The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 989 - The Trans Cult Officially Rewrites The Dictionary

Episode Date: July 19, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, as the Left continues to use 1984 as more of an instruction manual than a warning, trans activists have successfully bullied Webster’s dictionary into changing the definition of “female,” though the new definition makes no sense. And that’s not the most Orwellian thing happening this week. Gender activists are also pushing anthropologists to impose gender theory onto the corpses of our ancestors. Plus, congressional Democrats make the case for packing the court, the LA Times gets in trouble for acknowledging the solar power isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and in our Daily Cancellation mass hysteria and outrage as a Sesame Street character is accused of committing a hate crime against a black child.    Become a DailyWire+ member today access the extensive content catalog: https://utm.io/ueMfc    Check out Morning Wire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, DailyWire+, or wherever you listen to podcasts. — Today’s Sponsors:  American Financing empowers families with personalized mortgage solutions. From lower rates to shorter terms, and even debt consolidation! Call American Financing for a FREE mortgage review at [phone] OR Visit AmericanFinancing.net  Helix Mattresses are made to match your unique sleep preferences. Get up to $350 OFF + 2 FREE Pillows with all mattress orders! www.HelixSleep.com/WALSH  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, as the left continues to use 1984 as more of an instruction manual than a warning, trans activists have successfully bullied Webster's dictionary into changing the definition of female, though the new definition makes no sense at all. And that's not the most Orwellian thing happening this week. Gender activists are also pushing anthropologists to impose gender theory onto the corpses of our ancestors. We'll talk about all that. Plus, congressional Democrats make the case for packing the court. The LA Times gets in trouble for acknowledging that solar power isn't all it's cracked up to be. And our daily case, cancellation, mass hysteria and outrage as a Sesame Street character is accused of committing hate crime against a black child. All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. If you want to know how easy it is to adjust your spending and saving strategies, all you got to do is call my friends at American Financing. That's America's Home for Home Loans. There you can get a free, no obligation financial reviews so you can understand new ways to get out of debt faster. I mean it. It's really very simple. There's no pressure. There's no upfront or hidden fees, just a simple conversation around ways to add hundreds back to your monthly budget. Maybe that's

by consolidating debt. Maybe it's by adjusting your mortgage terms or even accessing cash. Believe me, these guys can help in whatever way you need. And you don't need perfect credit to make it happen. They want to help as many families as possible. It's one of the many reasons why I like them so much. And also, again, it's the simplicity, which is so great for a stupid person like myself. So why not take 10 minutes and learn more? If you start soon, you can close as fast as 10 days. Just call 866-569-47-11. That's 866-569-47-11, or visit Americanfinancing.net, NMLS-182-334 NMLS Consumer Access.org. You know, arguing with the left is like trying to win a wrestling match against a very large slug.

The difficulty is not that your opponent is strong and vigorous, but that he's slippery and slimy and difficult to get a grip on. His gelatinous, amorphous nature may make him hideous and. a horror to behold, but it does bless him with certain advantages. And when this greasy, gooey beast also has this complete, has complete institutional dominance, the challenges in opposition to them are even greater. It's not easy to live in a culture where every institution is controlled by a giant slug, is what I'm trying to say. But that's our situation, like it or not. And so we must remain on our toes, ready to adjust. For example, in arguments over the

issue of gender. I have often, like many of us, had recourse back to the dictionary. You know, the slug insists on using words apart from their actual dictionary meaning. And so we on the other side will point to the dictionary and say, no, that's not what the word means. Here's what the dictionary says. It's a good reference. It's what it's supposed to be. A reference for what words mean. And it's a fine tactic. Until the day comes, as it has today, apparently, when the slug uses its mucusy power to change the dictionary itself. So it came to my attention this morning. I don't know exactly when this happened,

but it certainly happened recently, that Miriam Webster, probably the most famous and widely cited dictionary in the world, has, at the behest of trans activists, change the definition of the word female. Now, it's kind of a clever trick, because the dictionary has not, as most people expected would happen,

change the definition of woman. See, I thought that's what they would do. With all this, what is a woman stuff, eventually the pressure would be on the dictionary to just change the definition to say something like, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, and then all these people that were,

you know, thrown for a loop by my film, then they could just point the dictionary and say, see, it says it right there. It's a dictionary definition. But they haven't changed that definition. See, according to Webster, woman still means adult human female. Okay, good.

But what does female mean? Well, with its latest edition, made under pressure from the slug, Webster defines female the following way. Here's what it says. A, of relating to or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs. That's the first definition. That's the transphobic one we're all used to. But then B, having a gender identity that is the opposite of male. Now, one might point out a number of logical problems here.

The first being that definition B made at the command of trans activists actually contradicts what those activists have always said. They insist that sex and gender identity are two completely different things. Yet here, Webster conflates the two. Also, Webster, while trying to appease the left, still reaffirmed the binary because really they have no choice. There are, says the dictionary now. males and those who are the opposite of male, which means that sex is still binary.

And not only that, but if you're a female now, you're also defining yourself by males. The definition of who you are depends on males, because you are just the opposite of that. Sex is still binary, just in slightly different words. Yet if the implication of gender identity, as it's used here, means that Webster is claiming that men can be female, which is what gender identity means, it means that you're just whatever you feel like you are. Then the first definition, definition A, doesn't hold. So they will have given two definitions of a word which cancel each other out, leaving us with no definition at all. What you really end up with is, you know, what is a female? A, a person with a capacity to produce

offspring. B, not a person with the capacity to produce offspring. So, what is a female? Who knows? Nothing. They might as well have simply erased the definition and the word entirely because that's the effect here. Everything must be rewritten for the almighty slug. And what cannot be coherently rewritten must be just erased. And this includes history, of course. That's really the first thing that has to go. And that brings us to the other Orwellian update that we have for you today. We can no longer simply point to the dictionary because the dictionaries have been compromised. Even dictionaries are now political vessels. Nothing can be left alone in this culture. The slug cannot allow anything to simply exist and perform the

function that it's supposed to perform. Everything must exist to serve the slug first and foremost. And so another argument that I've often used must now be recalibrated a little bit. I have observed, as many others have, many times, that despite anyone's gender identity, quote-unquote, The fact is that when they die, and I said this on Dr. Phil, I said it in what is a woman, you know, when you die and are buried in the ground and your flesh rots away, leaving only your bones, all that will be left, almost all, is your sex. No matter how you identified, when archaeologists and anthropologists of the future exume your grave and look at your remains, they will declare you male or female.

Your self-identity will be gone, but your sex will remain. This is how deeply embedded it is. It is the last thing about you that anyone will be able to know, just as it's one of the first things about you that anyone will be able to know. Well, all of that remains true. I mean, none of that has ever changed or ever will. The only adjustment that we have to make now is in the assumption that archaeologists and anthropologists of the future

will actually be free and willing to make these kinds of statements about people of the past. A report in the college fix suggests otherwise. It says, quote, as soon as ancient human remains are excavated, archaeologists begin the work of determining a number of traits about the individual, including age, race, and gender. But a new school of thought within archaeology is pushing scientists to think twice about assigning gender to ancient human remains. It is possible to determine whether a skeleton is from a biological male or female,

using objective observations based on the size and shape of the bones. Criminal forensic detectives, for example, do it frequently in their line of work. But gender activists argue scientists cannot know how an ancient individual identified themselves. Quote, you might know the argument that the archaeologists who find your bones one day will assign you the same gender as you had at birth. So regardless of whether you transition, you can't escape your assigned sex. tweeted Canadian master's degree candidate Emma Palladino last week. Palladino, who's seeking an advanced degree in archaeology, called assigning gender to an ancient human, bullshed. Quote, labeling remains male or female is rarely the end goal of any excavation anyway, wrote Pallino.

The bio-archiology of the individual is what we aim for, factoring in absolutely everything we discover about a person into a nuanced and open-ended biography of their life. Now, it's not just one whack job saying this. It's many whack jobs. There's a whole movement in the field now to conform the work of Anthropos. apology with the demands of trans activists. The fix continues, quote, gender activists have formed a group called the TransDoh Task Force to explore ways in which current standards in forensic human identification do a disservice to people who do not clearly fit the gender binary. We propose a gender expansive approach to human identification by combing missing and identified databases looking for contextual clues, such as descendants wearing clothing, culturally codependes, to a, a decedence, rather, wearing clothing, culturally coded to a gender other than their assigned

sex, the group's mission statement reads. Quote, we maintain our own database of missing and unidentified people who we've determined may be transgender or gender variant, as most current databases systems do not permit comparison of missing to unidentified across different binary sex categories, the group rights. Which, by the way, means that we're talking about the forensic element of this. forensic detectives, people work in cold cases and everything, if they really apply this, it makes their work impossible.

You can't do it anymore. Because usually you find the remains of someone and then you try to match them with a database, figure out who it is, you know, who are these remains, and then you can figure out how they died. Well, in order to match them, you first, one of the things you have to know is, okay, well, the age, race, and sex. And then you take that and then you go to the database of missing people and say, okay, well, this matches that person. But if they're looking at the remains and saying, well, we don't know their sex, we have no idea.

We can't possibly know. This is just a person. Then there's no way to narrow it down and ever match that person with a missing person, which means that the whole field of cold cases, forensic work, all of that, is just out the window. Including the entire field of anthropology and archaeology, all of it is done, out the window, along with the dictionary and reality itself. A little more here from the fix. It says this February, University of Kansas Associate Professor Jennifer Raff, published Origin, a genetic history of the Americas, in which she argued that there are no neat

divisions between physically or genetically male or female individuals. Raff suggested scientists cannot know the gender of a 9,000-year-old biologically Peruvian hunter because they don't know whether the hunter identified as male or female. A duality concept, she says, was, quote, imposed by Christian colonizers. Well, she's right, in a way. Nobody can know the gender of a 9,000-year-old Peruvian hunter because nobody 9,000 years ago or 900 years ago or 90 years ago had a gender. The concept hadn't been invented yet and imposed on the world by woke, leftist pervert colonizers. That's the only kind of colonizing that really happens anymore, in the West anyway. Everyone back in those days had only a sex, and that was it. They may have

had different words in different languages to communicate it, obviously, but there were people who got pregnant and people who did the impregnating. And those were the two categories. The only two firm categories any society has ever had until ours. These activists disguised as scientists recognize this reality and they see the problem it creates for them. Because this is one of the questions they found it so difficult to answer. I mean, they find every question difficult to answer, but especially this one, which is, why should anyone listen to you? your rambling nonsense that you just came up with a few years ago. Like, why should we care?

You came up with this stuff a few years ago. Why should I care about that? Why should anyone care about it? Why should we allow you to redefine concepts that have endured for millennia? For millennia, billions of people have lived and died and had no problem with these categories. Have not caused any problems for them. It has not caused any confusion. And then you come along and you want to change all of it?

and not only change it for yourselves, but insist that everyone else has to look at it differently? Well, they can't explain why we should do that. So they seek to rewrite history and superimpose their ideological fixations onto the past, even the very ancient past. I mean, the level of narcissism on display here is monumental, psychotic, unfathomable. They now wish to perform a sort of posthumous best. baptism on the entire human race, christening everyone, all of our ancestors in the waters of gender theory, rewriting the history and lives and legacies of all of our ancestors in order to

justify their modern-day sexual fixations and fetishes. I mean, it was bad enough when they condemned all of our ancestors as bigots and racist and transphobes, refusing to give them the grace of historical context. That was bad enough. What they seek to do now is, is so much worse. Rather than condemn the ghosts of our great-grandparents, they'll instead recruit them, enlist them to the LGBT cause against their will. A sort of posthumous conscription, a selective service of the dead, if you will. They seek not only to build their own reality in their own universe, but to extend their reach

across space as well as time, into the past, and then on to the present and out towards the future. And they can do all of this, or at least attempted. But the truth remains, no matter what. And it falls to us to defend it against all threats, even giant fat, slimy slugs. Now let's get to our five headlines. Helix sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete, and it matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you. The thing is when you go to a regular mattress store and you buy some just factory-made mattress. You're really buying a mattress made for someone else, not made for you specifically.

Why do that when you can use Helix? With Helix, you're getting a mattress that you know will be perfect for the way you sleep. Everybody is unique, and Helix knows that. knows that. So they have several different mattress models to choose from. They have soft, medium, and firm mattresses. Mattress is great for cooling you down. Matches is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains and even a plus mattress. Listen, if you're looking for a mattress, you take the quiz. You order the mattress that you're matched to. And the mattress comes right to your door shipped for free. You don't ever need to go to a mattress store again.

They have a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but I guarantee you will. I know I do. I love my own Helix mattress, not yours, I'm trying to say. Helix even has financing options and flexible payment plans, so a great night's sleep is never far away. For a limited time, Helix is offering up to $350 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners. This is their best offer yet, so hurry over to helixleep.com slash Walsh. Well, so I wanted to mention this. This is a big news, I guess, not really, but it's worth mentioning anyway. It just crossed a million followers on Twitter. So I have a million followers of Twitter crossed a million on YouTube, as,

as you know, as we celebrated with my beautiful, poetic, inspiring, interpretive dance. We also crossed a million on Facebook. And Facebook does still, you know, it is still relevant. When I mentioned this on Twitter, everyone was like, well, who's on Facebook anymore? I don't know, about three billion people are on Facebook. Like half of the world on Facebook, actually. But anyway, so that's a million threshold crossed in all those areas in about the last, say, month or so, supremely grateful to all the fans and friends who've made that possible. And especially to the Libs, whose perpetual outrage in my direction has amplified my voice

and increased my platform like 100-fold over the last couple of years. And so I want to say to the libs especially that I literally could not have done it without you. And I do deeply appreciate it. So thank you so much for your continued support and patronage. Now, I want to start with this. Congressional Democrats held a rally yesterday calling to expand the court, the Supreme Court. And they talked about this, of course, in the run-up to the 2020 election. and but it really was it was always understood that if things don't go their way,

if it turns out that Trump's nominees actually are constitutionalists, which it seems that all three of them are to one degree or another, if that were to happen, then that means we got to expand the court. Because as we know, again, an institution is broken the moment it stops doing the bidding of the left. And even if it's temporary, like it doesn't mean, there doesn't have to be a string of episodes.

It's just even one time. If an institution, if there's even one incident where an institution does something other than what the left wants, that means the institution is totally broken. We've got to completely tear it down, reconfigure it, change everything. And so now they want to expand the court.

Now, there are some on the left, including Biden still, who are against this. And the reason they're against it is that they're afraid that this is kind of opening Pandora's box. This is this is the nuclear, pushing the nuclear button, whatever metaphor you want to use. Because if you do that, you know, as Democrats, if you expand the court to get more of your own people on there, well, then the next time that Republicans control the government, then they're going to do the same thing. And then we just have this sort of arms race where, you know, 20 years from now, the Supreme Court will consist of 75 justices, right? I actually think, and I hesitate to say this out loud, because I don't want the Democrats to expand

the court. And but, but their, their worries in that regard are probably unfounded. Because what we know about the Republicans is that they're not going to up the ante. Like, Democrats can do something. Can you wield a certain power? And, uh, they might worry that, oh, the Republican are going to do it now because we did it? No, they won't. They won't. So it's the thing. The Democrats could add three more justice, Supreme Court, if they wanted to. And when Republicans have control, you know, there will be people in the grassroots saying, hey, guys, like, they already did it. Now we got to, why don't you do it? Well, no, because, you know, if we do it, then we're hypocrites because we criticize them when they did it. And plus, if we do it, then they're going to do

it more. And we wouldn't want that. So actually, Democrats can just do whatever they want. and there will be no repercussions whatsoever. No one tell them that, but that's the reality. So here they are. This is congressional Democrats holding this event calling for expanding the court. A few interesting moments like this from Representative Bonnie Coleman, who seems like someone who wanted to be in the squad, but is too old, ageism on the squad. And but she had this to share, something that I think would make the squad proud.

Listen to this. A month ago, five reactionaries. Reactionaries en route. decided that we don't have constitutional right to an abortion. And so doing, they showed us that they're willing to eliminate our freedom to make a decision about our own bodies. And the Dodds v. Jackson Women's Health Decision opposes the will of five unelected religious extremists upon nearly 330 million people.

I want to share a little story with you because when we think of this whole issue of abortion, We have tendency to think of the young child that gets raped, praise God, that he will protect her and help her to overcome her trauma. A young woman going through her reproductive years. But I had a conversation with someone I worked with very closely for the last seven years who told me at the age of 62, she was still having a period and was still sexually active with grandchildren. And she said, what if I got pregnant? There's no way at 62, I would have been in a position to really be a healthy mommy to a new baby. And so not only is this impacting the decisions of young women and the protection of young girls and others who've been assaulted and raped,

but it also impacts a decision of fully adult women who have this story to tell. Okay, so she claims that she knows a 62-year-old woman who, could still conceive a child, which it's not impossible. Maybe that's true. I'm not sure the oldest woman to ever give birth, which I don't know what that is, but it's probably over 62. I will say the average age of menopause is 51. So this would be someone who's over a decade above the average age and could still potentially conceive a child. There's no reason to believe that the story is true coming from this person. Anyone on the pro-abortion side, they just lie about everything. They lie with abandon.

They have no loyalty, fidelity to the truth whatsoever, as we know, of course. Not only that, but they're actively hostile to the truth. So no reason to believe it, but let's just pretend for a second that this person does exist. The 62-year-old grandmother that's worried about, that is worried about conceiving a child because she's still out, you know, having sex with random men. Well, here's an option. As a 62-year-old woman, maybe control yourself? Like maybe if you're not in a position where you want to conceive and raise a child,

which I could understand at the age of 62, that would, you know, that is not what anyone is, it's usually not in the cards for anyone. It's not what they're expecting to do. So maybe control yourself. How about that? Why have we written out, written off that option completely? Why is that not enter into the conversation at all? just control yourself.

If you are not in a position where you feel like you're able to, you should conceive a child, if conceiving a child would be disastrous for you, you believe, then do not participate in activities that literally billions of times in the past have resulted in the conception of a child. If reproduction, maybe I'll phrase it this way, because I really want to make it very simple for these people. They have difficulty understanding complex concepts. So we're going to dumb it down as much as possible. If reproduction would be a disaster for you, you believe, then do not participate in the reproductive act. That's all. If you're able to reproduce, and yet reproduction would be a catastrophe, then do not participate.

the reproductive act. Because if you are able to produce, to reproduce, no matter what else you do, you can make it the quote unquote safest kind of sex you want, there's always still going to be a chance that you reproduce. And if that chance would be like plunging off of a cliff level of catastrophe in your life, then don't participate in the act. Control yourself. Right? We're human beings. We should be able to exercise some self-control. We're not we're not we're not beasts in the jungle that are unable to control our our compulsions. At least we shouldn't be. One of the defining features of human beings, one of the things that's supposed to set us apart from beasts is that we are able to have a compulsion to do something. We want to do something and yet we choose not to do it because we can look

forward into the future in a way that as far as we know, no other living creature can. on earth. We can look forward into the future and understand things on a kind of theoretical basis. We can think five steps ahead. Like, if we do this, it might lead to that, which will lead to that. That's the high-level thinking that we as human beings are capable of. So maybe use that capacity yourself, especially if you're 62 years old. Just an idea. Meanwhile, activist Lauren Maunis said that we have to expand the court not only to save 62-year-old grandmothers from getting from from getting pregnant but also in order to save the planet as a whole. Let's listen to that. Six corporate-backed justices sided with coal companies over our communities to make it significantly

harder for the EPA to do its job of limiting toxic emissions and stopping the climate crisis. I'm here because I know that we need and deserve a strong democratic government that protects the safety and needs of its people, not of corporate executives. And that my vision for this government is not unrealistic nor impossible. In fact, it's simply necessary for our survival. My generation will not sit back and watch our democratic leadership share platitudes and dodge responsibility, while the white supremacists, this GOP destroys our democracy. Democrats are at a crossroads. They can continue their current path of protecting the status quo,

and we can keep watching the GOP strip away our fundamental rights, or they can step up and fight, expand the court, and do everything in their power to protect us. And I know my generation is not going to stop fighting until we live to see that day. You gotta love the people, these people. Again, they're narcissism on display. She says, my vision for this government, who keeps a damn about your vision a lot?

Who are you, Lauren Mounis? My vision for this government. This is my vision. I don't care what your vision is. What difference does that make? Why should that matter at all? Who are you? Especially when your vision is to protect democracy, quote unquote,

by expanding the Supreme Court to get your way. That's democracy? So, no, you don't actually have, you have, that's the thing with, they have no problem at all with, of course they have no problem at all with the Supreme Court or any court imposing itself, imposing its will on the American public. They have, no, this is what they do. This is, this is one of the primary tools that the left has had in controlling and manipulating the culture is through the courts. So now because of Roe v. Wade, they're acting like they have some principal objection. to what they claim is the court imposing itself. Now, actually, what happened with Rovi-Wa-Wa-8 is the opposite of the court imposing itself.

It's the court saying, we're getting out of this business completely. It's the court actually withdrawing itself from this issue, not injecting itself. The court was injected into the issue when Roe-Vie-Wade was decided 50 years ago, and the overturning of Roe-Wa-Wade is the court getting out of it. The left, living an upside-down world, perpetual opposite day, is claiming, that by getting out of it, they're actually imposing themselves on it. And this is a threat to democracy somehow. It's a threat to democracy to allow the states to decide the issue.

To allow voters and state legislatures to make their own decisions is a threat to democracy. And their way to preserve democracy then is to expand this institution so that it can impose there that being the left's will on the American people. Right. Okay. That's how you expand it. That's how you preserve democracy, she says. And then of course, Rashida Talib had a few words to share as well. The other side would not hesitate once to do what we're about to do, which is continue to push and advocate.

And I'll tell you, when I've learned over and over again, it's supporting movement organizations, those on the ground that know what is at stake and making sure that we are an extension of what they're doing in the ground and educating the public. Because that's how we got the Civil Rights Act. That's how we got the right to be able to vote. That's how we got the right to be able to organize labor is when people in the community demand it. So we're going to stand here with the folks that have members, others, that believe in what we're trying to do, which is expand the court. Again, it's incredibly important. We must continue to protect our democracy that is reflective of the majority of the American people.

And right now, six unhinged, unelected Supreme Court justice is literally telling women they have no control over their bodies. No, it's the opposite. So I refer you back to what I said a few minutes ago. No, it's not that women have no control over their bodies. It's no, see, we as pro-lifers are saying that they do. That you do have control. And you do have self-control. It's just that when it comes to abortion, you're not exercising control over your own body, but you're exercising control over someone else's body, that being your child, and you're destroying that person's body. It's got nothing to do with your body. When it comes to just your body, who you have sex with, when you have sex, when you participate in the reproductive act, when you choose not to, you know, all these things. That is totally the prerogative of the individual. You do have control over your body and you should exercise it. It's the left that says, actually, women have no control. We can't expect anyone to exercise. Women, men, we can't expect anyone to exercise any self-control whatsoever. And that's why we have to have this fail-safe option of killing your children. Because everyone's just going to run around having sex with strangers and no one can stop themselves. And they're going to produce a whole bunch of babies. And the only way to maintain this lifestyle is to get rid of those consequences through violent means if necessary. One other thing on this issue, Kamala Harris had a little bit more to say on the abortion issue,

drawing a parallel between, as we've heard many times, between slavery and slavery. and abortion. Listen. The United States Supreme Court, the highest court of our land, the former court of Thurgood Marshall, took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America, from the women of America. We know NAACP that our country has a history. of claiming ownership over human bodies. And today, extremist so-called leaders are criminalizing doctors and punishing women

from making health care decisions for themselves. Okay, our country has a history of claiming ownership over human bodies. And that's true. But once again, with abortion, it is, that is what's happening. that the legalization of abortion is analogous to slavery, in that we are depersoning an entire group of people and saying that the mother has total ownership, actual ownership over the child,

to the extent of being able to decide if the child lives or dies. Now, we've been over this before, but since this keeps coming up, this parallel between pro-lifers and slave owners, I just want to review this again, just as a handy reference, because I've often said that actually every argument for abortion

directly parallels an argument that slave owners use to justify slavery. And I've made this claim, and I've gone through the arguments before. We're going to go over them again just to review. Okay? So, and I really mean every single one. Like, every argument that slave owners use to justify abortion can find a parallel in the arguments

that pro-abortion people use to justify. abortion. I will show you. The argument from ownership, this slave slash baby is my property slash body. You can't tell me what to do with it. There's the argument from privacy. No one is forcing you to have slaves slash abortions. Mind your own business. There's the argument from the superseding rights. My property slash body rights come before the rights of a slave slash fetus. There's the argument from inevitability. Slavery slash abortion has been around for thousands of years. It's never going away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it. There's the argument from pseudoscience. Slaves slash fetuses aren't really people. They aren't like us. Look at them. They're physically different. Therefore, we are people and they are not. There's the argument from socioeconomics. If slavery slash abortion ends, most of these slaves slash babies will end up on the street without a job. There's the argument from the court. Slavery slash abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court. It's already been decided. There's no point in arguing it. Although that argument is now out the window for abortion, just as eventually it was with slavery. There's the argument from faux compassion. Slavery slash abortion is in the way.

the best interest of African slash babies. The world can be a cruel place. It's best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved slash killing them. And then there's the argument from the assumed hypocrisy of the other side. You say you want to end slavery slash abortion, but you don't want to live with freed blacks slash adopt unwanted babies for yourself. That's pretty much every argument that was that was put forward to justify slavery. And as we see, same exact arguments being made, because as it turns out, when you have movements that are based around the unpersoning, the depersoning of other groups of people, they always sound the same. It's just history repeating itself.

Or as the saying goes, if history doesn't repeat, it at least rhymes. And that's what we see here. All right. What else do we got here? I thought this was kind of funny from the LA Times. So here's a little bit of the article as it first appeared. It says California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power building up the largest solar market in the U.S.

More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due. Beginning in 2006, the state focused on how to incentivize people to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed photovoltaic panels, but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their typical 25-to-30-year life cycle. Many are already winding up in landfill. where in some cases they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium, and cadmium.

Sam Vanderhoof, a solar industry expert and chief executive of recycle PV Solar, says that only one in 10 panels are actually recycled, according to estimates drawn from the International Renewable Energy Agency data on decommissioned panels and from industry leaders. The looming challenge over how to handle truckloads of waste, some of it contaminated, illustrates how, cutting-edge environmental policy can create unforeseen problems down the road. So it's very, very interesting. We were told that solar panels, solar energy is the way forward. It's our way towards, you know, saving the planet. It's a source of energy with no real downside, as opposed to all the fossil fuels that are destroying the planet.

And now we find out that, well, there is a downside, actually, because now you've got all these solar panels with the toxic, made of toxic substances. They end up in landfills, and then eventually that leaks into the groundwater and it contaminates and everything else. Well, the left didn't like the fact that this article was published, especially by the LA Times. It felt like a betrayal to them. And so that led to the editors at the LA Times making a whole bunch of adjustments after publication. And that led to, I think, one of the most lengthy editor's notes I've ever seen. This is the editor's note now. after this article got so much backlash. It says an earlier version of this article mischaracterized the environmental risk posed by heavy metals in consumer photovoltaic arrays.

This story has been edited to clarify that panels containing toxic materials are routed for disposal to landfills with extra safeguards against leakage and to note that panels that contain cadmium and selenium are primarily used in utility-grade applications. An earlier version of this article also misattributed a statement by Evelyn Butler, vice president of technical services at the Solar Energy Industries Association to, Jen Bristol, the group's Senior Director of Communications. It also misidentified the group as the Solar Energy Industry Association. An earlier version of this article also failed to properly attribute quotes by Giger Shah, director of the Department of Energy's loan programs office to their source, a 2020 interview with PV Magazine. The article has also been updated to reflect Shaw's

current professional affiliation, as well as that of Sam Vanderhoove. An earlier version of this article also stated that 25 years was the life cycle of photovoltaic panels, the text has been updated to reflect that 25 to 30 years is a typical service, but life, but not a fixed limit. Additionally, in a discussion of the transporting voltaic panels to recycling or hazardous waste disposal facilities, the word cells has been changed to panels for accuracy. So just the entire thing basically was rewritten with this editor's note on top of it. What you get from this is that there is a lot of sloppy reporting, of course, in the mainstream media with the LA Times. They got a lot of names wrong and they misattributed things. It's just incredibly sloppy reporting.

But at the same time, they were also trying to blunt the edges a little bit by say, well, it's not 25 years. It's 25 to 30, you know, that kind of thing. Adding that in there to quell some of the outrage. But that doesn't change the fact that there is still this downside to solar panels. And there are other downsides, too. I mean, just the fact, like, how much room they take up, you end up with, you know, if you really wants to power large areas with solar panels, that means you have to install a whole field acres and acres and acres of solar panels. And where do you find the room for that?

You're cutting down trees and everything else. What that means is that every green energy alternative that's supposed to save the planet has its own pitfalls, some more than others. Okay, but there's no discussion of the tradeoffs ever. There's no acknowledgement that no matter what we do, because we live on this planet, we are going to leave behind waste. Okay? We're going to leave a mark no matter what we do.

That doesn't mean that we should make no attempt to contain the waste. It doesn't mean that it's not necessarily a problem we should try to fix. But the environmentalists are always looking for the utopian solution. How can we be an advanced human civilization and power ourselves? and maintain all of the luxuries of living in modern society, the luxuries that, of course, none of them want to give up or have given up, and yet leave no mark on the planet whatsoever, and that's just not possible, as it turns out.

One of their final thing before we get to the comment section, this is, I thought kind of funny, Pink, the singer, if you remember her, she hasn't made a good song in, well, forever. She's never made a good song, but she hasn't made a hit song in probably about 20 years. In recent years, she's taken to just ranting about conservatives on social media. A few weeks ago, I think she was the one who said that she doesn't want pro-lifers to listen to her music at all. That's how much she hates us. A request which I am more than happy to abide by.

In fact, I respect her request so much that I have been respecting it 20 years before she even made it. That's how much I respect her as a person. Anyway, she has a new song out called Irrelevant, in which she partly complains about being called irrelevant, which is hilarious already. But in the song and in the music video, in her bid for relevance, she just throws every woke, virtue singling thing she can into the mix. And she just throws them all into a blender and mixes them together. And you hear that in the song, but especially in the video, which we'll play a little bit of right now. Watch this. Ash on the ground

You can call me irrelevant Insignificant You can try to make me small I'll be your heretic You hypocrite I won't think of you At stones and all that Just Jesus love

Okay, so you get the idea We start with Obama You know, AOC, pro-abortion protesters They're the good guys Then we get to the bad guys And she lumps in pro-lifers conservative Supreme Court justices and goes right to images of Nazis and the Klan. Later on, she shows the January 6th riots. Like I said, the whole kitten caboodle there. But here's the point

that I have to make again because it's really interesting to see this kind of happen. Art on the left, music, films, TV, all of that, it's all now headed in the same direction as Christian music and Christian films. In fact, this song, even sounds kind of like a Christian, like a Christian rock song. Just the words are very different and the imagery is very different. The message is different, but the sound is like something you would hear on one of these Christian music stations. The circle is going all the way around. And now mainstream art makes the same mistake that Christian music and film has made for many years. And that is putting the message above the art itself, going message first, art second. And then you end up with

this kind of lame, repetitive, uninteresting content, and it hits the messaging notes that you want, but it's not very good art. And I think one of the reasons why that's happening on the left is that great art requires some friction, right? It requires some resistance, some frustration in order to be created. I think most great art is born partly from frustrations. Think about all the, all of the revolutions in the music industry. When new sounds, and artists and musical genius burst onto the scene. They always had some sort of, they always had to push their way in against forces that wanted to keep them out.

There's the stereotype of the tortured artist, right? And there's a lot of truth to that stereotype. It might not hold in every case, but it holds in many of them. The problem is that if you're on the left, especially if you're relatively wealthy and well off, then you experience no friction. You are not standing against the cultural current at all, but you're floating on it easily and softly.

That's one of the reasons why you see, especially these aging pop stars who maybe arguably were a little bit countercultural in the 70s, 80s and some of the 90s, not very much, but a little bit. And then they had some success. They made a lot of money. And now they're living in a culture,

living partly in the culture they created. And they're very comfortable, and they're not counterculture anymore at all anymore. They're now the vanguards of the culture, the culture they created. And so there's no friction there. There's no frustration to, to create great art. They have nothing left to say, as evidence partly by this pink song.

Although, in fairness, you never really had anything to say, I guess. Let's get now to the comment section. Sarah Michelle says, on behalf of the fans, I would like to ask the Daily Wire to let Matt stay on vacation indefinitely. This whole vibe just suits him, the rustic cabin, the mood lighting, and then a, I love this comment, and then you threw in the emoji at the end. I don't know what that emoji is supposed to mean. Is that a kissing emoji that you put at the end of this? I was with you. I was like, I was about to promote you to a new station in the SBG, but now because of that kissing emoji, you're banished from the show, you're ban from the show. But I do appreciate that comment.

And I, look, if that's what the people want, if the people want me to just stay on vacation forever, then I, I, for one, am willing to heed the call of the people. I'm a man of the people. I don't know if the Daily Wire will agree, but if that's what you want, as far as I'm concerned, your wish is my command. Jim says, quoting me, it's rare for an armed bystander to stop an active shooter. Oh, wait, that's not quoting me. That's quoting a CNN article. It's rare for an armed bystander to stop an active shooter. And Jim says, sounds like we need more armed bystanders then.

Well, that is certainly one way of looking at it, and I agree with you. Let's see. Aide says, Matt, since you banished me from the show, my life has fallen into the way. shambles. My wife left me and my kids won't speak to me. I'm homeless now, and even the absence of nourishment is not even close to the pain I feel for not being a part of the sweet baby gang. Today I ask you in the sweet baby gang to once again embrace me as a fellow member of the gang that makes the Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage. I await your ever loving forgiveness. Well, if you were ever a true and dedicated member of the SBG, you would know that the cult leader

has no capacity for loving forgiveness, which only shows that you're not. banishment was just and will continue, I'm afraid to say. Jim says, the earliest mention I've seen of the cultural, of the rather climate apocalyptic is back from 1990 when the BBC put out a documentary called After the Warming. According to their climate models, by the year 2020, global temperatures were to have risen by 15 to 25 degrees. This is actually a cheerful thought comparing our actual performance to their predictions. we can safely say, the strategy we've adopted, mostly nothing, is the correct one to avoid

catastrophic warming. Right. That's true. That's one of the consequences of these continual. And I guess it goes back all the way to 1990. I guess that's true. Because I can remember, one thing is that the climate apocalypse, the vision of the apocalypse has also changed over time. And it's only in the last couple of decades when it became, well, it became global warming and they changed to climate change. Before that, there was predictions of an ice age. There was a nuclear winter. There was all kinds of overpopulation. And some of these things, they still keep in the mix. Overpopulation they keep in the mix. Global warming, obviously, is still there. They've changed to climate change because that encompasses everything. I guess they got tired. The environmentalist

chicken littles got tired of changing the apocalypse every 20 years. So then they just said, you know what? It's climate change. That's what we're worried about. Any kind of change at all. It doesn't matter. I can remember when I was a kid, Yeah, I did hear about global warming a little bit, but especially elementary middle school. That wasn't the big one. The big one was the hole in the ozone layer. And in particular, deforestation. And again, they still keep that. They still talk about that. But I was convinced as a young child that, because this is what we were told in our elementary school brainwashing sessions, which aren't nearly as bad as the brainwashing sessions they do these days. But still, they were pretty bad. I was convinced that we were all going to suffocate soon because they were chopping down all the trees and we wouldn't be able to breathe.

I mean, that's what we were told by teachers. So this goes back many, many years. But the thing is, all these predictions, and then especially when they put a date on it, then you get to the date and everyone's still alive and everything seems to be okay, that only proves that, as you say, our strategy of mitigation is working. And namely, our strategy is to do nothing. Apparently, that works. That's the good news. We can do nothing at all and live our lives and still manage to evade all of these disasters. That's great.

That's something to be happy about. After witnessing the James Webb Telescope so beautifully capture the great unknown, reminding us of our unfathomably minuscule place in the cosmos, you have to wonder if my truth that aliens are real is the truth. That being said, we need to do more. I think the alien shirt we launched last week was a step in the right direction. Here's the shirt, by the way. If you haven't seen it yet, we'll put it up for you.

I keep it here. You know, I don't wear it because I like to be able to look at it. That's how much peace and comfort it brings me. But that's not nearly enough. This is why I'm happy to announce that July's installment of my patch program over at deliwire.com slash shop is the aliens are real patch. Right to the point, cuts right to the chase. No longer will this marginalized group be subject to the, cruelty of erasure. Last month's patch is sold out, so be sure to head over to my swag shack

today to validate the alien community and give the support it deserves. My truth is out there. Somewhere lost in those stunning nebulas and distant galaxies. I know it. We all know it. So get that patch. Also, this week we're celebrating the first anniversary of our podcast, Morning Wire. In this short period of time, it's become one of the top news podcasts. I suspect it's because Morning Wire gives you the only, only the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less, cutting right to the chase, without the manufactured outrage, without the political bias, about any of that. New episodes are available every morning, seven days a week,

and they cover stories, other media outlets won't touch. So check out Morning Wire on Apple Podcast, Spotify, DailyWire Plus, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And while you're at it, check out the rest of our extensive content library at Dailywireplus.com. Like the docu-series, Fauci Unmasked, hosted by Michael Knowles. In light of Fauci's retirement announcement, this is a great way to celebrate.

And right now, you get 35% off of your new DailyWirePlus membership. So head to DailyWirePlus.com today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. The cry went up across the land. Morning and wailing in the street. A great tragedy had occurred. A travesty and injustice of cosmic proportions. Proof again that racism is alive and well in this country.

And now we have as a nation tumbled all the way back to pre-abolition days. The clock has been turned back. That's how unspeakable this event was. was, how terrible the outrage, how horrific, how dreadful, how ghastly. As headlines in every major media outlet have reported it, a Sesame Street character committed a hate crime against two black children. Well, not the character herself, but a person in the Sesame Street costume. And it wasn't a hate crime exactly, but it's close enough, according to the racial outrage brigade anyway. NBC News has the chilling story. It says, a mother of two young black girls is calling

out Sesame Place Philadelphia after she says her daughters were intentionally dismissed by a performer dressed as a Sesame Street character over the weekend, sparking a fierce backlash online. In the now viral video posted Saturday on the mother's Instagram account, two young girls are seen excitedly reaching out to the character Rosita, the first bilingual Muppet on Sesame Street. Although it appears that the performer had interacted with other children before reaching the girls, the video seems to show the character shaking their head no in the direction of the two young black girls. The actual video is about five seconds long and quite grim.

So prepare yourself for this. Here it is. Shocking. We have no context here at all. We have only five seconds of a costume mascot walking in a parade. But it is certainly enough to leap to very specific conclusions about the person in the costume and about Sesame Place and about Sesame Street. And that's how the mother of these girls felt anyway.

She posted the video and explained that after her children were deprived of a high five from this character, she demanded to speak to a supervisor. But she was rebuffed because, for one thing, we can assume that the other people in the parade had no idea who the supervisor of the parade was or if that position existed. Like, it's not what you're expecting in a parade. It's for someone to say, hey, let me speak to your supervisor. Of what? The parade? The parade? You know, the Karen slur is meant to degrade white women specifically. but if the label means anything at all, it must surely apply to a woman who asked to speak to the manager of the parade because her kids didn't get enough high fives. Anyway, even if she could not rectify the situation through speaking to a manager, her Instagram post was enough to get her the 15 minutes of fame and more importantly 15 additional victim points that she desired.

The incident went viral and the race baiters went to work. Leslie Mack, who is a digital strategist with pronouns in her bio, was one of the accounts that helped to take this outrage du jour to the next level. She tweeted, quote, Baby Page and her cute little friends went to Sesame Place this weekend to celebrate Page's fourth birthday. And this is how Sesame Place treated these beautiful black children. I'm hot. Another account got 42,000 retweeds with this melodramatic take on the situation.

Quote, it's upsetting because no matter what damage control is attempted by Sesame Pneux, nothing can undo how these babies were made to feel in this moment. The looks on their faces are so heartbreaking. You know, some people have their hearts broken by images of children starving to death in third world countries. Some are heartbroken by death, disease, violence, and misery of other sorts. And others are heartbroken because two children were mildly disappointed when a parade mascot didn't wave to them. I guess heartbreak is in the eye of the behock. holder. You know, soon people, of course, were sharing other examples of black children not being given sufficient attention from costumed characters in various situations. Others were calling for

the person in the mascot suit to be identified and publicly shamed. Prominent race baiters like Torek Nashe got in on the action. Nishid alleging that the costume character has, quote, a deliberate pattern of snubbing children of color. Then attorney Benjamin Klump tweeted his own sentiments of heartbreak before presumably parachuting onto the scene to get in front of cameras and file lawsuits. Actually, I'm kidding. The family did not hire Ben Crump, shockingly, but they did hire a different race-baiting lawyer who is going to be, he says, investigating the situation. Other famous figures weighed in. Beyonce's former intern, Kelly Rowland, posted the clip to Instagram and declared that she was so mad. And then actor Wendell Pierce of the Wire fame went for and probably

I think won the faux outrage gold medal with his analysis of the situation tweeting this. This is not meant to be a joke. This is what he actually tweeted. And this is to remind you about children not being given a high five by a mascot in a prey. This is what he said. Witness the end of innocence. Witness the trauma. This moment is violent, scarring psychological abuse. Watching it reminds me of my own four years old on Mardi Gras Day being denied the joy I see. other kids having and the realization, the horrible reality, the immediate loss, pain. You know, in fairness, he sounds like me when I go to order a beer at a restaurant and they tell me they don't have any IPAs on tap. You know, I also shout, this is something similar.

Witness the end of innocence, witness the trauma. And then I'm shot with the tranquilizer dart and carried away by men in white coats, a service that somebody should probably provide to Wendell there because he really seems to need it. So, how will Sesame Place respond to all of this performative, maniacally stupid, and assonine nonsense? Will they ignore it? Will they laugh in the faces of their ridiculous, disingenuous critics? Will they issue a statement saying, Hi, boys and girls?

Today's letter of the day is S. S is for, shut the hell up, you damned crybabies. Will they do any of that? Only in my utopian fantasies. In real life, they issued not one. But two apologies. The first came in the form of an explanation. It read in part, quote, Our brand, our park, and our employees stand for inclusivity and equality in all forms. Regarding the incident yesterday, the costumes our performers wear sometimes make it difficult to see at lower levels,

and sometimes our performers miss hug requests from guests. The performer portraying the Rizita character has confirmed that the no hand gesture seen several times in the video was not directed to any specific person. Rather, it was a response to multiple requests from someone in the crowd who asked Rizita to hold their child for a photo, which is not permitted. That's the explanation. Perfectly logical. But when that perfectly logical explanation was not accepted, they tried again with a more groveling tone. This is what they issued, the statement they issued a few hours later. We sincerely apologize to the family for their experience in our park on Saturday.

We know that it's not okay. We're taking actions to do better. We are committed to making this right. We will conduct training for our employees so they better understand, recognize and deliver an inclusive, equitable, and entertaining experience for our guests. For over 40 years, Sesame Place has worked to uphold the values of respect, inclusion, and belonging. We are committed to doing a better job, making children and families feel special, seeing and included when they come to our parks.

You know, they just said that the mascot didn't do anything wrong, and the whole thing's being taken out of context based on a five-second conveniently cropped and edited video. And now they say that what the person in the costume did, though totally innocent and, and being wildly and intentionally misconstrued was not okay and that they will do better. Which of course means subjecting their employees to more racial sensitivity brainwashing,

we can assume, and making sure that every costume character knows that they must make a special point of identifying and singling out every non-white child in the crowd or it will cost them their jobs. The white children don't matter, of course. I mean, they can be snubbed all day long and nobody will care.

Which, of course, white children are snubbed by mass all the time. I have four white children, and I have witnessed it with my own eyes. Unlike this mother, though, I'm always relieved when the costumed freaks don't come over to us, as I find them all both annoying and slightly disturbing. So I don't mind when they don't go. And the other thing is, if the mascot walks by and one of my kids starts whining about it, he didn't say hi to me. I don't cry. I don't, I don't cry. Oh, you poor baby, you're heartbroken. I say, hey, stop whining. We're at this parade. You think I want to be here? Show some gratitude.

That's my response. Okay? It's a slightly different parent strategy. And the thing is, you know, we know that in these costumes, your field of vision inside one of those sweaty, furry cocoons is about as limited as an armored medieval night in a jousting competition with, you know, one small slit to peer through. It's almost certain that the person in the costume could not see the children. In fact, walking in a parade past hundreds of children, he will not see or interact with most of them. This explanation certainly makes a lot more sense than the fantastical assumption that the person in the costume is a raging anti-black racist racist racist racist racist racist who, though working in Philadelphia and interacting with hundreds of black customers every day,

randomly decided to take his or her racist energies out on two black girls. That explanation makes zero sense, while the other one makes 100% sense. Of course, of the two choices, the race-baiting leftist take the zero-sense option. Because they're bored, and they lead miserably empty lives, and they find momentarily, they find momentary meaning in these performances of outrage, also because they're desperate to be victims, you know, a desperation that also stems from their bored and empty lives, but they live in decadence and luxury, and therefore are deprived of true opportunities to experience the oppression they think they want.

So they settle for getting mad at a Muppet. Meanwhile, black children are actually traumatized and abused and scarred and worse. every single day in this country. Wendell Pierce's words would apply to the situation faced by a great many black children in this country. I'm talking about the black children growing up in gang-ridden violence-plagued communities with no fathers in the home, being raised by a drug-addicted mother and her rotating cast of boyfriends. I'm talking about black children whose innocence have been so thoroughly destroyed that they are, as a recent viral video showed, out in the street before the age of five cussing out and assaulting police officers. Now, those are black children who could

use some of this surplus of outrage and sympathy and concern. But they're ignored because their situation is not helpful to the narrative. It's not as easy to racialize it. Certainly not as easy to blame Whitey. The real victims are silenced and ignored and new martyrs are made. This time, martyrs at the hands of a Muppet. And that's why the Sesame Street Outrage Brigade is today. Certainly 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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, the Andrew 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 Jeff Tomlin. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.

Today on the Ben Shapiro show, as record temperatures hit the UK, talk of environmental crackdowns heat up. Prince Harry tells the UN the right is destroying democracy in America. Plus, Joe Biden's Undersecretary of HHS says it's time to empower young people to change their gender. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.

Thank you.