how historic and wonderful all of this is. And how could anyone do anything but squeal with delight at the very thought of Cantanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court? Let's listen. When you were in office. You were focused on the hearings and a lot of the substance that had such great questions.

I could not stop being just joyous that you were sitting in my office and I couldn't stop bringing up to you the historical nature of this. Forgive me, I grew up in a small black church where I was taught to make a joyous noise unto the Lord. And this is not a normal day for America. We have never had this moment before. And I just want to talk about the joy. Well, Corey Booker makes joyous noises. I don't know. really want to know what Booker's joyous noises sound like. That's something he should keep himself in his private life. But, you know, the point is very clear, not very subtle at all, that this is a, what a wonderful historic moment. Yeah, I mean, we've had black Supreme Court

justices before, but they don't really count, especially, I mean, Claris Thomas, he doesn't count, obviously. So this is, what can, all we should be doing is, according to Cory Brooker, We should all just be singing songs of praise. That's what the Supreme Court confirmation hearing should consist of. Is everybody locking arms together, holding hands, and singing joyously to the Lord before Cantanji Brown Jackson. Now, Maisie Hirono was a little bit more direct with the racism blackmail. Let's listen to what she had to say. So my Republican colleagues and public figures have attempted to undermine your quality.

through their pejorative use of the term affirmative affirmative action. And they have implied you were... No, it's not Republicans. It's not Republicans who said that Contagia Brown Jackson was selected, at least in part, because of her skin color and her gender. Republicans didn't say that.

That was Joe Biden who said that. That was Joe Biden who announced that to begin with that he is already ahead of time before he ever said Katajie Brown Jackson's name. I mean, like a year before, or more than a year before, he ever even said her name. He said, I've whittled it all down. I'm excluding everybody who is not a black woman. They're the only ones I'm going to consider.

And then there's the other part of that, which he didn't say, which is that I'm only considering leftist black women. So it's a whittled down much more limited pool of people. And all we really know is that Kananji Brown Jackson, was allegedly the most qualified one in that group. Was she the most qualified one among all potential candidates? Well, we have no idea because Joe Biden, according to himself, did not consider any of the other ones.

So just to clarify that, but let's keep listening to Maisie Hirono for some reason. They are solely nominated due to your race and not for other factors. Apparently, some have even claimed that you need to show your LSAT scores to determine whether you are a top legal mind. This is incredibly offensive and condescending. Then me be clear. Your nomination is not about filling a quota. It is about time.

It's about time that we have a highly qualified, highly accomplished black women on the Supreme Court. It's about time our highest court better reflects the country it serves. It's about time that black women, and girls across the country can finally see themselves who look like them sitting on the highest court, making decisions that will impact their lives. So, Maisie Rona, of course, has set it up, along with all the other Democrats, and it was all very similar to that. All right. I also can't think of an excuse for this as we move up to Boston,

where Mayor Michelle Wu, she, I remember her, she was last seen sort of awkwardly sitting there silently while she got insulted relentlessly on Instagram live, which was a great, a great video. This one not as good. She gave a speech at the annual Boston St. Patrick's Day breakfast where she said this. Listen. Over 100 days, we have connected unhoused residents at Mass and cast to housing, treatment and services. We've launched three free bus lines. We've taken some big, bold actions, but I won't lie. This past winter was pretty intense. Trial by snow, trial by fire, fighters union. I'm getting used to dealing with problems that are expensive, disruptive, and white. I'm talking about snowflakes. Snowflakes. I mean snowstorm snowflakes. Oh, hilarious. She's dealing

with problems that are expensive, disruptive, and white, which is a joke she decided to tell, by the way, at a St. Patrick's Day event. And the excuse that's being given on her behalf is that apparently at this event, the tradition is that the mayor gets up there and gives a funny speech and tells a bunch of jokes. Okay, fine. So she's telling a joke. Now, now all of a sudden people on the left are say, hey, calm down. It's just a joke.

Now, when an actual stand-up comedian at a stand-up special tells jokes, That's Armageddon, that's the apocalypse. That's a human rights abuse. We got to have marches in the street and boycotts. Dave Chappelle's an actual stand-up comedian. It's his job to tell jokes. And he does a stand-up special where he tells jokes, and that's a problem.

You can't do that. Yeah, we're going to make excuses for a politician on St. Patrick's Day who decides to make a joke that all of her problems are expensive, disruptive, and white. Now, I don't need to point this out, but I will, because that's pretty much the entire show is me pointing out things I shouldn't need to point out. If this was a mayor of a city who was commemorating Black History Month by making a hilarious joke about how most of his problems are expensive, disruptive, and black, you know, I don't think the people that are having such good humor about it would feel that way. about there would be riots in the streets. It would be considered a historic catastrophe. They would build, I mean, they would literally commemorate the day that it happened.

If that happened today, March 22nd, that a mayor got up there and said, you know, all my problems are disruptive, expensive, disruptive, and black. I'm not talking about black people. I'm talking about the pavement. There's a lot of potholes. Don't you get it? If that were to happen, And March 22nd, March 22nd would be a day. We would have anniversaries of it. Next March 22nd, they would talk about where they were when they heard that joke and what terrible damage it did to them, the trauma that they've suffered. I mean, we would never hear the end of it.

They would build monuments to commemorate the tragedy where people could go and weep over the joke that was told. And yet what we are supposed to get accustomed to, and many of us are accustomed to, is just that, you know, it's different. Mayor Wu is a non-white person, and she's making jokes about white people. And so it's just different. She's allowed to do that. That's what we're supposed to accept that.

I don't. I think we should not accept it. Now, as I've said before, we don't want to call this a double standard, really, because it's actually not. There is, in fact, one standard. the standard is from the left like we can do things that you can't do non-white people can do things that white people cannot do that's that's the standard but it's a twisted perverse standard

and we should never tire of criticizing of it and yes we should react with anger to stuff like this we should be outraged about it yeah only other option is just to move on from it and say, okay, fine, you can do that. Like, I know you're doing something that a white person could never get away with, but all right, you can just do it. Why should we go along with that? That's what works. It's like as, as white people, you're just supposed to sort of accept that. Okay, well, you can come and spit in my face. All right. I don't like it, but, uh, all right. Why should we accept that? No, I'm not going to have you spit in my face, especially, it's like St. Patrick's Day.

to make it all the worse. So this is your way, rather than talking about how you appreciate Irish culture, you're going to tell us that your problems are all white? You disgusting, drooling, ugly, bigot. You racist scumbag. That should be the response to this person. It is because that's exactly what it would be in the reverse, but a lot, a lot more harsh, we all know.

I mean, they would, I mean, the person would be, the mayor would be kicked out of office. probably arrested for a hate crime, and I'm not exaggerating. But you can't even, you can't conceive, you can't even conceive actually fully of what the reaction would be, because it is literally inconceivable that a politician would ever make a joke like that about any race of people other than white. And is that a reality that we want to accept? That there is one race of people, that the most powerful people in our society, politicians

who are running cities and running the country, are allowed to joke. about and insult. Do we really want to accept that? Because that doesn't go anywhere good. When there's one group of people that we determined by race who you're allowed to disrespect, but nobody else. Now, you want to open up the floodgates and say that, yeah, jokes are jokes. You can make jokes about any race you want. And, hey, you know, that's fine. If that's the rule, I'm totally on board for that. But I'm not on board for the rule that you're allowed to do this to white people, but nobody else. Not on board for that. All right. What else have we got? From the post-millennial, it says it's been reported that staff from an unnamed UK hospital told local police last year that a sexual assault they were investigating could not have happened because patients are placed on single-sex wards per the guidelines of the National Health Service. The alleged attacker was a biological male who self-identifies as a woman, was therefore counted to be of the same sex as the woman whom the biological males alleged to have raped.

Quote, they forgot that there was CCTV nurses and observers, noted Baroness Nicholson during a parliamentary debate in the House of Lords on the issue of the same-sex wards, which are the standard in the area. Staff told police a year ago that there were no males present on the ward at the time of the attack, and as the result, the rape could not have occurred. But it turns out that there was a male. So the alleged rape of a woman by a male. and it was covered up. And the police were told, oh, there's no males here. There's no men. Couldn't it happened.

Now, what you should know is, okay, this is happening in same-sex wards at hospitals in the UK. And I'm sure this is not the first such occurrence. It's also happening. I mean, this is very common in women's prisons. Very common. Quite sure of that. We hear, you hear stories. Okay.

We have heard of some specific cases of it happening. But this is mostly a silent epidemic because at least, you know, in a hospital, you're not there against your will most of the time. And so women who fall victim are fortunately going to be able to speak out, you know, and are going to be able to call attention to what happened to them. And other people at the hospital, which is exactly what happened here. Now, in a women's prison, though, the women are there. They can't leave. And so they have no real way of getting the word out about what happened to them. And they're in an environment where they could face severe consequences for speaking out if the people running the prison don't want them to.

So this is a mostly silent epidemic in women's prisons. and the reason why the reason I know the reason I can guarantee that this is happening a lot in women's prisons is because one because of the of the cases that we've heard and the thing is you know anytime you hear cases of something like this if there's a if there's a problem of sexual abuse inside an institution and you hear some of the cases you already know but you're not going to hear about every case and so however many you heard about you can multiply that by five at least but then in a prison, I don't know, multiply it by 10 by 20, given how difficult it is for the victims to reveal what's happening to them?

And the other way that I know that it's happening is that it's, is that I know it's a fact that in many states in this country, they are putting male violent male offenders, including sex offenders, in cells with women. And it is just a guarantee. that you're going to have a mass epidemic of women getting raped if you do that. It's a guarantee. It's not a maybe.

It's a guarantee. So this is whether or not the lid is ever really blown off and we find out the full extent of the epidemic, I don't know. But it is happening. Also, this on the transition, I just want to play a little bit of this, probably not the whole thing. But a rapper named, who is this, Lil Boozy? who I'm sure is a great musician, but he was being interviewed on a show, and he was asked about the issue of men playing women's sports.

And let's listen to what a little bit of what this guy had to say. I personally don't think that it's fair for a trans... For a male trans athlete to compete in women's sports, because men are just born... Yeah. Let them women have their glory, man. Yeah. We let that shit go down in five, ten years.

They're going to have kids raising their children to be big strong, motherfuck, then turn into women and take over the sport and get a million-dollar contracts. Watch. Well, I mean, if you think about women sports really- Because I think money. Brees think money. Yeah, go get a $1.7.5. A 7-5 and turn into a woman.

and put him on the NCAA team, and I'm dunking like shit. You know, me. It's this world. I ain't happening in it. I'm just in it. No, I feel, man, because, you know, at the end of the day,

women's sports in general, I feel, have always had an uphill battle compared to the male sports. Women don't get paid like me? I kind of wish we would play the entire clip because it's great, but I can't really justify it. It's two and a half minutes long,

but you can go online and find it. Look, he, this, Little boozy, if I may say, as is the case on so many other issues, I'm sure. But on this, he is making more sense than almost any college professor that's spoken out, people in media. You know, he's making more sense than any of them. When it comes to the issue of the differences between men and women and should men participate in little sports, in women's sports, I would go to little boozy as an authority before I'd go to any. like gender studies professor or anything. I mean, in a second, I would go to him.

Because this is just basic common sense. And this is where it gives you a little bit of, a little glimmer of hope, perhaps, that with the women's sports issue in particular, and this is one of the reasons why I have focused on it so much, even though, as I've said a million times, it's just one battlefield, It's one area, like the actual wars for truth and reality itself.

And this is just one battlefield in that fight. But it's an important battlefield because it can be kind of an awakening moment for a lot of people. You know, a lot of people kind of live their lives and they're either, they're not aware of what's happening out there. They don't think sort of, they're not thinking much in the abstract about gender ideology and what it could mean. they're just kind of living their lives. And then when this stuff kind of starts manifesting itself in the real world and impacting people's real lives, that's when it becomes an awakening moment for a lot of just regular sort of common sense people.

And so was this, you know, Leah Thomas competing against the women in the NCAA Women's Swimming Championship, was this a bridge too far? You know, is the left getting too greedy? I mean, we know that they're greedy, and they're never satisfied. And they're always trying to surge forward. It's why we call them progressive. They're always progressing, but they progress like a tumor progresses, okay?

And we know that they're always doing that, but did they go too far too fast? Because usually they want to lay the groundwork and indoctrinate people. So we talked about at the beginning, especially in the school system, but the medium and all these institutions, indoctrinating people, getting them ready for the next step in the progression. Did they overshoot the target here? Get the cart in front of the horse, whatever metaphor you want to use. I don't know. Even if they did, it doesn't mean that we can just declare victory.

Look at that. We won this battle. But it could have been a misstep, miscalculation. And it's awakened just normal common sense people to say, well, this doesn't make any sense. All right. Next, I have to, of course, mention this. We today at the Daily Wire unveiled our new product, which we're now getting into the men's grooming game with Jeremy's razors. Of course, the God King Jeremy born with his own razor line.

Now, I will say, normally I would say that I'm ethically, philosophically opposed to shaving in general, as is clear from my appearance. but even I will say that these are high-quality razors, which we'll get into the backstory of this, but some of that comes out in the ad that we put together for this. High-quality razors with an ad that reflects the quality of the razors. Let's play that for you now. Do you remember when there were two genders, and only one and a half of them had to shave their mustaches?

I'm Jeremy Boring, CEO and God King of the Daily Wire. Harry's razors used to advertise on our shows. They're a great product, and we were happy to do it. That's before some peon who works for me went and said that boys are boys and girls are girls. And that was just too much for Harry's. And they dropped their ads from our network because of what they called values misalignment. Harry's Razors doesn't want your business. I do. You can buy my new razor instead. Behold, Jeremy's Razors. Yes, they're real. Yes, they're fabulous.

Our country's in trouble. Conservatives are being canceled by Hollywood, the media, universities. and now Harry's Razors. Stop giving your money to woke corporations who don't think you deserve their product. Give it to me instead. Head over to I Hate Harries.com and pre-order your founder's series Razor and Shaving Cream Set today.

Unless you're the kind of man who teaches his daughter to shave her beard. Yeah, I have to say, it's a great ad. I am very upset that we had a flamethrower here at the office apparently, and I was not given a chance to play with it at all. But I guess, you know, safety concerns.

I love the whole ad. I thought my favorite part was if I had, and I'm just not playing favorites at all, not biased at all, but we did get a glimpse of the bestselling, most acclaimed LGBT children's book of all time, which you can get at Johnny the Walrus.com. So that was a great moment as well. But this is, we have to keep in mind, as it says in the end, Harry's, you know, we had been advertising with them. They decided to pull all their ads, not even because there was some coordinated campaign where they were getting all kinds of pressure from all over the place. But as is so often the case, it's a small minority of people. And in this case, now we've seen small minorities imposing their will on major

corporations. We've seen that at Disney. We're seeing it right now at Disney. We've seen it at Netflix. We've seen it many places. In this case, it was one anonymous Twitter account with two followers who nobody is paying attention to, nobody cares, and all they did was just send a tweet out to Harry's saying, uh, did you know Michael Knowles thinks that, uh, men are men and women are women. That's, that's all that Knowles really said. And just because of that, Harry said, well, okay, we'll pull all our advertisements. This is a profitable arrangement for, for Harry's. And just because of that one person that you want to talk about privilege, that's the privilege

you have, that is the ideal, so much of the. privilege in this country is ideologically defined. And that's the privilege you have as a leftist. Conservatives don't have that kind of privilege because the left runs all the institutions. And they make all the products. And that's why, you know, the razors here, it's like so much of what we do. It's a joke because it's funny and it's a troll. And we put a lot of effort into very elaborate trolling at this company, which is one of the reasons why I like working here. And I appreciate it as a troll, you know, at heart myself. But it's also, along with being a joke, it's also a very serious thing, which is that, you know, when this happens, we've gotten used to this with companies

where they announce. That's what Harry's did. It wasn't just as they pulled the ads. They announced that they don't want anything to do with us. We're bigots, we're this and that, where we have inexcusable values, which is an attack not just on us, but obviously on all of everybody in the audience. because what they're implicitly saying is, well, what all you people, why are you still watching and listening to all this bigoted material with these inexcused. You must have the inexcusable values too.

So we had these companies that they come out and announce. Like, we don't want your business. We hate you. We oppose everything that you stand for on a real fundamental level, too. And usually what happens is they, companies do this. And then we on the right, we complain. about it and we whine about it and we talk about cancel culture and then maybe we organize a boycott. Most of the time we don't even do that. But even if we do the boycott, it lasts for like a

week if it makes it that long and it has no effect at all. Doesn't matter. The company doesn't feel the pain at all. And then we just go back to normal. Go back to using those products. And part of the reason that happens is because, you know, in a way, it's like you almost don't have a choice with some of this stuff. You have to buy things. You need razors. You need basic things like that. Unless you're going to go shave with a butcher's knife or something, you need some kind of grooming product. If you are going to shave at all, which I wouldn't recommend, but if you do. So partly out of necessity, we go back and we start using these products again, which is why at the daily wire, we've decided, well, let's make our own products, just like we're making our own

entertainment. Rather than complaining that entertainment is increasingly ideologically biased in the extreme, we'll make our own. And if you want to make a statement, that's the way that you do it. If you want to, more than making a statement, actually have a chance at winning, winning the culture war, that's how you do it. We'll just do it ourselves. Make our own products. Make our own things. And that's what we're doing.

Let's get now to the comment section. Do you know that they're the sweet baby game? Erica says, Matt, I've always wondered why you refer to transgender people by their chosen name and not their given name. I feel like it's confusing to call a man, Leah, or Caitlin, and I'm just wondering why you respect the chosen names. I personally refer to Bruce Jenner and Will Thomas as such, but I do frequently wonder what the right thing to do in that situation is. Well, the answer is simply because names are arbitrary and you can legally be whatever name you want to be. So it's got nothing to do with respect. A name is not a biological reality. Lots of people have names that I think are.

dumb, but they're still their name. So if Will Thomas, and I don't know if he did or not, but I don't know that he didn't do it. If Will Thomas legally changes his name to Leah, then that's his name. It doesn't make sense for me to say, oh, no, your name is really Will. It doesn't make any more sense than if someone comes along and says, my name is Fred. And I say, I don't like that name. Your name is really, you know, Bill. It just doesn't make any sense. It's not about being disrespectful. It's just about not making any sense, because you can actually have whatever name you want. even if it's a really stupid name, you can still do that.

Because names, again, are not biological realities. They are, in fact, human constructs. And names can also change. I mean, there was a time when men were named Ashley, and now no men are. It's just like it can change over time. Now, so if a man says that I'm going to change my name and make it Leah, well, I think that's dumb. Because that is a girl's name, but you can have that name if you want. I can't tell you that's not your name.

But you're still a man. So that's the part that doesn't change. And that's the point. And this is an important distinction, I think, because your sex is not like your name at all. And I don't want to compare the two. I think you do the transgender agenda actually a favor by equating the two. They are not the same. Because your sex, unlike your name, is not something you can choose.

You can choose a name for yourself legally. You can't do that with your sex. Names are also assigned. You want to talk of something that's assigned at birth? Your name is assigned at birth. And you can actually, as you get older, look and say to yourself, I don't really like the name that I was assigned. I'll pick a new one. And you can do that.

Your sex, though, is not assigned at birth. It is observed. It's noted by the doctor. And that's just your sex. You can never change it. So it's not because I'm worried about respecting Thomas or whatever. I don't respect him at all. it's because I want to make sure that I'm being as clear as possible.

All right. Ian Byrne says, can the ally ship be the first ship sent by Elon to Mars? I'm on board with that plan. Ship them all off there. Redemption happens says here again, Matt, being clueless as to the effects of execution on prison staff, you want to turn those officers into killers and you cluelessly omit the fact that a lot of these guys have guilt and shame because many of them are even saying the drug laws are BS and Now you want to add PTSD on top of that. The average life expectancy for corrections officer is only 55 for a reason, genius.

Well, actually, disregarding your condescending tone there, I think that the psychological effect of the people administering capital punishment is, in fact, the best argument against capital punishment. It's not used very often. I mean, usually when people are arguing against capital punishment, they're going with different lines of argument. But I think that this is the most compelling one. And for a long time, I was anti-capital punishment.

for this very reason. This was the thing that I couldn't quite get over, is that if you're having capital punishment, you are asking, requiring somebody to do this, which is to kill a defenseless person. And the convict, after they've been convicted, I mean, they are defense, they're not innocent, but they are defenseless. You're not killing them directly in self-defense. They're not threatening to kill you and you kill them. So the question is, as a civilized society, Can we ask people to do that? And I've ultimately come down to the answer of, yes, we can. I think it's a necessity.

This is something that we need in society, and so we need people to do it. Now, we don't force anyone to do it. It's not like we're choosing people at random and saying, you're going to be the death chamber executioners. But if you get into this line of work, then this is your job. And it is, you're doing something noble. You're doing something that this is justice. You're administering justice.

Is there a psychological effect? For sure. A quite significant one. But it's still something that needs to be done. So although I understand the argument, I don't think it overcomes the need for justice in society. And the fact that there are things people can do that are so heinous, so egregious, so outside the bounds of anything that can be considered acceptable human behavior, that we have no choice as a society. but to inflict upon them the ultimate punishment. And also, by the way, we were talking about firing squad. The firing squad actually addresses some of the problem you're talking about. I mean, if you strap somebody down to a gurney or put them in an electric chair, somebody still needs to flip the switch or administer the needle.

With a firing squad, you know, you have multiple people firing, and some of them have blanks, and that way none of them really know exactly who's the one who fired the fatal shot. So I actually think the fire squad is an even better method for this exact reason. Let's see. Lee says, I can't believe I'm still hearing conservatives call for outlawing gay marriage in 2022. Oh yeah, the old current year thing. First of all, the date on the calendar has no bearing on fundamental principles. Second, I'm not arguing for outlawing gay marriage.

I'm arguing that gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. like it can't exist because marriage is a certain thing with a certain function and a certain definition. That's the argument. That's been the argument all along in defense of what we now call so-called traditional marriage. But I would say that saying traditional marriage is like, it's like saying biological sex or your biological male. You don't need the biological because there's only one kind of male, which is biological male. And there's only one kind of actual marriage, which is what we now call the traditional marriage. Because marriage, again, is a certain thing. It's an institution with a certain purpose.

and serves a certain function. And the thing is, the people who came along and said, no, marriage is not that. You know, the activist said, no, no, marriage is not that. It doesn't serve the fundamental purpose of being the foundation for the nuclear family. It's not that. You're wrong about that. It's what everyone thought throughout all of history, basically.

But you're wrong about that. And they said that, but they never supplied a new definition. They never said, okay, well, if marriage isn't that, then what is it? Why do we have it? You might not have liked the answer before, but at least there was an answer. Now there's no answer. It's yet another thing that the left comes along and says, takes a word or a foundational concept for human society and says, oh no, we're changing this. But when they change it, they just remove the meaning from it and do not even supply a new meaning. Now it's just nothing. Marriage is like nothing now. And finally, it says, Matt, I can't understand

why you would oppose surrogacy for everyone. So people who can't have kids are just out of luck. Well, you know, I explain why. First of all, if a man and woman are married and can't have kids, there's always adoption. You know, if a man and woman can't have kids, I think still pursuing parenthood is a very good thing to do. And there are lots of children that need to be. adopted. So, no, they aren't out of luck, as you say. But also another important point here is that nobody has a right to a kid. Nobody has a fundamental right to be a parent. You have parental rights, but you don't have a right to become a parent in the first place. The world doesn't owe you that, is what I'm saying. And the problem with surrogacy is that you're commodifying the female body

and human life itself. I mean, you're literally renting out a womb and you're buying eggs and treating all these things like commodities. And I think the female body and human life should be treated with more dignity than that. You know, at the Daily Wire, we've started our own publishing wing called DW Books. I had the honor to be the first book that we published with Johnny the Walrus. But we're proud to publish many more. And these are books that actively fight the left's monopoly on storytelling, like fiery but mostly peaceful, the 2020 riots and the gaslighting of America by Julio Rosas,

who pulls back the curtain on the Black Lives Matter riots that broke out across the country in the aftermath of George Floyd's death. Roses, who was reporting from the ground, gives his firsthand experience and exposes the media's attempts to convince Americans that the fatal and destructive riots were peaceful. The book is available for pre-order on Amazon or anywhere you buy books online, so go pre-order your copy today. Also, you know, our product team is currently searching for a director of customer experience to lead our audience experience teams in Nashville.

This person will work closely with our vice president of operations to strategize and implement innovative ways of optimizing our audience experience strategy to achieve business goals, strengthen our brand, and provide optimal value to the DailyWire community, especially our subscriber base. What does any of that mean? If that made sense to you, then you might be a candidate for this job. This is a unique opportunity for a senior level customer service professional with a passion and skill for leadership, an entrepreneurial spirit, and deep operational knowledge and experience in all aspects of online community management.

customer experience and event attendance experiences to apply for this opportunity and to view a full list of our current openings at DailyWire visit dailywire.com slash careers. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Well, ADHD has been back in the news, first with a salon article documenting how a stark rise in ADHD diagnoses seem to mysteriously coincide with millions of kids being locked inside for a year and forced to take classes on Zoom. This is something I've been, you know, falling for a while and we've talked about before. Meanwhile, the Today Show ran a piece about the rise of ADHD and women, especially mothers. So ADHD is all over the place, it seems.

It's also become a profitable business, to put it mildly, billions and billions of dollars have been made and will be made on it. Some companies, as New York Post reported just last week, have gotten more creative in their marketing of ADHD drugs with riddle in ads now appearing on places like TikTok. Now, we know that psychiatric industry and big pharma have set out to catalog and medicalize very much. virtually every human behavior, emotion, inclination, and personality trait, soon nobody in America will be considered normal. You wonder where the drug companies and psychiatrists get their idea of normal behavior and normal brains and normal emotions, considering they so rarely come across a behavior, brain, or emotion they consider normal. We'll pick that thread back up in a minute, but first let's acknowledge that nowhere is this tendency to medicalize the human condition

more apparent or more dangerous than with children. There's been an astounding rise in 80s, Diagnosis stretching back not just through COVID, but for decades before that, somewhere around 10% of all children in the country have been labeled with this alleged disorder before the lockdown and the labels being stuck on kids at earlier and earlier ages. We're now told that kids as young as two years old can be diagnosed ADHD. A third of kids with ADHD are diagnosed before the age of six. Doctors will assure parents that the drugs are safe and will cause no long-term damage to their children.

But at best, we don't actually really know whether that's fully true or not. there's plenty of reason to believe that the drugs could be affecting your child's brain for years to come. And on what basis have we taken this incredible step as a society to drug into oblivion what used to be considered common childhood characteristics? After all, any experienced parent will recognize the list of ADHD symptoms as the most normal characteristics in the world. Those symptoms, if you look it up, include in constant motion, squirms and fidgets, makes careless mistakes, often loses things, does not seem to listen, easily distracted, does not finish tasks. Now, frankly, I would be more concerned about a child who doesn't exhibit these symptoms.

So, symptoms, quote unquote. So how can we know when normal childhood behaviors may be a manifestation of mental illness? It's quite easy to know when your liver, kidney, or heart are malfunctioning. But with ADHD and so many other mental illnesses, pediatricians and psychiatrists claim to have identified a malfunction of the whole human person. Now, it's non-controversial to look at a diseased liver and say, a liver shouldn't do that. It's functioning wrong. But doctors are now looking at physically healthy children and saying, this entire person shouldn't be doing that. They shouldn't be acting like that.

On what basis? Well, the Mayo Clinic explains it says, in general, a child shouldn't receive a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder unless the core symptoms of ADHD start early in life before the age of 12 and create significant problems at home and at school on an ongoing basis. So according to the medical community, a child's personality becomes diseased at the precise moment that his personality interferes with his schooling. That's odd, isn't it? Because physical diseases aren't judged that way. If you go to the doctor because you think you have appendicitis, he's not going to ask if the appendicitis is causing problems at home or school. Appendicitis is appendicitis, no matter how convenient or inconvenient it may be to those around you. Appendicitis is appendicitis at school, at home. Even if you're walking alone, you know, down,

a path in the forest. But ADHD is not ADHD depending on the context. It's only when it's a nuisance that it becomes ADHD. Now, this diagnostic criteria is rather peculiar, especially because advocates for ADHD drugs will claim that the disorder can be located in the brain. But if it could be located in the brain, why is it diagnosed with a personality survey instead of a brain scan? Does anyone ever stop to ask that question? Now, it may be true that you can find certain neurological similarities among certain people who have been diagnosed with ADHD, but you can find neurological similarities among people with any kind of shared disposition, such as like enthusiasm or altruism.

You can find neurological similarities among optimists and among pessimists. That doesn't prove that these similarities cause optimism or enthusiasm or hyperactivity in children. You could look at the brain scan of a man grieving his dead wife and see his grief reflected in his brain. You could also see his happiness at the birth of a child. You could see the, you know, the experience he has in prayer. I mean, all of that you can see reflected in the brain. But that doesn't prove that the chemical reactions in his brain are causing those things.

A guy who's happy, does his brain look like that because he's happy? Or is he happy because his brain looks like that? That's a chicken or egg question we never seem to bother asking. Now, of course, if you take an entirely materialistic view of the human person, which catastrophically many psychiatrists do, then you must. believe that everything he feels, everything a man thinks, all of his traits, his characteristics, his flaws, his desires, his goals, his joy, his love, his despair, and so on, are all just material phenomena. The mind is an illusion in that case. You're just your brain and nothing more.

But if, on the other hand, you factor in the soul and free will and the uniqueness of each human person who's created by a divine force, it becomes clear that the mind exists, and it drives the brain much more than the brain drives it. But even if we put all that to the side, And I don't really see how you can put it to the side because this chicken or egg problem lies at the very heart of the entire psychiatry industry and everything we think about mental illness. But even if you do, and even if you accept just for a moment that brain chemistry determines everything about a person, that still wouldn't prove that any particular personality like the ADHD personality is disordered. It doesn't prove, in other words, that a person isn't supposed to be that way. It also doesn't prove that the brain itself is causing this disorder if it is a disorder at all. Now, this brings us back to the thread we started pulling at the start.

You know, I've talked before about kids in ADHD made many of these points. But as mentioned, this ADHD epidemic stretches beyond childhood. Many of the diagnosed kids are adults today, and many adults who are never diagnosed are being diagnosed now, which is no surprise because it's really easy to be diagnosed with ADHD. As I said, they don't diagnose it by looking at your brain. They diagnose it by asking you questions about what you do and how you feel and how you act. But it's especially true now because all of us are distracted and unable to pay attention to anything for very long. All of us.

This is a phenomenon stretching across the entire civilized world. It's been well documented. Many entire books have been written about it, including one I'm reading right now called Stolen Focus by Johann Hari. In that book, which I recommend, Hari offers extensive documentation of the many measurable ways in which our collective attention spans have dwindled. And there are a lot of things telling this story. We read fewer books, a lot fewer. We retain less information. We feel the need to constantly switch tasks.

We're obsessed with what we call multitasking. Though, as the book explains, multitasking is a myth for humans. Multitasking is actually a word that first applied to computers. And now we talk about it like people do it. But really, your brain, you can't do two things at once. You can rather switch quickly between tasks, which is what all of us are doing all the time. The modern world is set up this way. And of course, the number one indication of this problem and also the number one cause is the phone that we all carry around with us and check

hundreds of times a day throughout the day, even if there's no reason to be checking it. We just compulsively pick it up and check it. It's not like we're focusing intently on any of the content that we encounter on the phone either. I mean, the average user spends near seconds on each web page you visits. When it comes to news articles, many people only read the headline and don't get beyond that. On social media like Twitter, of course, there's an endless scroll of content in little bite-sized chunks that each takes five seconds or less to consume. So we're all distracted. We're all suffering extreme attention loss. Even our memories have been negatively impacted. This is an effect that's aptly been dubbed digital dementia. Now, this is all by design, of course. There are very powerful

forces at work or very good at seizing hold of your attention and diverting it from one thing to the next. your attention is a resource, and they seek to claim it and monetize it, and they have. It's not just the phone. This problem existed before smartphones. It's just that smartphones are such effective vehicles for this kind of distraction, and there are extremely complicated and sophisticated algorithms personalized to each one of us designed to keep us distracted. But even outside of cyberspace, everywhere else you look in the world,

you come up against a never-ending barrage of distraction. So the question, in a world, where everything is literally designed to distract us and everyone is distracted all the time, how can the psychiatric industry come along and declare that some of this distractedness is a mental disorder based on what? If I can pay attention to something for 10 seconds, and you can only pay attention for 7,

does that mean that you have ADHD? So we establish an attention span baseline and whoever's below it is automatically mentally ill, even if the baseline itself is dropping, which proves that the attention problem is largely environmental, How does that make sense? Telling people they have a mental illness because they struggle to focus in our society, when they're constantly bombarded with lights and sounds and images and texts and noises

and messages of all kinds all the time nonstop, it's like telling people in a country with a fast food restaurant in every corner that their obesity is the result of a disease. Which come to think of it is exactly what we tell obese people. I'm starting to sense a pattern here, though I can't follow the trail for very long because I get distracted. pharmaceutical industry would tell me that that's because I'm mentally ill, but I can see a different cause. It's all around me.

It's all around you. That's why ultimately, I think, the pharmaceutical industry must be the one that is, in the end, canceled. If you could pay attention to anything I just said. We'll 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 podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew Clavin Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.

Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Production Manager Pavel Vodowski. Our associate producer is McKenna Waters. The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022. Josh Hawley exposes Supreme Court nominee Katanji Jackson's radical record at her confirmation hearings.

Kamala Harris babbles about the passage of time. And a January 6th protester faces 20 years in prison for trespassing after cops let him into the Capitol. Check it out on the Michael Knowles show.