The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 941 - The Biden Administration Uses ‘1984’ As An Instruction Manual

Episode Date: April 29, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Biden Administration takes its cue from Orwell, setting up its very own Ministry of Truth. We’ll discuss. And a judicial nominee admits during a confirmation hearing that her previous claims about police violence were untrue but made for “rhetorical purposes.” Plus Joe Biden continues to mentally decay on camera. Ilhan Omar speaks out for student loan forgiveness. A new film about Vikings is accused of racism because the vikings are white. And in our Daily Cancellation, we will examine a video which purports to scientifically prove the validity of transgenderism. I’m skeptical but I’ll hear them out.  Pre-order your copy of Julio Rosas’ upcoming book Fiery but Mostly Peaceful: The 2020 Riots and the Gaslighting of America: https://utm.io/uepi9.  I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc. What is a Woman? Help me track down the answer in my new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com.   — Today’s Sponsors:  Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Mention offer code "WALSH" when you call 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com.  Convert your videotapes, camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures to perfectly preserved digital files. Visit www.Legacybox.com/WALSH for an incredible deal on your order. 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, the Biden administration takes its cue from Orwell, setting up its very own Ministry of Truth, we'll discuss. And a judicial nominee admits during a confirmation hearing that her previous claims about police violence were untrue, but made anyway for rhetorical purposes, she says. Plus, Joe Biden continues to mentally decay on camera. Ilhan Omar speaks out for student loan forgiveness. And in our daily cancellation, we'll examine a video which purports to scientifically prove the validity of transgenderism. I'm skeptical, but I'll hear him out. All of 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 are helping these left-leaning companies donate to pro-choice causes and candidates? A common question I get from my listeners is, what can I do to help turn the tides in the culture war?

Well, here's a great first step. Defund the abortionists. Don't let them take your money and use it to further policies you don't believe. And switch to Charity Mobile today. And they'll send you 5%. They'll send 5% of your monthly plan price to a pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice. Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones with no device or service contracts. Plus, they've got great nationwide coverage, so it's a great service, and also it's a company you can believe in, best of both worlds.

This sounds like a hassle to make the change, I assure you it isn't. Charity Mobile makes switching from your current carrier painless. Their live customer service is exceptional. It'll provide you and guide you all throughout the process. You can keep your number, and even in most cases you can keep your phone. Or if you want, you can take advantage of my special offer and get a free cell phone with free activation. All you have to do is call 1877-474-362 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com and mention offer code, Walsh to redeem the free cell phone offer.

That's charitymobile.com and mention offer code Walsh. Join the fight for the life of children by switching to Charity Mobile today. You know, Orwell analogies are terribly overused these days, but there's a reason for that. Well, there's two reasons. One is that 1984 is one of about three books that the average

American has actually read all the way through. The other two are Harry Potter books. But the second reason is that so much of what we're experiencing today really was prophesied by Orwell in 1984, and even more so, in my opinion, and his allegory animal farm, things tend to happen that even a more widely red person cannot help but compare to one of those two works. And what else are we supposed to do when the Biden administration,

as they did this week, literally creates a ministry of truth? Sure. I mean, they aren't calling at that, of course. Instead, they've come up with an even more Orwellian name than what Orwell chose. Their name is the disinformation governance board. Now, this new board will exist within the Department of Homeland Security, a department that shouldn't exist, and which has since its conception, been responsible for many of the federal government's most insidious civil rights abuses. Yet another reason to thank George W. Bush for his contributions to massively expanding the federal government. The head of this new board is a leftist ideologue, an activist named Nina Jankowitz, who proudly announced her new position in a tweet yesterday, which you can see here.

She posted, here's my official portrait to grab your attention. Now that I'm a lot of you. I've got it, a huge focus of our work, and indeed one of the key reasons the board was established, is to maintain the department's commitment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. And then for whatever reason, she includes a photo of Quentin Tarantino. The interesting thing to note about this Nina character is that she's not only a leftist, but also, and these two things often come together as a package deal, of course, completely insane. As evidenced by this video, which has been making the rounds since Tucker Carlson played it on a show last night, but if you didn't see it, I think it's worth watching because this, again, this is a woman who's going to be at the Department of Homeland Security in charge of disinformation. And here's what she's all about. Information laundering is really quite ferocious. It's when a hopster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or a mainstream outlet so. Disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious.

It's how you hide a little, Idle, it's how you hide a little, idle, little I, it's how you hide a little, hide a little when Rudy Giuliani shared that in town from Ukraine, or when TikTok influences say COVID can cause pain, they're laundering disinfo and we really should take note and not support their lies with our wallet, voice or vote. This is perhaps not quite as embarrassing as the BDSM dog fetishist that Biden tapped for a federal post a few months ago, but it's pretty close. Not surprisingly, Nina is also a proponent of the words are violence school of thought. She has a book coming out apparently called How to Be a Woman Online.

Don't ask her to define what a woman is, though. I mean, she's just the information's are. She's not a biologist. And she tweeted this excerpt from the book, quote, men burst violently into your mentions and your life, like the Kool-Aid man, demanding your attention, hawking opinions that they believe are unarguably manifestly correct and indispensable. violently. Yes, men are committing violence by responding to your tweets. Sounds a bit like Taylor Lorenz. This is a common theme. And this is men, of course. Just men. Men, women never do this.

But men also commit the sin of thinking their opinions are correct. Now, never mind that literally every human on earth thinks their opinions are correct. This is an accusation made against me all the time. oh Matt, you always act like you think your opinions are correct. Well, of course, if I didn't think they were correct, they wouldn't be my opinion. By definition, it's something that I think is correct. Perhaps most importantly of all, though, Nina, who will be in charge of identifying and censoring disinformation has already made clear what the term disinformation means to her. It means any information that is politically inconvenient to Democrats, which is why she labeled the Hunter laptop story disinformation back in 2020. She was one of like every other Democrat saying that that was

disinformation. Turns out it was 100% true. That point about the Hunter Biden laptop story was made to Jen Pisaki during the White House press briefing yesterday. And here's how she responded to that. Listen. She had previously called the Hunter Biden laptop, a Trump campaign product, seeming to discredit its validity or validity of reporting surrounding that. How can you assuage concerns of people who are looking at this person who's been appointed to this position? wondering if she's going to be able to accurately judge misinformation now that a lot of that reporting has been proven to be factual in some ways. Well, I don't have any comments on the laptop, but what I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent

disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort. She doesn't have any comments about the laptop angle, which is, that's the question, right? So I love that from Jen Pisaki, when someone asks a question and her response is, well, I don't have any comments about the question you just asked. So instead, I'll make a point that's irrelevant. She says the board will prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities, and she's not sure who opposes that effort. Well, many of us do. And let me explain why. First of all, note how they are calling. I think this is important. Okay, they are calling it the disinformation.

board and not the misinformation board. Now, even that small nuance is significant because it adds an extra layer of editorializing. Misinformation is simply information that's wrong. Disinformation is wrong, is information that's wrong intentionally. So all disinformation is misinformation is misinformation, but not all misinformation is disinformation. Disinformation is when there's an intentional, there's an intent to deceive. The government now has claimed the authority, not only to be the arbiter of which information is correct and incorrect, but also of the motivations

behind the people spreading the alleged incorrect information. When you call something disinformation, you are claiming to know both that the information is wrong and also why it's wrong. This is the power the Biden administration is claiming for itself, and it can't end well. I mean, it's designed to not end well. It never does end well when a government declares itself the final judge of truth, which is not the government's job. It's also not the government's job to control the spread of information. It's supposed to control other things, and the spread of other things like immigration, crime, okay? Those are two big ones that it should be trying to control.

But this regime has a little interest in that. To this regime, the greatest enemy is not crime, not anything like that. It's information. And because we live in the information age, when the average person processes more information in a day than previous generation may have encountered in a year or a decade, that means that the efforts to control and stifle information will have to be far-reaching and severe and oppressive. Just think about what tyrannical regimes in the past have done

to control the flow of information, before the Internet, before modern media. Now think about what this one will have to do, given how ubiquitous information is. Now, the truth is that they will not be able to staunch the flow completely or monitor all of it, though they will, no doubt, try. They're not going to be able to do it. Ultimately, the most effective tactic they can take and have already taken against

inconvenient information, which, again, is what they mean by disinformation. There's the actual definition of disinformation, which is incorrect information meant to deceive. But that's the actual definition. But for them, that's not what it really is. This is inconvenient information. But the main tactic here is to convince people not to trust their own powers of perception, their own common sense. We saw this, we see this all the time with the left.

We saw it all throughout COVID. Trust the experts, they said. Even if the experts contradict themselves 10 times in the same sentence. Still, just accept whatever is the most recent thing the experts have said. Lots of people, sadly, are not only willing to do this, but they find, I think, some comfort in it. The fire hydrant of information gushing directly into your brain can get exhausting and overwhelming at times. and after a while, people look to outsource the task of processing and forming conclusions to some sort of outside authority.

Government's more than happy to provide that service. Now it's created a whole department for that express purpose. Don't bother thinking, they say, we'll take care of that. We'll tell you what to think. And then they'll pat you on the head and give you a lollipop, sends you on your way. The government has already infiltrated nearly every aspect of your life. The last thing it can take a hold of is your mind. if you let it, which you shouldn't.

Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, with Mother's Day coming just around the corner, it's time to start thinking about what you want to do to make your mom feel special. I've been trying to think about what I want to give my mom this Mother's Day season, and all I can think about is the time where I refuse to fix her VHS player over this past holiday season. And now I'm not going to apologize for that because I refuse to apologize for anything.

Never apologize to the pitchfork mob, even when your own mother is in that mom. But instead, I'm going to give my mom something that she'll be thanking me for. I'm going to give her a reason to throw away that VHS player once and for all with Legacy Box. Legacy Box is the best company out there when it comes to digitally preserving all of your sentimental but outdated belongings. That's why they've helped millions of people digitize their belongings over the past decade. Just send Legacy Box all your videotapes, film reels, and photos, and their team of over 200 trained technicians will hand digitize everything. You can track their progress along the way with their online tracking system.

And once they're done, they'll send you all of your original. copies along with a digital copy stored on a thumb drive, the cloud or DVD. Now, my mom's not going to have to worry about having a working VHS player anymore, and she can show all my embarrassing photos and videos to my wife easily over the holidays, which she's already done many times. You can do the same for your mom this Mother's Day by visiting legacybox.com slash walsh right now to get 60% off your order. That's legacybox.com slash walsh. All right, you probably already have noticed. I'm sure there's comments, many comments, because people in the comments I've discovered love nothing more than to comment on my wardrobe and shame me for it.

Well, I've dressed up a little bit. I got the jacket on. Decided to class things up because I'm a number one bestselling Amazon author now, and this is how you have to dress. No, actually, the truth is that my shirt was wrinkled and I didn't feel like ironing it. So I just put the jacket on. Like, that's the only time you'll catch me dressing well as if it's just out of pure laziness. Okay, I want to start with this, because we were just talking about disinformation. And here's a great example of it. And this is disinformation, right?

So that is incorrect information that's intentional. A judicial nominee named Nusrath Chowdhury was in front of the Senate Committee yesterday. And I want you to listen to this exchange about one piece of alleged information that turned out not to be correct. But listen to this. This is a really simple question, Counsel. Do you believe that cops kill? unarmed black men in America every single day. You said it at Princeton. Senator, I said it in my role as an advocate. Oh, okay. You didn't mean it.

Senator, I said it in my role as an advocate to make a rhetorical point. So, so when you say something that's incorrect, it's okay to excuse it by saying, oh, I was being an advocate? What do you believe? Do you personally believe that cops kill unarmed black men every single day in America? Senator, I believe law enforcement have an important and challenging job in this country? That's not what you said, though, counsel. Senator, I say before you here today that I do believe law enforcement have a difficult and challenging job, and I also understand the difference between... I just think that's an extraordinary statement to make with no data to back up. None whatsoever. There's no basis for you saying that.

And you knew it then and you know it now. How can one possibly believe that you're going to be unbiased on the federal bench? Senator, I believe my record shows that I have worked collaboratively with law enforcement in Boston, Chicago, Mississippi, and Milwaukee to solve complex problems to promote constitutional, effective, and safe police. Your record shows that you believe cops are guilty until proven innocent. Your record shows that if a cop, if a cop shoots a criminal, it's the cop's fault. And if a criminal shoots a cop, it's the gun's fault. I've read your record. I've read your record, Ms. Murrell, and I don't appreciate you not answering the question straight up. I would respect you a lot more if you'd just tell us what you believe and not try to hide it. Yeah, this is really perfect because it shows, again, that's, this is, that's disinformation. She claimed, um, in the past that cops are shooting unarmed

black men every single day in this country, which is not even within the ballpark of anything that resembles the truth. As we've gone over before, you look at the actual numbers of unarmed shootings of both black and white suspects, it very rarely happens. You could say that it almost never happens when compared to the number of interactions that law enforcement have and the number of arrests that they make. And then you take a percentage, how many result in the shooting of an unarmed person? It's like 0.00 bunch of zeros 1%. Um, Extremely rare. And certainly not every day. And then even when you, if you were to just bear down and look at the unarmed shootings, you find that even a good portion of those are not actually unarmed because maybe somebody's in a car, try to run cops over. I think in no sense, can we, if you've got a, you know, a, if you're driving your weapon, this big metal contraption, you're trying to, like a battering ram drive right into someone, it's, it's hard to see. how that would count as unarmed. So unarmed shootings are very, very rare, and then

a good portion of the actual unarmed shootings aren't actually unarmed as it turns out. And then even the ones where the suspect actually has no weapon at all, even most of those shootings end up being justified because you'll find out that a lot of those cases, there's a, there's, you know, the suspects trying to take the weapon from the cop, that sort of thing, Michael Brown, that's what that was. And yet this judge said that this happens every single day. That's disinformation. And she admits that she admitted right there. in that exchange that it was disinformation, though she didn't say the word, but she admitted it was disinformation because she admitted that she knew that was wrong. She didn't say, oh, you know, I thought that,

but I didn't look into it and I was just mistaken. That would be bad enough, but instead she says, I was just trying to make a rhetorical point. Translation, I knew it was wrong, but it's a helpful talking point. And so I said it anyway, otherwise known as lying. Now, the disinformation board for the Department of Homeland Security, is that the kind of disinformation? Is that the kind of disinformation? that they're going to address? You would think if they were actually concerned about disinformation, especially harmful disinformation, it's hard for me to think of a type of disinformation

that has done more harm to this country of the last five years than exactly that, that cops are out prowling about, hunting down unarmed black men and murdering them in cold blood. Like, of all the disinformation that we encounter, It's hard for me to think of something that's been more harmful than that as it has led to countless riots, billions of dollars and damages, dozens of people dead, entire police stations burned to the ground all on the strength of this disinformation, all fueled by this disinformation. But something tells me the disinformation board, they're not going to be concerned about that. Even though this is law enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, you'd think that they'd be concerned about disinformation against law enforcement.

but no, they're not. They're not. Staying in the Biden administration, let's go all the way to the top, supposedly the top, Biden himself. So we see these, you know, you see these every single day clips like this of Biden losing his mind. It does. It just, it gets worse every time. And this is as bad as we've seen. But here it is. Listen. That will enhance our underlying effort to accommodate the Russian oligarchs and make sure we take their, their ill-begotten gains. We're going to accommodate them. We're going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains of Putin's kleptocracy and the guys who are the kleptocracies. But these are bad guys. Oh my gosh. The guys who are the kleptocracies.

Kleptomaniacs, I think, is the word he's gone for. And most people, are focusing on that part of it, but also, what is he talking about? We're going to accommodate them. That's not the words you're looking for. You're looking for the opposite of that. We're going to accommodate the Russian oligarchs. I think you mean you're not going to accommodate them? And that's what you're trying to say? It's not just the president is losing his mind or his mind is deteriorating or anything like. He has lost his mind. He does not have one right now. He's fully senile. And everyone in the whole world knows it, including our end. enemies. And this is what we're supposed to just live with for the next two years.

I also want to play this for you. Kind of moving on, staying within Democratic politics, though. Ilhan Omar, and we've heard about Biden's plan, his Hail Mary pass, the Biden administrations. Well, we can't talk about, first of all, we can't talk about Biden doing anything anymore. His plans anything. I mean, he's got no, he's an empty vessel completely. But the Biden administration anyway is planning this Hail Mary pass right before the midterms to try to buy some votes because they're drowning in the polls. And so they're talking about student loan forgiveness. Here's Ilhan Omar outside the capital with some activists calling for that kind of forgiveness.

We are here to tell the president that with the stroke of a pen, he can and should and must cancel student debt, period. We have 45 million people in this country who are shackled with student debt. You have to realize that 45 million people who are putting off the opportunity to start that business they wanted to start. It is 45 million people who are putting off the opportunity to start the family they want to start. That is 45 million people. 45 million people. Now, even if that was all true, it does not address the main objection to so-called student loan forgiveness, otherwise not a student loan transferal from the person who took out the loan and forcing people who didn't take out the loan to pay for it. But she doesn't begin to address the actual argument against it. Now, all she's talking about is how difficult it is to have the debt and how painful it is and all that. Like, no one is, no one's arguing that point. It's not fun to have debt. No one's saying otherwise. But she doesn't address the argument against it, which is that, okay, someone's going to be paying these loans off.

And so either it is going to be the person who agreed to take out the loan and purchased the product and has the product they purchased with that loan. Or you're going to force people who didn't take out the loan to pay for it. You're going to saddle it. Someone saddled with the burdens. It's either them. It's either the person took out the loan and the person or people who didn't. the argument against student loan forgiveness is that people who didn't take out loans shouldn't have to pay them. Simple as that. You know, you don't have to go beyond it. Now, as it happens, what she said, what she actually said is also not true, by the way.

She said 45 million people have student loan debts and these are 45 million people putting off starting businesses and starting families and all the rest of it. A great number of these people, probably most of them, in fact, are not putting off living. There's no reason why you should put off living your life because you have debt. my wife had student loan debt and we still got married. And I have been paying, I as the person didn't go to college, have been paying off my wife's student loans. Do you think I have fun doing that? You think I enjoy that?

No, but she's my wife. This is my family. I'm not going to go to anybody else and say, I would be ashamed as a man. I would be ashamed as a man to go and try to enlist or even worse force. someone else to take on my financial responsibilities. I wouldn't want to force anyone to take my financial responsibilities. Even less what I want to force anyone to take on my wife's financial responsibilities. That's my, that's for me.

I'm the breadwinner in the family. So I will take care of that. It's disgraceful. As a man especially, it's disgraceful to be sitting there whining. Someone, I don't want to pay this off. Someone take care of it. Be a man. What is wrong with you?

Don't tell me that I can't do anything. Yes, you can. I mean, I guarantee you one thing. All these people say, oh, because my student loan debts, I can't do this, I can't do that. How many streaming services are they subscribed to? I want to know that. How often do they get the updated iPhone? And now you can still do pretty much anything you want to do, even with the financial debt.

It's just a matter of what are your priorities. One other political story here that I thought was interesting. This is from Washington Free Begin. It says Arizona's Democratic Senator Kristen Sinema likes to brag that her cleavage has an extraordinary persuasive effect on some of her Republican colleagues, according to a new book from New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns.

Cinema, who has emerged as an obstacle to the most radical parts of President Joe Biden's legislative agenda, boast the colleagues and aides of using her looks to get her way with Republicans. Cinema, they say, joked with Democrats about how easy it was for her to charm Republican men and boasted knowingly to colleagues and aides that her cleavage had an extraordinary persuasive effect on the uptight men of the GOP.

Now, I read this, and I'm not exactly sure how this is breaking news or news at all. But I did take note of one thing that's kind of interesting. I note how her cleavage apparently has no impact at all on Democrat men. What does that imply, I wonder? You know, you've got Cory Booker there saying, you have no power here, woman. I mean, it could imply that they just take their jobs a lot more seriously or, you know, something else.

Different tastes, I guess. Let's play a game here. This is a game called owned and not owned. So first, here's a viral clip, when real viral yesterday. And once again, the left is claiming that Ben Shapiro was owned and destroyed and exposed during a Q&A by. with a college student. And we heard about this a couple weeks ago. Ben Shapiro was trending again,

and the claim was that he had been owned and destroyed, and we played that clip, and it really kind of came up short. Media Matters Hall Monitor, Jason Campbell, posted this clip and said, this is absolutely amazing. You have to watch it. In two minutes,

all of Ben Shapiro's anti-woke tirades are just destroyed. And like I said, this went really viral, and this is the left seems to be the pretty wide agreement that Ben Shapir was totally destroyed by this. Let's listen and see how that destruction sounded. So if the idea is that history has consequences, of course, that's true. That's not wokenness. What wokenness suggests is that fundamental institutions in American society are so...

No, it doesn't. Yes, it a hundred percent of them. I ran Elizabeth Warren's campaign. I helped organize her. volunteers around here. I am a representative of wokeness. And that's just, this is all it is. Well, I mean, like, I mean, I, you know, when I went to go get my first tattoo, the guy had lightning bolts and 88s tattooed on his neck. And as a Jewish person, that's really messed up. So, it's basically a threat. There are, there are racist people who exist. The argument that you're

making, and I'm going to close with this because this is going in weird directions and I don't really No, no, no. It's not going to a weird direction. Just hold up a second. I let you get out your argument. Now it's time for me to respond, because I let you say before argument. Okay, I'll let you respond, but. No, no, not but. Now's my turn.

You are not characterizing what I'm saying accurately. Now it's my turn. Yeah. Your definition is inaccurate. The reason your definition is inaccurate is because any sense against human being would acknowledge that history has consequences. Right.

But if the idea is, but that's not what wokeism is. Wokism is a different thing. Wokism suggests that all inequalities of today are attributable to not only historic injustices, but also continuing injustices in the now, and that all disparities is attributable to discrimination. Not just that. A conservative is the only person. I want to know why.

I know I would let that keep playing, but that's it. That's it. That's the whole clip. Now, I know you might say that I'm biased and I kind of have to defend Ben. I don't have to. Now it's true that if he actually was totally destroyed by a college student, I probably wouldn't play it on the show. That is true. But then I just wouldn't play it. I just would not acknowledge it at all, probably. But it's, you know, it would be impressive. So anytime I see one of these things trend, a college student destroys Bench Bureau, I always watch because I'm like, okay, well, let's see if he actually does it, because that would be impressive. And there's just nothing there. He destroyed Ben Shapiro by pointing out that he met a tattoo artist with an offensive tattoo, and he worked on Elizabeth Warren's campaign. What? First of all, how are either, especially the second thing, working at Elizabeth Warren's campaign, how is that something to brag about in the first place?

I think you actually lose the argument from the get-go by pointing that out, but I don't even know what that's supposed to prove exactly. There's no, there was no, there was no, there was no, there was no, presented, nothing at all. And there wasn't even an argument presented by Ben Shapiro because he didn't get a chance to speak because he kept getting cut off. And this is the point, is that the guy, the kid, was able to successfully prevent Ben Shapiro from making a point by filibustering and talking over him. And on the left now, that's what they consider owning and destroying. They're not even pretending anymore that they're going to present arguments. and defeat you on the battlefield of ideas that way, by presenting better ideas and defending them. They're not even pretending it. What they're going to do instead is just stop you from talking.

And if they can do that, then you've been obliterated. So that was supposed to be owning. That was not. Here's what owning sounds like. This is Democrat Representative Jeffreys at a different committee hearing. I want you to just, we don't need a lot of set up here. I just want you to listen to this exchange. Mr. Powell, letta, you've echoed a similar sentiment.

I think your quote is, many on the left hate Justice Thomas because he is a black conservative who has never bowed to those who demand that he must think a certain way because of the color of his skin. What evidence do you have to support that incendiary charge? When Chairman Benny Thompson calls him an Uncle Tom because of his views on voter ID and affirmative action when in fact more black Americans support voter ID and with respect to affirmative action in college education they're 62% opposed to it so so that is the most vile disgusting thing you can say and and so yes that's that's the evidence reclaim in my time reclaim in my time yes

there are a lot of vile disgusting things that can well you just ask me for an example the notion that that is right when some members on this side of the aisle and others have been called the inward throughout different points of our life belies the point that you have a particular bias. And it's an overstatement, which is not surprising when you look at the balance of your testimony. And if Chairman Benny Thompson has an observation to make, he's entitled to free speech, you apparently believe that Jenny Thomas, regardless of how many conflicts she has and is entitled to home political opinions as well. Can I give you another example?

No. No, you can't. Okay, that's what destroying somebody actually sounds like. That's what it is. Jeffrey says, can you give one example? This terrible, terrible charge that people, Democrats have been racist against Justice Thomas. Give us one example. Okay, well, here's a guy who called him an Uncle Tom.

Well, yeah, but that's, people have said worse things in free speech. Okay, well, I'll give you another example. No, no, no, we'll just stop there. it's a total humiliation. And this is one thing, I'm not a lawyer, but one thing I have learned just from watching the lawyer shows is that, and I think it's something you could probably take with you in life, especially in debates, is never ask a question that you don't know the answer to,

especially in a situation like this. As a lawyer in court, also in a debate. You don't want to pose a question to somebody that you don't know know the answer to it. In this case, he didn't know the answer. And he was completely embarrassed. I mean, he's embarrassed by any objective standard. But of course, as a Democrat, it's really just doesn't matter at all. One last thing is from Pink News. Lesbian Visibility Week, founder Linda Riley, has slammed J.K. Rowling as the perfect example of how not to be an ally. Lesbian Visibility Week, which celebrates lesbians and honors all queer women and non-binary folk within

the LGBTQ community began on Monday. So happy lesbian visibility week. I don't know. I totally forgot to mention it. And I think actually, in fact, the fact that during lesbian visibility week, the number one book in the country is an LGBT children's book, I think is just phenomenal. It's fantastic.

But J.K. Rowling decided to mark the occasion by saluting the resilience and courage of her inspirational friend, LGBT Alliance co-founder Alison Bailey. Bailey, a lawyer is currently suing LGBT rights charity Stonewall and her former employer Garden Court Chambers for discrimination. And anyway, then a bunch of leftists came after J.K. Rowling for speaking out about lesbian visibility week. Now, here's the kind of funny thing about this is that, of course, in reality, all of these various, as we went over, back when it was transvisibility week, that was just two weeks ago. And I went over, it's really a partial list of all the days and weeks set aside on the calendar to celebrate LGBT people. and there are just dozens and dozens.

And it's all completely silly and ridiculous. You shouldn't require any day on the calendar, not even one, to celebrate your sexuality. And it's a very weird thing in general to have days like that celebrating that aspect of somebody. But as it happens, you know, actually, as much as the left likes to claim that they're being erased, you're erasing me. Lesbians actually are, the category of lesbian is in fact, in reality,

being erased. And if you follow the demographic trends in another 30, 40 years, it just won't exist anymore. And you look at the younger generations, Gen Z and millennials, while LGBT identification has skyrocketed and trans identification is skyrocketed, lesbian identification has fallen off of a cliff. And why is that? Well, it's because every girl, every woman who in the past would have identified themselves as a lesbian, now they're being told that, oh, no, no, no, you're actually a man. You're not a lesbian.

You're actually not only a man. You're a straight man, it turns out. So this is, if you want to talk about conversion therapy, this is really the only kind of conversion therapy that goes on, on top of the most insidious form, which is in general the way that kids are recruited into the LGBT fold. But here's conversion therapy. Essentially what the left is doing is they're taking lesbian women and they are converting them into straight men or trying to anyway. So that's what's happened. Let's get now to the comment section.

Populist Puerto Rican says, I agree with everything you said about the college treadmill. We really need to start bringing back vocational schools and help kids get a principal. ships, let them figure out what they like in high school and if they want to go on to higher learning, great. If not, they'll at least have a solid foundation with which to start their lives. This is one of the solutions to the college debt crisis. There is no real solution that's going to erase the past because this is one of the harshest lessons of life is that you cannot undo what has been done in the past. You can't really undo it. All you can try to do is shirk your responsibilities and pass the buck on to somebody else, which you shouldn't do. But going forward,

this is a solution to college debt crisis, which is to stop setting all these kids into college. And this is one alternative, vocational schools, apprenticeships, that sort of thing. But really, right out of high school, like, it's just almost no kids right out of high school should be going to college, almost none. Even out of all the kids, like almost all the kids who are in college right now should actually should not be there. Only a small minority should actually be there. And of that minority, only a small minority of that minority, should go right out of high school. Because even most of them would benefit from just taking a couple of years. There's just no reason to do it.

Of course, we know why the universities want to encourage that because there's a financial motive there. And they don't want, I mean, just think about this. Why don't the universities want your child to graduate high school and then go do something else for a couple of years and then go to college? Why don't they want that? because they're afraid that if you go and you do that, you might discover that you don't need to go to college at all. They don't want you to discover that. There's no advantage that I can see, really, at all,

to going to college right out of high school. There's no reason to do it. What is it, a race? Who are you racing? You got your whole life in front of you. So take a couple of years. You're still young. There's really nothing bad that can happen out of going to college when you're 21, God forbid, or 22.

You go at any time. I could still go to college if I wanted to. which at this point, if I did, it would only be just because it's funny. Maybe that's my next act of trolling is to go to college. Let's see. Rachel says, what do you think of the Lily Peters story? Should the boy be charged as an adult? I have not read very much into this story,

mainly because it's so horrifying that it's the kind of story that's just difficult to read. But from what I understand about this story, Lily Peters is a 10-year-old girl who was murdered. and as it turns out she was strangled and sexually assaulted in the woods. And then it turns out that a 14-year-old boy is guilty of this crime and is being charged as an adult. So I guess that's the debate is should you charge 14-year-old boys as adults. And what I would say to that is in the vast majority of cases,

no, you shouldn't charge 14-year-olds as adults because they're 14. But in a case like this, yeah, absolutely. Because this is just, if you're already at this point as a 14-year-old, society can never trust you again. You could never be trusted in society ever again. There are things that a 14-year-old can do, not many, but there are things a 14-year-old can do that I think just tragically, on so many levels, disqualify them from ever-participing.

batting in human society ever again. And this is one of those things. E. King says, as an Amazon employee myself, seeing the book at work was the highlight of my day. Doesn't really say a lot, but for what it's worth, you know, I have heard some, you know, there certainly are people within Amazon. And that's how we got a hold of these video clips in the first place, who are still on Team Sanity. And I appreciate that. So another comment says talking about Megan Fox. She says that her son wears dresses like he chooses them, but I highly doubt he picked them out himself from the store. Who bought him the dresses? Megan.

No one buys their son a dress unless they want him to wear a dress, which to me says she's a groomer. Yes, absolutely. That's the thing. That's why I say it's one of the reasons why I say there's no, there's really no such thing. as a six-year-old trans kid or a six-year-old who chooses to be non-binary or whatever, because that's not on so many levels. That's not a choice a child can make. And especially they can't go out if they have female clothing.

It's because you went out and bought it for him, which apparently Megan Fox did at a very young age. But remember, she only did this because she sensed when her child was in the womb that he was going to be non-binary. She sensed it. I mean, usually, we're told from the left that children in the womb, are not even human, unless they're non-binary or trans, in which case they are. I guess that's the one loophole. You know, at the Daily Wire, we've started our own publishing wing called DW Books,

and we're proud to publish books that actively fight the left's monopoly on storytelling, like fiery but mostly peacefully 2020 riots and the gaslighting of America by Julio Rosas. In it, Rosas exposes the Black Lives Matter riots that broke out across the country in the aftermath of George Floyd's death for the sham that they were. Rosas, who was reporting from the ground, gives firsthand experience and illuminates the media's attempts to convince Americans that the fatal and destructive riots were somehow peaceful. Check out the trailer. The media gaslit the American people for all of 2020 as the riots unfolded. They did not give you the full story. I was there. Floyd caught written house, way short books,

Shazd in Seattle. I saw all the riots with my own eyes. Windshields being smashed, giant rocks that were being thrown. Businesses that were starting to be looted. The crowd started become hostile. All the cops were trapped and surrounded. Police were being ordered to retreat. I experienced the tear gas. I experienced the smoke. This was very real to me.

The mainstream media, they were trying to call them protests. CNN with that Chiron saying, fiery but mostly peaceful. They're trying to push a narrative of don't believe your lying eyes. Because they were trying to appease a very dedicated Antifa movement that's there. When we read my book, Firey but Mostly Peaceful, you will get the full story. you will learn what actually happened during the riots of 2020 and what the media did not want to tell you. Buy my book, fiery but mostly peaceful. Everywhere books are sold.

The book's available for pre-order on Amazon or anywhere you buy books online, so go pre-order your copy today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. So today we're going to once again pick on a fellow YouTuber who is in dire need of a good old-fashioned debunking. The channel is called Powered by Rainbows, so that should give you some idea of what we're getting ourselves into. powered by rainbows provides, we're told in the channel description, weekly LGBTQ education. The guy in the video we're going to watch wears a rainbow tie-dye shirt with the words

Professor Pride on it. Now, I don't think that's his official academic title, though. I wouldn't be surprised if universities are actually giving out those kinds of professorships, I don't know. The particular video we're interested in today is about the alleged science of being transgender, as it says in the title.

Now, this has been viewed half a million times as 7,000 comments, most of them from people who say that the content was very encouraging and validating. validating for them. That's not a good thing because the content is also, as we'll see, completely misleading, dishonest, absurd, and since it's validating and affirming people in falsehood and delusion, extremely harmful. The whole video is 23 minutes long. I'm not going to force you to sit through all that. Instead, we'll take about five minutes of this,

the crux of the whole thing, which purports to offer scientific proof beyond any shadow of a doubt that transgenderism is scientifically valid. We'll take that, we'll watch and we'll react. Let's dive right in. The thing you have to understand about transphobic people is their entire argument all boils down to one thing, science. No matter what argument a transphobic person might call out in the middle of their hatred, the keystone of that argument seems to be on a scientific basis. If you're not familiar with the word keystone, it's a term used in architecture to describe the central stone at the summit or the top of an archway, locking the whole arch together. Now, if only there was a way for us to remove that keystone and scientifically prove their cornerstone invalid, then every single one of their arguments fall apart as a result.

And at this point, I think you know where I'm heading with this episode, because luckily for us, science proves that being transgender is completely valid. So let's explain how we know this. Now, one of the reasons that I'm responding to this video is that in these five minutes we're going to sort through, nearly every incoherent and fallacious and fraudulent aspect of gender ideology is put on display. We see it already in how Professor Pride has set all this up. In the world he presents, there are only two categories of people, even though he would say that he believes in a non-binary system. He actually believes in a binary system, but the two categories of people are those who agree

with him on the topic of sex and transphobic people. That's it. Now, he's right at least that the opposing point of view does all come down to science. There are other elements to it also. Gender ideology is not just factually and scientifically wrong, but also morally abominable as well. But the moral problems all stem from the falsehood of the ideology. And so it does begin with the science. If you can disprove our scientific argument that men have penises and women have vaginas, then yes, you will have destroyed our whole position. You will have leveled our fortress with a barrage of facts and logic. We'll be exposed and utterly defenseless. So let's see if Professor Pride can do just that. The most common argument that transphobic people will make is that you were assigned the gender at birth, which you were always meant to be.

Okay. It's a little bit of a stop and start here. We have to stop it already because Professor Pride packed more falsehoods into those five seconds than I thought it was physically possible. He's sticking with calling us all transphobes, which is false, but I'm not going to point it out every time he does it because that's all I would be doing since it's all he does. And then he says that our most common argument is quoting him, who allegedly is quoting, who allegedly is quoting, us, you were assigned the gender at birth, which you were always meant to be. No part of that is true. That's not even remotely the argument we make. None of us are saying that. We do not believe that male and female are assigned at birth. No mere mortal assigns sex at all, and the assigning process, if you want to call it that, happens at conception, not birth. Also, notice how I'm using the word sex here, not gender. That's because I reject the category of gender.

are altogether. Humans have a sex, male or female. Gender is a nonsensical, arbitrary category invented by pedophile sexologists in the 1960s. So if you want to engage with what you call the transphobic argument, you would need to begin by defending the invention of the gender category for human beings in the first place. Instead, Professor Pride just assumes that the pedophile sexologists were correct, takes that all for granted and charges forward. This makes everything that comes after this point totally irrelevant, because you cannot assume that we have a shared fundamental premise here. We don't. It's the fundamental premise that we're fighting about. If you

aren't going to defend that, and you're going to base your whole argument on a premise that you haven't attempted to defend, then you've already lost. But let's keep listening anyway. As accredited psychiatrist Morat Altenay reports, we know that after a father's

sperm cell fertilizes an egg in the mother's womb, that embryo starts to develop specialized genitalia, resembling male or female, which genitalia it develops is determined by the father's sperm cell. But quote, the brain and the body can go in different directions. Gender is not only in our genitalia, there is something in the brain that determines gender. So technically speaking, this argument saying you were born with the gender you

were meant to be is correct because your brain was born the way it is and your brain doesn't switch out with someone else's. But gender is not determined by having a penis or a vagina down stairs. It's determined in your brain. Now, notice what he's done here. It's the same thing that gender ideologues always do. Though these people claim that sex and gender are two different things, he conflates them whenever it suits his argument. Here he says that gender is determined by both your genitals and your brain. You'll note how he never says the word sex at all at any point in the argument he's presenting. But if gender, and by that he means sex, even if he doesn't say it, is determined by both your genitals and your brain, then why would a man who is male in his

genitals, but female in his brain, allegedly, be a female. I mean, if you've proven anything there, and you haven't proven a damn thing, of course, at all. But even if you did, this is an argument, I suppose, for non-binary, for people who are in between or both or whatever. It's not an argument for women with penises. Of course, he's actually right that gender, read, sex, is determined in your brain as well. I mean, your brain is part of the picture. That's because your brain is part of your body. And if you are a man, then your whole body is male, every part of it, every cell. A man with a male body automatically has a male brain because the brain is part of the body, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever to say that part of a

man's body is actually a woman. To speak of a woman's brain in a man's body is exactly the same as speaking of a woman's arm on a man's body. Now, some men, especially liberal men, may have what appear to be women's arms, but in fact, if they're men, then their arms are men's arms automatically, despite appearances. The same is true of brains. Indeed, the very definition of the term man's brain would have to be the brain which exists inside a man's head. That's the only thing a man's brain is.

Now, Professor Pride's argument is logically invalid in about 75 different ways so far as we've seen. But let's go for 76. Because here he's going to tell us about a scientific study which proved, he says, that transgenderism is valid. Now, he never bothers to explain what he means by valid, but, you know, we can only focus on so many fallacies at a time here, so let's listen. In this study, the 2,600 participants were put in MRI machines to scan their brains and record brain activity.

The researchers also had cisgender men and cisgender women go through the same test, and finally, researchers compared the scans. On the left side of your screen, you can see the brain activity of a cisgender male adult. On the right side of your screen, you can see the brain activity of a transgender male adult. But you'll notice, they look nearly identical. And that's something researchers found in every single case out of the 2,600 participants. Their study concluded that transgender males have brain activity almost identical with cisgender males and wildly different from the brain activity from cisgender females,

even though they were assigned female at birth of their genitalia. They also determined that transgender females have brain activity almost identical with cisgender females and massively different from the brain activity from cisgender males, even though they were born male at birth with their genitals. In other words, the brain is 100% backing the hypothesis that your gender is identified in your brain, not your genitalia. And it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that being transgender is completely valid

according to science. Okay, where to begin? Let's try to break this down. He does go on to mention one other similar study that did the same sort of thing and had similar results, he claims, and that's it. Two studies comparing brain scans. These studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt

that transgenderism is valid, whatever that's supposed to mean, according to science. He also says that the brain scans were nearly identical between trans people and the sex they identify as, and that this, again, proves absolutely without question, that he's right about everything.

Though he does at the end say this. Listen. The limitations of these studies are endless. As Dr. Altonai says, some of the brain scans show people are somewhere between, sharing characteristics of both male and female brain scans. And this scientifically proves that gender exists on a spectrum. Wait, what?

I thought you just said the studies proved your point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now you're admitting the studies had endless limitations. And I thought you said the brain scans were identical. Now you say that some of the brain scans weren't identical but were somewhere in between. Which is it? I don't answer that. I know the answer. The study said whatever you need them to have said in order to prove whatever point you're currently trying to make.

This is how the gender ideologues approach literally everything, including life itself. The truth is whatever they needed to be in any given moment. It's as simple as that. And what about these studies? He says they looked at brain activity. What sort of brain activity? Which activities? The human brain can do like 10,000 trillion calculations a second.

The brain's doing a whole lot of activities all the time. Saying that the brain activity between two people is the same means almost nothing. Or else it means that the two people are, what, identical clones of each other, created in a laboratory somewhere? No, what Professor Pride means is that if you take a scan, which examines a small, limited subset of some brain activity, and you compare a, quote, trans woman to a, quote, ciswoman, the scan will look similar sometimes but not always.

Okay, and? Notice how he put up on the screen an alleged example of a scan of a quote trans woman and a quote cis woman and then gives his audience, few of whom are neurologists, presumably, about 12 seconds to analyze them and come to the conclusion that Eureka, they look kind of the same. Of course, nobody knows what they're looking at or what it means, and he also didn't let us see the control group. The scan from this trans woman, quote unquote, and this quote cis woman are similar. But what about a scan of a man who doesn't identify as a woman? How similar would that look?

I'm betting it would be pretty close as well. Indeed, I'm betting that the MRI scans of nearly every human brain on Earth would look pretty similar to most people, especially if you don't know what you're looking at or how to read the scans. What does any of this prove? Well, nothing at all. The most it could possibly prove, and I'm skeptical it even proves this, is that some elements of the brain's activity in a man who desires to be a woman will mirror to a limited extent the activity of a woman who actually is a woman. Now, this, if true, is not surprising, and in no way even begins to invalidate the claim that men are not women, at most. I mean, at the absolute most,

it would be a somewhat interesting insight into the powerful psychological placebo effect that occurs when a man who wants to be a woman is validated as a woman. it can't get within spitting distance of proving what Professor Pride wants it to prove. And I've said all this so far, and somehow I haven't even made the most important point, which is this. He says that a man's female identity is valid if the man's brain scan looks similar to a female's. But what if it doesn't? If a transgender went in for a brain scan and you found that his scan looks more like his biological sex, would you then tell him that he's not really a woman and his trans identity is invalid? No, you wouldn't.

You certainly wouldn't. Because all of this is irrelevant to my argument and also to your own. So, in summary, your argument is false, self-contradictory, built on a false premise, misleading, cherry-picked, and totally irrelevant to the claim that you're actually trying to defend. Otherwise, great stuff. Also, Professor Pride, you're cancer. 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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew Claven Show.

Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising 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. Hey, everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.

But on the Andrew Claven show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Claven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavin.