The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 918 - How Words Became Violence

Episode Date: March 29, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I have another big announcement to start the show. Also, after the slap heard round the world, the consensus on the woke left it that it is in fact acceptable and justified to physically assault someone for mean jokes. Although there are a number of important qualifiers that we must take into consideration. Also, Florida officially enacts the anti-groomer bill, while the pro-grooming factions react with demonic, pedophilic fury. The NFL updates its diversity rules to encourage the hiring of more women, because women are famously experts when it comes to football. And a male who identifies as trans announces that he has just had his first period. In our Daily Cancellation, psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry have just announced that grief is now a mental illness. And there’s a drug to cure it, which will make them even richer. What a happy coincidence for them.  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 What is a Woman? Matt Walsh tracks down the answer in his new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matwell show, I have another big announcement to start the show. Also, after the slap heard around the world, the consensus on the woke left is that it is in fact acceptable and justified to physically assault someone for mean jokes, although there are a number of important qualifiers that we must take into consideration to understand this rule. We'll talk about that. Also, Florida officially enacts the anti-groomer bill while the pro-grooming factions react with demonic pedophilic fury. The NFL also updates its diversity rules to encourage the hiring of more women because women are famously experts when it comes to football and a male who identifies identifies his trans, announces that he has just had his first period and should probably seek

medical attention right away. And our daily cancellation psychiatrists and pharmaceutical industry have just announced that grief is now a mental illness. And there's a drug to cure it, which will make them even richer. What a happy coincidence for them. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walls show. Home values are now up 19%. These gains have become an important financial tool for homeowners. Why is that? Because you're able to access that equity as cash at incredibly low interest rates, making it easier to pay off high interest. debt, fund home renovations, or do whatever you need, because it's your money, after all. Now, if this sounds like something you're interested in, and it should be, it's worth a call

to American financing to learn more. They'll provide a free mortgage review so you can understand your options before moving forward. There's no pressure. There's no upfront or hidden fees. It's very simple, very easy. Instead, they take the time to get to know you so that they can find the perfect loan to achieve your goals. Could mean savings of up to $12,000 a year and plus tens of thousands long term.

All of that money is available. to you. All those savings are available to you, especially with inflation, with everything happening in the economy. You've got to take advantage of any savings you can find. A6656594711 is the phone number. That's 866-565694711 or visit Americanfinancing.net. American financing nmLS 1-182334 NMLS Consumer Access.org. So we start today with some rather significant personal news. As you all know, I am already the number one best-selling LGBT children's author in American history. And beyond that, the most revered and respected LGBT voice in the world. Now, you might think that much, that such an achievement would be enough for one lifetime, but now I can add another. I am officially, as of this

week, a best-selling women's studies author. Along with being a best-selling LGBT children's author, I am also now the preeminent women's studies authority in the nation. This development coincides with the announcement of my new book, What is a Woman? I told you about the What is a Woman film, which will come out in May. I also have a book titled, What Is a Woman, One Man's Journey, to answer the question of a generation, which is now available for pre-order at Amazon, or you can go to What Is a Woman.com and get it there as well.

I'd recommend that you go now and order your copy because it's a good book on an important subject, and also because we both know that there is no choice now but to ensure that I remain atop the women's studies category for as long as possible. Now, as for the book itself, just like the movie, the question in the title, what is a woman is only the beginning of the journey. That's the doorway which takes us into a deeper

exploration of gender ideology. I spoke with many alleged experts in the field, and I discovered many things that will shock and horrify you. Over the past year, I've been on a strange and disturbing adventure. But at times it has also been hilarious, often in the darkest ways imaginable. You can read about it for yourself if you pre-order the book, What Is a Woman? At what is a woman.com, and look out for the film, which is coming soon. Now, as a best-selling LGBT women's studies children's author, I've been thinking more about the infamous Will Smith incident at the Oscars. It's been interesting, really, especially to view this story through the marginalized lens of an LGBT women's studies expert. My community is so often ignored in these conversations, no matter how many best-selling books we write.

So over the past day or so, a consensus has emerged on the left, at least among the race hustlers and other members of its wokenist factions. The settled narrative is that Will Smith, as a black man, ostensibly in defense of a black woman's feelings, is entitled to lash out as violently as he wants in whatever context he wants. That seems to be the sentiment. I think a few viral tweets might summarize things for us. This one with 134,000 likes says Chris Rock's one joke was rooted in misogy noir, texturism and ableism, degrading a black woman in a room full of her peers on live TV. the fact that y'all don't see that as violent is beyond me. Yes, who has not flown into a violent rage because of texturism? Everyone in my life knows that texturism, much less texturism mixed with misogy noir,

is my biggest pet peeve. When I hear texturism, you know, they can hear me shouting from the other room. Is that texturism? Are you guys doing texturism in there? Especially as a women's studies expert. They know, don't bring that mess around me. So I can understand that. But still, also someone in media named Shay Bully concurred posting,

Black emotions scare white people. That's quite clear. Y'all shook because you're used to seeing your favorite black people wear their masks. But a woman named Grace Randolph adds, Will Smith wins best actor. He is still clearly very shaken by what was said about Jada, his choice to stand up for her, and the abuse that goes on today of public figures, people of color, and more.

he will surely speak on this more all week as will others the new york assembly woman by the name of um i don't know her name but she joined other politicians like iona presley and jemal bowman in claiming that chris rock's joke was a form of violence she tweeted it is violence to mock someone's health condition and vulnerability it is violence to physically assault someone it is violent to not take responsibility for violent actions it is violence to allow and excuse violence. It is violence to call for violence. Yes, it's violence to excuse violence. She says as she excuses violence.

Meanwhile, the media has gotten in on the action. USA Today published an article with the headline, Jada Pinkett Smith, Chris Rock, and why his hair joke was so problematic. And then Forbes asks this question in their headline, Why are jokes always at the expense of black women? Now, I can answer that. jokes are not always at the expense of black women. In fact, jokes are almost never at the expense of black women.

We might reasonably say that black women are the least mocked and least joked about group in the country, perhaps even beating out trans people for that title. On the rare occasion that anyone does tell a joke about black women or about a black woman individually, it is always another black person telling a joke. I can't remember the last time I've heard a non-black person. tell a joke about a black woman, much less black women in general. On the other hand, non-white people tell jokes about white people and especially white women all the time. The term Karen is itself a derogatory joke about white women, which was first popularized by non-white people.

So Karen is a joke that black people tell about white people. There is no synonymous joke going the other direction. It doesn't exist. What's more, I think we all know that, If Chris Rock had made a joke about a white woman, I mean, he's told many jokes about white women many times for many years. But if on that particular night he had happened to joke about a white woman and her white husband strode onto the stage and slapped him across the face, we could be quite sure that there would be nobody defending him, the guy doing the slapping, that is. And he would have been arrested in charge with a hate crime before he could even get back to his seat. That's the real lesson we could take from this. and there are two others

related less to the incident itself and more to the reaction on the left to the incident. First, we see how the racial victim narrative is superimposed onto everything, regardless of the facts on the ground. It doesn't matter that this was black-on-black crime. It doesn't matter that the men involved had the same race, same socioeconomic status,

same gender, same age, same sexual orientation. You would think, if you didn't know any better, that one rich black man slapping another rich black man at the Oscars would be an event impervious to racial tribalization. If there's any story that cannot be intersectionalized, it would be this, you might think. But you'd be wrong. The race hustlers, as we've learned time and time again, they need only for a black person to be involved. That's all the clay they need to mold the image they want to mold from it. And even if there was no black person involved, even if this was white on white violence. You know, Leonardo DiCaprio slapping Tom Cruise or something like that, which would have been great, by the way.

Still, they could make black people the victim. Second, most importantly, we see that the left is serious when they say that words are violence. Now, of course, that statement is heavily qualified. Words insulting or joking about certain groups of people are violence. I mean, you can, of course, say whatever the hell you want about straight white people. Chris Rock could have done a 15-minute rule. routine where he fantasized openly about rounding up all the white people in the room and burning them alive and it would have been considered comedic brilliance. He could have actually rounded them

all up and really burned them alive and it's arguable whether he'd be in jail right now. That much is established. But words attacking or supposedly attacking or simply just criticizing or lightly mocking, members of a protected class are indeed violence in the minds of a left is. Why? Well, this is where the story ties in with everything else we're witnessing in our culture. It intersects with gender ideology, which is a topic that I explore, by the way, in my best-selling women's studies book, What Is a Woman? Available now for pre-order at what is a woman.com. For an individual in a protected class, their self-perceptions, their feelings, especially their feelings about themselves, are just as important as their physical well-being.

that's the way it's seen in our culture. In fact, even more important. Remember, in the modern world, we have assumed the power to make ourselves. We are forever engaged in the never-ending process of self-creation. The most important version of yourself is not your physical self, your actual self, but the self you have constructed in your imagination. Physical violence cannot necessarily touch your imagined self, which is your most important self, again, but words can.

ideas can. Ideas can even kill a person's imagined self, their self-perception. And so in that sense, words are violence, the worst kind of violence. This obviously applies most to a person's so-called gender identity, but it applies to everything else that they think and feel about themselves. Jada Pickett Smith had spoken publicly before the night of the Oscars, even recently, about how she loves her bald head. She's proud of it. She thinks it's beautiful. Now, that's obviously not true. She doesn't really think that, or else she wouldn't be so sensitive to jokes about it. I mean, if you're really proud of something and you think it's great and beautiful and you have no problem with it,

and somebody tells a joke about it, it's not going to make any dent at all on you. It's just going to bounce right off you because you're confident. So she's not really confident about it as she pretends, but she wants to think that way about herself. That's the self-perception she is trying to conjure up and create and maintain. A joke obstructs that process, and so it's violence. It's violence against the version of herself she is trying to perceive. That's what they mean when they say words are violence. It's all completely insane, of course, but it's the world we're living in, nonetheless.

And it's good to try to understand it to the extent that we can. Now, let's get to our five headlines. You know, while there are many, many leftists out there just begging to be canceled right now, I'm going to give them a little break, not for very long. just until I get to the end of this, because I have a way bigger cancellation to make, and that is store-bought meat. Yeah, that's what comes down to. It's not a person, but it's sold to you by, well, we better hope the store-bought meat

isn't a person. But it's sold to you by people who do not care about you or your health. They hide behind the smoke and mirrors of empty labels, like all-natural, cruelty-free, grass-fed, whatever any of that means. That's why I'm giving all of you, my sweet babies, a chance to prove your loyalty. Follow me on this righteous crusade to cancel store-bought meat. stop buying it. Instead, do yourself, your family, and the world of favor and start purchasing your meat from good ranchers. Why? Well, not only as good ranchers, the exclusive meat company

of the DeliWire, it's actually 100% born, raised, and harvested in the USA. That can't be said for 85% of the grass-fed beef in stores that claims to be from the USA but are actually imported from overseas. My point is you're being lied to by big meat. But good ranchers is here to tell it to you straight. Their meat is steakhouse quality, locally sourced in America, affordable, and it ships straight to your door. And it's absolutely delicious. I can tell you from experience. It's time to cancel store-bought meat, and I'm ordering you to join me in doing so. You're not giving you an option. So head to Good Ranchers.com slash Walsh or use Code Walsh at checkout to get $30 off the most convenient and delicious purchase you've ever made.

Go to goodranchers.com slash Walsh today so that we can all say goodbye to store-bought meat once and for all. All right, as a best-selling LGBT Women's Studies author, I want to get right now directly into the five headlines. You know I'm going to run this joke into the ground. it's just going to be obliterated. You're going to hear about it so much. But it's not a joke. It's actually real. I really am a women's studies expert.

Okay. We'll start with this. From Fox, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into Law Monday, a parental rights bill that bans teachers from giving classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade school,

or rather through third grade, not even grade school. I just overstated it. Talk about self-perceptions and what you want to be real. That's what I wish this bill did. I think this bill actually should apply to every level of school where this stuff does not belong in grade school at all, but it only goes into third

grade. It's just pre-k through third grade. So like four years old to about eight, you're not allowed to give instruction, official classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity. So teachers are not allowed to go to a little six-year-old kid and sit down with them and say, what's your gender identity? What's your sexual orientation? That's all they're being prevented from doing. But as we know, the groomers out there are very, very upset about this. So much of their project in the culture depends on being able to indoctrinate, groom, abuse little kids. And so if you stop them from doing that, you're going to get this kind of satanic fury, which is what we've seen.

And we know that the bill was mocked at the Oscar Sunday night with co-host Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer and Regina Hall repeating the word gay as the crowd applauded. But DeSantis announcing it hit back at his critics in Hollywood saying, if the people who held up degenerates like Harvey Weinstein as exemplars and his heroes and as all that, if those are the types of people that are opposing us on parents' rights, I think I wear that like a badge of honor. They don't want to admit that they support a lot of things that we're providing protections against. For example, this again, as DeSantis talking, they support sexualizing kids in kindergarten.

They support injecting woke gender ideology into second grade classrooms. And so what they're doing with these slogans, these narratives, is that they're trying to camouflage their true intentions. Very well put. Could have been said any better. Let's listen to a little bit more of Ronda Sondisnandez yesterday announcing and talking about this bill. And so we will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education. health care and well-being of their children. We will not move from that. I don't care what corporate media outlets say.

I don't care what Hollywood says. I don't care what big corporations say. Here I stand. I'm not backing down. Well done. This is, I've said it a million times. I'll say it a million more times. This is what every Republican should be doing.

This is a winning issue. Run on this issue. if there's a Republican running for office at any level as we head into the midterms who is not running on this issue, it's not just that you mention it from time to time, run on this issue of protecting children against sexual indoctrination. Why do you run on it? Because it's one of, if not the most important issue in our culture today. And also, as a benefit, our view as conservatives, is the winning view.

you're putting the other side in the position of having to defend the sexual indoctrination of children. Let them do that. That's all you have to do is just get them talking. You know, a Republican in a debate, all you have to do is say, okay, so you think six-year-olds should be taught about sexual orientation. You want public school teachers to sit down with six-year-olds and talk to them at six about their sexual orientation and, quote-unquote, gender identity. Tell us more about that. Go ahead. I seed the floor to you.

I'll give you five minutes. Go ahead and talk as much as you want. In fact, I won't say another word in this debate. I'll just let you talk all you want about how we got to talk to five-year-olds about transgenderism. I'll give you the floor. I'll just sit back here and let you talk. That's all you have to do. It's a winner.

But you've got to stay on message. and you can't let them drift into the fantasy world, which is where they want to take this. They know, look, they know that their position on this issue is abhorrent. Now, it's not abhorrent to them

because they have no souls, but they know that it's abhorrent to normal people. If they didn't know that, then they wouldn't be going through all this effort to invent bills that don't exist, like, you know, don't say gay. they wouldn't be going through all this effort, making claims about this bill that are easily debunked. You could spend just 30 seconds reading the language of the bill and see what an absolute lie their narrative is.

And they wouldn't be doing that if they didn't have to, basically. Because the other option is, well, one other option is to stop trying to sexualize kids, but that's off the table for them. They can't stop. They can't stop themselves. which is very common of predators, which is why predators should all just be locked in prison and never let out.

So they can't stop themselves, but they also can't, they can't come out and make a case for it. So the more you can get them talking about it, put them on the hook, put them on the spot, the better. It's a winning issue. Now, DeSantis,

he also brought some parents on to talk about why this bill is needed. Because that's the other response for people on the other side of this is, is all right, even if it's not that don't say gay, bill, even if it is a bill that just stops teachers from sexually indoctrinating very young kids. Is that really needed? Where is this happening? I mean, where is this happening in society except

everywhere? Where is this happening except every single public school in the country? So we had a few parents talking about their own experiences of this kind of thing. And here's one mother telling a really horrifying tale. Listen. In September of 2020, my daughter told me after school she had a meeting with school officials that was held behind closed doors where they asked her which restroom she wanted to use i immediately contacted the school as told by the guidance counselor and assistant principal that i could not be given any information regarding the meeting and that by law my daughter had to be the one to authorize my notification of the meeting or attendance to the meeting in other words school officials asked my 13-year-old child her permission as to whether or not my

parental rights would be honored. After many weeks of going back and forth with the district, we learned the middle school had created a transgender, gender non-conforming support plan with our 13-year-old daughter without our knowledge or consent. This kind of thing, you know, if you have a if you have a room full of parents, you could just throw a rock, which is what a lot of people on the left would like to do. But you could throw something and you're guaranteed to hit a parent who's who has, if they've got kids in public school. They might not have stories, hopefully.

Many of them do have stories as bad as that and as dramatic as that. But they've all encountered this kind of thing. This is happening everywhere. And that's why we need laws like this, but we actually need laws that are much stricter and go much further than that. Because the law that was just passed,

and again, it's a great law. I mean, I'm in favor of incremental gains, if the other option is no gain at all, I'll take the incrementalism as long as we keep going and we're not satisfied. That's my one criticism. My one fear with this parental rights bill in Florida is that Republicans might be able to say now, well, we did it. We protected parental rights and we passed the bill and let's move on to

something else. If they do that, that's a big problem. Because all you've done here is offer protection for the youngest kids, which is great. but kids in fourth grade need protection too kids in fifth grade six seventh eighth ninth ninth tenth 11th to 12 they all need protection they're all kids

there's quite a lot of this that happens in elementary schools it really kicks into high gear in middle school because that's right around you know the age of puberty and that's when the indoctrination kicks into high gear that's also when kids are the most prone to being confused

about their identity feeling out of place socially, feeling out of place sort of within themselves trying to figure out where they fit in the world who they are,

what kind of person they are. Every kid goes through this. It's the most normal thing in the world. And it's even more common and more pronounced for girls given the changes that they're experiencing. Where they start to feel kind of alien in their own bodies.

You talk to almost any woman and they'll tell you that any woman listening right now. can relate to some extent to that, having gone through that. Now the danger now, most of us, if we're adults, we went through puberty, we went through childhood. We had the experiences of not fitting in, not feeling totally at home, kind of figuring,

trying to figure out who we are and what we're all about. And we all had that experience. All kids throughout history have had that experience. But the difference is that you and I and every other kid prior to the current generation of kids going through school right now, we were basically allowed to go through that, go through that phase, and come out the other end of it, and grow up and have a normal life. We were given space to do that. Now you have these predators, these evil, satanic, disgusting groomers who are waiting there to pounce. As soon as a child begins to have any

questions about themselves, begins to feel out of place at all, begins to have any questions about their bodies and the changes that they're experiencing. The moment that happens, these groomers are there to pounce and say, oh, oh, you're feeling that way? Well, I'll tell you why you're feeling that way. And they've got this entire framework ready to go. Here it is. I got all the answers for you. That's the difference. Kids before this, you went through that phase. You got over it. But now kids, there's a lot of confusion also, and now they have this framework. They have this whole ready-made system, which appears to make sense of everything that they're feeling. It actually doesn't make any sense at all, but they don't realize that.

And then adding to the pressure, they look around at their friends and their friends that are all buying into this. There's a lot of social capital to be gained. You know, our kids are going through, the situation for our kids right now in schools is that to be, you know, to be just like a normal 13-year-old girl, just a normal girl, there's no social capital in that. You got to add something on to that, have some kind of extra thing

you're adding to your identity. Find your place under the LGBT umbrella. That's where the social capital is. So this is happening everywhere, and this is why we need bills like this everywhere that in fact go much farther than this bill goes, and let the groomers, let the groomers panic and scream and let them make their case for sexualizing kids.

Let them make their case. We want them to. We want them to make the case. Talk about it. Take the mask off, expose themselves. All right. Meanwhile, Disney has issued a statement. They say Florida's HB 1557, also known as the Don't Say Gay Bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law.

Our goal is a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the court. and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We're dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ plus members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ plus community in Florida and across the country. So Disney, which produces much of the entertainment that your kids probably watch, they have come out. At first they tried to basically stay out of it, but now, caving to the pressure, I mean, this is a company with thousands and thousands,

thousands and thousands of employees, billions of dollars, and a handful of them came out and complained and were able to bring Disney, the Disney Corporation to its knees. You want to talk about social capital, that's the kind of power that you wield if you're in the LGBT camp, going back to why so many kids, it's tempting for them to buy into it, because they see that, and they see the power and popularity that comes with it. But Disney caving to all the pressure, now they're offering a full defense. They are fully in favor of sexualizing young kids. Now, of course, we know that Disney has been in favor of that actually for a long time.

But now they're out in the open about it. They think that your five-year-old should be sexualized. They think that your five-year-old should be taught about transgenderism and gender identity and sexual orientation. Now the question becomes, are we as parents going to continue to purchase Disney products and sit our kids down in front of televisions to watch entertainment from Disney? After Disney has told us that they are in favor of sexualizing your kid, that's what they want to do. They are committed to it, they say. They are steadfastly committed to the sexualization of kids.

been the case for a long time now they're out coming out and saying it they are fully out of the groomer closet we have to make a decision now as parents um is disney entertainment so important so crucial to us as parents that um we'll will continue to give them our money even after they've told us they want to sexualize our kids or will we finally have a little bit of self-respect and say you know what you don't even have to call a boycott me you can call to boycott if you want i don't what you call it. But when a company comes out and says, number one, we hate you, we hate everything you stand for, we hate your values, we hate who you are, we hate everything you believe, and we want to sexualize your kids. Here's a whole bunch of entertainment we've made for your kid.

Please sit them down in front of the TV and let them watch it. As parents, we have to decide, are we going to say, well, okay, be like brainwashed, hypnotized automaton's and saying, well, okay, sit down, kids and watch this. What else are we going to do? A life deprived of Disney products is unlivable. Who could imagine such a thing? It's about having a little bit of self-respect and respect for your kids. All right.

In more Groomer News, Libs of TikTok has this that says these are internal messages from a fourth grade elementary teacher in Austin Independent School District. She's upset that an entire week dedicated to LGBT still wasn't good enough. and coincidentally 20 out of 32 of her fourth graders are LGBT and have come out to her. Okay, so we talked last week about in Austin schools, they've had a pride week, which included having a forced pride march through the hallways, and they decked all the kids out and rainbow stuff and all that kind of thing. And they had signs, and they were waving flags and marched through the schools.

And they had community, this was where they had the community circles, where they'd sit all the kids around and they'd tell secrets, and they were told, don't tell anybody outside the circle, especially your parents about the secrets. But teachers are upset that this happened, not because it was totally inappropriate, but because it shouldn't just be a week. It should be an entire year.

So here's this teacher from an internal message, fourth grade elementary teacher, says, I feel that it is inappropriate to call our parade this morning a wellness walk. While I understand that wellness walk is something that was previously in motion, to promote health and fitness and is something we want to continue, really takes away from the experience of celebrating pride to couple the two.

The first pride was a riot. It is not enough to just welcome, love, and celebrate queer folks, folks with an ex. Your allyship should always lead you to activism, speaking up and fighting for what is right, even when it feels uncomfortable. We can't choose in and out of our protest spaces. And then it continues,

out of the 32 students that I teach, 20 of them are LGBTQIA plus and have come out to me. I feel that we need to do better for them. To affirm our students, I think it would only be appropriate and right to publicly announce that what we had this morning was a pride parade. Our students are aware and are paying attention. Okay, so a big part of her problem is that they had a march to the schools and there were pride flags and everything,

but they didn't specifically call it a pride parade. that's what she's worried about. Well, let's put all that to the side and just focus on this detail for a moment. This is a fourth grade teacher saying that 32 students, 20 of them in fourth grade, are LGBT, she says, and have personally come out to her. 20 out of 32. That's as opposed to, like, everybody else's experience if you're an adult in fourth grade. and basically no kid would have identified as LGBT. It just wasn't on the radar.

You weren't thinking about it. You weren't talking about it. Now, 20 out of 32, she says. And she says it proudly. This is not a secret that she wants to keep. This is, to call this a social contagion, I think, understates the facts of the matter. But this is something unlike anything that the world has ever seen.

We are watching an entire generation of children be, reshaped and reformed in front of our very eyes. Laws protecting kids is like the least. That's starting level of what we need to be doing. All right, let's move to this. Al Butler, a sports reporter, has this, says, women will now be included in all Rooney Rule requirements in the NFL. All 32 teams will be required to hire a diverse person,

female or a member of an ethnic or racial minority, to serve as an offensive assistant. And then he has the language from the NFL. And it says, this is what it specifically says. Offensive assistant coach. A former resolution was adopted to provide greater opportunities for diverse candidates to serve as offensive coaches. Beginning this season, all 32 clubs will employ a diverse person. So the person themselves, the actual individual person is diverse.

It used to be when you think of diversity. If we're talking about diversity among people, that's like a group of people could be diverse because you have people from various different backgrounds and cultures and whatever, all in the same room. That's a diverse group. Now we say that an individual person is diverse or non-diverse. Does that make any sense whatsoever? No, of course it doesn't. It says this person will receive a one-year contract and work closely with the head coach and offensive staff to gain experience. Clubs will receive reimbursements from a league-wide fund towards the coach's salary for up to two years. In recent years, head coaches have predominantly had offensive backgrounds. We believe this resolution will assist

greatly in continuing to source and identify diverse candidates earlier in their careers, providing pipeline depth and furthering developing the diverse offensive pipeline. Then it goes on from there. So we already knew about the Rooney Rule that's put in place, requiring that teams at least interview, well, we used to say interview black candidates for coaching jobs. Now we might say diverse candidates, diverse individuals for coaching jobs. And the real update here is that they're putting women into that into that category as well.

Hoping to work towards a day where there will actually be a female head coach in the NFL. A female who is a leader of men leading all of these professional athletes, all these men, we're going to have a woman leading them into battle on the football field. That's what the NFL wants to see anyway. And they have at this point stopped short, and eventually they're going to get to this point, I think, where they're going to have to do this. Because no matter how many diversity requirements they put in place, it's one thing, you have the diversity requirements requiring the interview black candidates.

That's, okay. I mean, it's absurd to have any of these requirements at all. But one of the reasons why it's absurd to have this in place for black candidates, is that there are black people working at every level of the NFL. But if you want to have a woman as a coach in the NFL, if the goal, as it says there is eventually, because you want to put them in the pipeline so that eventually they can be head coach, if you want that to happen,

then the NFL is going to have to eventually come in and just point to a team and say, you must hire a female head coach. My guess is in the next five years, that's what they're going to do. All right, moving on. Democrats are hoping that Kintanji Jackson will help, you know, alleviate some of the polling problems they're having right now. The latest poll on Biden, I don't have the numbers right in front of me,

but it's, it's, you thought he'd already gone as low as he could possibly go, and it's an even lower than that. So they think that the fact that he nominated Kantanji Jackson is a thing that's going to make a lot of people excited. So they're still talking about it, heaping praise on Kintanji Jackson. And yesterday CNN actually ran a piece praising Jackson, not only for being such a wonderful justice, but also for her physical beauty as well. Listen to this.

Judge Jackson isn't only changing the image of justice, but the image of beauty. Unfolding on a small device. My parents were public school teachers. A big moment in America. They gave me an African name, Katanji Onyka, which they were told means lovely one. The Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Katanji Brown Jackson capture Chicago stylist Portia Eggbom.

That's empowerment. That's it. That's empowering. And her client, Lauren Buford. Seeing her potentially become a justice is inspiring to be able to see yourself and see what's possible. She is overqualified, and this confirmation is overdue. Not only will you make the court look more like America, but hopefully think more. like America. She thinks like other moms. I've tried to navigate the challenges of juggling my career and motherhood. And I fully admit that I did not always get the balance right. I love you so much. Across the city. The acceptance that others are giving her just to be herself is just a

beautiful thing. Redefining beauty. That is an important job of a Supreme Court justice, isn't it? to redefine beauty standards. That's what we look to the Supreme Court for. I mean, that's where all the, you know, that's famously, people on the Supreme Court, a lot of lookers on the Supreme Court famously. I almost, as absurd as all this is, really the line there about that escaped my notice during the actual confirmation hearings, but that Cantanji Jackson will help the Supreme Court look more like America

and also think more like America. As if that should be the goal. No, we don't want the Supreme Court to, it doesn't matter if the Supreme Court looks like America, makes no difference, whatever that means to look like America, but also think like America. Again, I don't know exactly what that means, but whatever it means, I'm quite sure that that is not what we want the Supreme Court to do. That's sort of the point of them not being elected representatives. They're not elected by the people to represent precise. what we want them to do. They are put in place to represent the Constitution. That is their job.

That's their only job. It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans decide they don't care about the Constitution anymore. That's still the Supreme Court. Their job is supposed to be to represent the Constitution. Interpret it, defend it. That's their job. All right, one other thing I want to put up on the screen before we get to the comment section. So this tweet went viral a few days ago and just want to read it. And we can all all. appreciate it together. It says, okay, I'm a trans woman who's experiencing her first period cramps, and what the F? I've literally never felt pain like this. Why do we let people live like this? By the way, 91,000 likes on that tweet. And if you read the comments, which I don't recommend,

because it's, it is quite depressing. You find person after person, including women, responding to this male and said, yeah, welcome to the club, sister. No, let me just explain this to you. If you're a man, you cannot have a period. You don't have a menstrual cycle. You don't have a uterus. Even if you grow your hair out, even if you go to a plastic surgeon and have your genitals mingled and mutilated, you still are not going to have a menstrual cycle.

So the cramps you're feeling, I would seek a doctor about that. Or maybe you just had Chipotle. You know, that's something that a lot of us have been through. But if there's blood coming, I don't want to get into any graphic details here, but if there's, as a man, you've got blood coming out of orifices or anything like that. That is, that's not a normal thing. I'd seek medical attention immediately. But what happens then?

I mean, this does raise a lot of questions because we know that the medical community now is fully bought into affirmation. job is to affirm. And so what happens, I wonder, if this man is experiencing blood coming out of areas where it should not come and having, you know, bad cramping, obviously not a menstrual cycle because he's a man and can't have that. So there's some serious medical problem happening. But he goes and talks to a doctor and says this and says, oh, I'm having my period. Is the doctor even allowed to say, no, you're not? Because you're... A man. You might be dying of something.

There might be internal bleeding going on. Can a doctor even say that? Without getting sued? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out. So we've been talking a lot lately, of course, about inflation. When inflation is at 7% like it is now, the paper money in your wallet is losing value fast.

You can just feel your wallet getting lighter by the moment. That's why you've got to look at birch gold. Today, an ounce of gold is worth $1,900. It was worth about $300 an ounce in 2000. I've been telling you for a while now, that you can buy gold from birch gold. It's your hedge against inflation. But as you know, there's another way to hedge against inflation, that is silver.

You can buy silver for birch gold as well. Silver is also considered real money. Historically speaking, it's extremely undervalued right now. It's an industrial metal that's in high demand for everything from electric cars to solar panels. Demand is only going to rise. And some analysts suggest that right now there's an unusual dislocation in price that may present very real opportunities for silver to rally over the next two years. Regardless, silver like gold is never going to zero.

The American dollar, on the other hand, well, it's currently. going into the toilet while precious metals are rising in value thanks to the Fed. Call Birchgold. They are the only company I trust. Don't wait. Start diversifying today. Text Walsh to 98-98-98-98-9-8 to get a free info kit on buying gold or silver in a tax-sheltered account. There is no obligation to get this info. Text Walsh to 98-98 to get your free info kit now. Let's get now to the comment section. All right, we'll do one quick video comment. This is clip. Let's go to clip 18. Hey Matt

Is this you? Bruh Okay So that's even worse Than the shirtless guy Dancing on the golf cart The shirtless fat guy So this is

Allegedly me On a On a COVID testing poster But you know No As I've said A million times Okay

Am I going to deny That there's Maybe some resemblance there I'm not going to deny it But not every man with a beard and glasses looks like me. Okay, I'm not just my beard and glasses. There's more to me. This makes me feel marginalized along with everything else.

Especially, and I shouldn't need to say this, but these kinds of attacks that I suffer are especially inappropriate now and problematic, given that I am the best-selling women's studies author in the world. All right, this is from Grenade Away, says it's like Will is a psychopath, laughing hysterically, then mad, then tearful and grateful. What the F? No, this is just him being a cuckold. You know, he laughed at the joke and then he looked over it as wife and his wife was upset about it. And so then he leaped into action. That's all it is. But I will say, you know, to his credit that Will Smith, wife's boyfriend, I think is no doubt very grateful that he defended their woman in that way. Vicky says, you laughed at the joke, then you punch Chris Rock for making the joke, then you're laughing after punching him, lost all respect for Will Smith. It's not okay to lay your hands on anyone. Did you have respect for Will Smith to begin with? I think that's the problem here.

Steven says, Matt, two weeks ago, you were just justifying violence in response to insults, especially to defend your wife. Well, as you noticed, I have have not said. There are other people that have said in response to this, that violence is never okay in response to words. That's not my position. I did not say this. That's not what I said. Now, that violence in that situation in response to that comment was obviously completely out of bounds. For a whole bunch of reasons we don't need to get into. I think we've already talked about them. And we could just start with the basic fact here that you are at an award ceremony. Chris Rock is there, he's hired to get up there and tell jokes about the audience. That's his job. And you have

chosen to attend this event where that sort of thing happens. So no, you cannot, that's not an occasion where violence in response to words is appropriate. But I'm not going to say that it's never appropriate. Of course, it could theoretically be appropriate. And when we talked about this, I don't even remember the context, but we talked about this a couple weeks ago, the hypothetical example I gave is if you're walking down the street or something and a guy comes up and sexually harasses your wife. That's not what happened at the Oscars. But if that were to happen and you're out of the street guy comes up and is accosting your wife in that way, is it justified to punch him right in his face? Of course it is. Not only justified, but I would say it's your duty as a man to

respond that way. So there is a little bit of a nuance here. I don't think we have to take the position that violence in response to a word is never okay, any more than we would say that it's always okay. Both positions are ridiculous. And finally, LKN says, Matt, I can't believe you're actually buying this obviously staged stunt. No, listen, this goes to Occam's Razor, all right, the simplest explanation. What's the explanation that requires the least number of assumptions? and no, it's not staged. Occam's Razor would tell us. There are no assumptions we need to make

to just accept this incident at face value. The only assumption that we need is that Will Smith is a somewhat deranged, egotistical, cuckold, and he responded that way. That's all. But in order for it to be staged, you have to believe so many things, including that they would come up with a stunt like this to completely overshadow all of the political woke virtue signaling

they did before this. So they put all that into the show and then purposely overshadow it themselves. And then you have to believe that Will Smith and Chris Rock, two of the most famous people in America, decided to go along with this stunt that makes them both look horrible and that they're continuing to play along with it. I mean, Will Smith is going to suffer, even though he's got people on the left defending him and everything, there's no question that there's going to be serious career consequences for Will Smith because of this. His whole image is as this kind of like squeaky clean, nice guy thing. That's his bankability to the extent that he is a bankable star, it all rests on that. That's out the window now.

So you're suggesting that for the sake of a of a skit on the Oscars to help with their ratings, he would sacrifice his own. career, overshadow his own Oscars win? I mean, he won an Oscars, first Oscar, and all anyone's talking about is this. That makes no sense. That is far more ridiculous than the actual incident itself. That's one thing. People that buy into conspiracy theories too readily, one thing you notice about them is that they oftentimes have just no understanding of human nature. You have to understand human nature and celebrities and what makes them tick and what motivates them. They would never take part in something like this in that context. They're way too self-important for that. All right. Let's get now to the daily cancellation. Lots of places can expose

you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply. So I've warned you many times on this show, including recently, about the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and their mission, which they've embarked on together hand in hand, to methodically identify, categorize, and medicalize every aspect of the human condition.

Now, this, I believe, is one of the most consequential and catastrophic trends in modern life. It'd be difficult to overstate the severity or significance of this problem. Life itself, what it means to be human, to exist. This is all being redefined by megalomaniac psychiatrists and money-grubbing pharmaceutical executives. they have totally altered our image of ourselves of what qualifies as normal human existence, and they've done it for money, and because they believe themselves to be gods who are somehow qualified to make these kinds of changes to human nature. Now, I've harped on this point quite a bit recently, and as if to prove my point, and justify the many cumulative hours I've spent on it,

the American Psychiatric Association has now officially declared that grief is a mental illness. Yes, if you are grieving the loss of a loved one, you are mentally ill. But only if your grief is prolonged, you see. Grief will heretofore be acceptable for a brief length of time, but if you have excessive grief, grief which lasts longer than what is medically prescribed, you should consult a doctor immediately. Now, if it already disturbs you that we're talking about grief, the way that Viagra commercials talk about erections, then you're paying attention, you know, because it should disturb you. Yahoo has the news about the latest medical or rather mental disorder to be added to a list of 300 others. Reading now, it says, as of last week, prolonged grief disorder officially became a new diagnosis in the latest edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual mental disorders.

Despite the nearly decade-long debate on whether grief should need medical treatment, the diagnosis became official during a time when many Americans continue to experience ongoing disasters that have caused death and suffering such as COVID-19. Now, you may be wondering, isn't grief normal? Isn't it the most human thing in the world to have grief? Isn't it an utterly essential, if painful, part of the human experience? Isn't the thought of a world numbed to grief actually horrifying? Isn't it literally something out of a brave new world?

Well, yes, that's all true. But you see, the psychiatrists and drug companies have decided that grief should only be allowed for a certain period of time. Beyond that threshold, a threshold they have simply just invented out of thin air, it must be treated with medication. So continuing. Characterized by incapacitating feelings of grief, prolonged grief disorder happens when a person loses someone close to them, like a friend or family member, within at least six months for children in adolescence or within at least 12 months for adults, according to the APA. Typically, the bereaved individual experiences an intense yearning for or preoccupation with the deceased person so much so that their reaction to the loss preoccupies them almost. every day for at least a month. A month. Yes, the psychiatrist will allow you to feel grief for a month, just a month, before you're considered sick in the head, mentally diseased. Lose your mother to breast

cancer, spouse dies in a car accident, child drowns in the pool. Well, you better be back to normal in 30 days or else we're stuffing drugs down your throat. But why should 30 days be the cutoff? Well, because, as it's explained, grief beyond a month, a month becomes, is a, is a, a problem because it begins to interfere with, quote, social norms. Reading again, their bereavement is considered to last longer than social norms, think five stages of grief, causing distress or problems functioning in important aspects of their lives, such as socially or occupationally. Other symptoms of prolonged grief disorder include identity disruption, feeling as if part of yourself has died, a marked sense of disbelief

about the death, avoidance of reminders that the person is dead, intense emotional pain, intense loneliness, emotional numbness, or a feeling that life is meaningless, among others, according to the APA. Now, I don't think I can fully describe how much I hate this. I cannot sufficiently capture the boiling rage that I feel deep within my inner being when I think about what these lunatics are doing to people, though I'm sure my moral disgust towards the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatric community is also a symptom of mental illness.

I no doubt suffer from chronic pharmaceutical skepticism disorder. If that's not in the DSM yet, it will be. And if you have any doubts about the motivation behind all of this, the next paragraph should clear that up for you. It says, inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in the DSM means that clinicians can now bill insurance companies for treating people for the condition. Reports the New York Times. Currently, clinical trials are testing the drug naltrexone, which is a drug used to help treat addiction as a form of grief therapy. and according to the New York Times, the development will likely set off a stream

of pharmaceutical research on other potential prescriptions. Oh, I'm sure it will. Would you look at that? What a coincidence. The people involved in making up these disorders also happen to be in a position where they'll profit in the tune of billions of dollars off of the disorders they've invented.

Just a coincidence, of course. Meanwhile, the APA put out a video explaining more about the disorder, and the explanation directly from the horse's mouth doesn't sound any better to me. Listen. What makes this different from normal grieving is, even though the symptoms appear very understandable, urine and pining and missing the person desperately,

that seems pretty normal after the loss of a loved one. But what we find is that those people who are really stuck and have intense levels, even at the very beginning, very intense levels where they don't know who they are without this person anymore, those people oftentimes, a small minority, about 4%, will not get better. They'll just spend and eke out the rest of their existence, missing this person and wanting to be reunited with them.

And that part is not helpful. It's not helpful to ignore the fact that some people get stuck and could use some assistance and support in reintegrating into a life without this important person who died. it's not helpful. Your grief is not helpful. Let's just make a couple points here. First of all, nobody is disagreeing with the idea that people in grief need and deserve assistance and support. Nobody has any problem with that.

I mean, we've always treated grief that way. There are support groups, counseling, all kinds of different resources available, and which ought to be available. And that's good. But listen to the way Nurse Ratched in the video is talking about grief. she says it's not helpful. She speaks of normal grief as opposed to intense grief. She talks about grief as a symptom, which says that it's a disease in which the goal is to get better in the way that you might get better after a bad cold. This is all profoundly wrong.

Here's the reality. Nobody, I don't care how many letters they have in front of their name, nobody is in a position to declare what sort of grief is nor do. There is no normal or right way to grieve. And even if you can look at all the grief that all humans experience and somehow categorize it and average it out and come up with a baseline, doesn't mean that every person who experiences the loss of a loved one ought to be expected to now stay at that baseline level. What kind of madness is that? Well, listen, we've discovered that on average, most people grieve their dead fathers for this amount of time. So we'll need you to keep your grief within those parameters too.

anything beyond that is just not helpful. The real mental sickness here is in the deranged narcissist coming up with this stuff. Grief is not a sickness. It's not fun either. It's painful. It can be devastating. It can ruin your life. Depending on who you lost and how it can certainly change the course of your life. And it's possible that the sadness that you experience will stay with you forever for as long as you live. But just because this reality of life is difficult, that doesn't mean it's an illness. that doesn't mean we need a drug for it. At a certain point, our society needs to understand this basic concept. Not every difficult or painful human experience can be solved with drugs.

C.S. Lewis wrote a book called A Grief Observed after the death of his wife. It's a beautiful reflection of grief, but given that he was still deeply grieving his beloved, even after 30 days had passed, very unhelpfully, the APA would now probably say that the book is nothing but the ramblings of a mental patient, you know, a mentally ill. guy. He should have simply been given a heavy dose of psychotropic medication. That's it. But in any case, C.S. Lewis wrote that in the book, he said that sometimes there is nothing to do with suffering but suffer it. Meaning not that a suffering person should be abandoned to their pain, but simply that some painful feelings, the deepest ones especially, must be felt. They must

be experienced. There's nothing else to do with them. You could try to numb them into oblivium. that's not going to solve anything. It might make it easier for you to reintegrate into society. It might be the best thing for the economy and, you know, for your managers at work. But it's not the best thing for you as a human being, as a person, which is what you are. After all, what is grief? Well, grief is love deprived of its object. Somebody said somewhere that grief is love with no place to go.

You grieve because you loved and you still love. You can't make grief a mental illness without making love itself a mental illness because grief is love. Now, God forbid, if I were to lose my wife or one of my children, I would never get over it. I would never get better in the sense of being back to normal, back to how I was before. I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want to get back to a life where it's like they never existed because I love them more than life itself. I would gladly die in their place if that was an option. C.S. Lewis said that grief is like an amputation.

You know, it does in fact feel like a part of yourself is gone because it is. The psychiatrist now say that such a feeling is abnormal. It's beyond average. It's abeyrant. It's departing from the accepted standard. But actually, such a feeling is simply human. It's how a person feels after losing someone they love deeply. A drug can't solve grief unless they come up with a drug to raise the dead.

Absent that, the absence which causes the grief will remain forever for as long as you live. And so you can either feel that absence and have the pain which comes with it, or you can numb it with a drug so that your loved one is still gone and you still miss them, but you don't feel it anymore. Now, I can understand the temptation to seek refuge and numbness, but that's not what we should be encouraging people to do. Rather, we should be helping them to live with the pain to carry on in spite of their grief and with their grief. The problem is that there simply isn't very much money to be made in that endeavor.

and that's all these people care about is the money. And that ultimately is why the APA, the pharmaceutical industry, today are canceled. And 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 Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Benchapier show, Michael Knowles show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer, Jeremy Boring. Our supervising

producer is Mathis Glover. Production manager, Pavel Vodowsky. 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.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, Ron DeSantis signs the Florida Parenthood and Education Bill into law to find Disney's woke virtue signaling, and Joe Biden no longer speaks English or lives on the planet Earth. That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show. Give it a listen.