Ep. 1497 - The Dark Truth About Assisted Suicide Laws
01:01:22 Share

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the UK legalizes so-called assisted dying. The bill supposedly allows for euthanasia only under limited and tightly controlled circumstances. But if we've learned anything from every other country that's legalized this form of state-sanctioned murder, it never stays limited or controlled for very long. Also, the media tries to grapple with the Hunter Biden pardon to hilarious effect. And in the year of our Lord 2024, almost 2025, Taylor Lorenz lashes out at people who don't wear masks and

In our daily cancellation, we'll see what the feminist, ecosexuals, and academia are up to. Nothing normal, we can assume. All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. If you haven't heard, Daily Wire Plus is 50% off right now. It's our best deal of the year. That's one full year of uncensored shows, exclusive series, documentaries, and more. Don't wait. This deal ends soon. Head to dailywire.com slash cyberweek and join the fight today.

Let's talk about your metabolism. You know, that thing that determines whether you're burning fat or just storing it. Now, I'm not one for fad diets or miracle cures, but I'm interested in real solutions that actually work, and that's why I want to tell you about Lumen. Lumen isn't some gimmicky weight loss scheme. It's a serious tool for understanding and improving your metabolic health

Let me tell you, in today's world of processed foods and sedentary lifestyles, we could all use a little bit of help in that department. Here's how it works. You breathe into this device first thing in the morning, and it tells you if you're burning fat or carbs. It's that simple, but it doesn't stop there. Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on your measurements. You can even use it before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's going on in your body in real time. Now,

Why does this matter? Well, because your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how you turn food into fuel. And when your metabolic health is optimal, you get a bunch of benefits, easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, even better sleep. Who doesn't want that? So if you want to stay on track with your health this holiday season, go to lumen.me slash walsh to get 15% off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-N dot me slash walsh for 15% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.

There's a famous quote from a Hemingway novel that goes something like this. A character is asked, how did you go bankrupt? And his reply is two ways, gradually and then suddenly.

You may have heard the same idea expressed like this. Often things will start to occur slowly at first, and then they'll happen suddenly. They'll happen all at once. A catalyst will take place, the slow burn begins, and eventually a threshold is crossed, and suddenly everything changes very quickly. Starting around the turn of the century, it became clear that a catalyst would

had occurred in American culture, and in particular, American spiritual life. Church attendance, which had remained steady at around 70% of the population from the 1930s all the way to the 1990s, began to plummet. This was one of the clearest signs that Americans were turning away from Scripture and away from any belief and any kind of power higher than themselves. And similar changes in church attendance were reported all over the West. Now, at the time, it wasn't clear

exactly what the consequences of this shift would be, although it was clear that it would be bad. But what exactly would that mean? After all, once a civilization abandons its most fundamental, central, core beliefs, it becomes pretty hard to predict what exactly will happen as a result. And then abruptly, the consequences became very apparent in our daily lives. Gender ideology,

for one major example, began teaching that people can determine whether they're men or women all on their own. There's no need for God to have any role in that process. Virtually overnight, taxpayer funded child castration made it into the platform of a major American political party. The idea that people can assume divine powers and change their gender, change their biology, went from an unthinkable absurdity to a core tenet of left wing political thought.

A similar reversal has taken place in the field of assisted suicide, which activists often call MAID, or Medical Assistance in Dying, is the euphemism. This is another area in which many Western governments and corporate press and activists have decided that humans should be able to play God, to be gods over themselves. And again, the reversal was pretty rapid.

As recently as a decade ago, assisted suicide was illegal in many Western nations. In Canada, where it is now incredibly the fifth leading cause of death, MAID wasn't even legal as recently as 2015. Then in just seven years, from 2016 to 2023, the use of assisted suicide in Canada increased by more than 13-fold. If we were seeing these numbers in any other context,

like, let's say, a new strain of COVID or something, Canada's media would call it what it is, which is a massive and unprecedented public health emergency. MAID has come out of nowhere to become one of the primary ways that Canadians die. It's a top five cause. But because MAID bails out Canada's failing public health system by getting rid of expensive patients, Canada's state media, of course, supports the practice. The same phenomenon is now happening overseas as well.

Now, when the UK held a vote in 2015 on whether to legalize assisted suicide, the proposal was quickly shot down in Parliament by more than 200 votes. But on Friday, there was a very different result. By a vote of 330 to 275, Parliament approved a bill that will legalize euthanasia in certain cases. Watch.

British lawmakers have just approved a bill to legalise assisted dying. After hours of debate today, the House of Commons voted 330 for and 275 against supporting the bill. I want to pay a huge and heartfelt tribute to those families and to every single person who has contacted me about this issue and in many cases shared their own very personal stories of loss and death. I know from my own personal experience of grief

that telling your story over and over again takes energy, courage and strength. And I'm incredibly grateful to you all. It is your voices and your stories which have inspired me. Over the years, high profile figures have given emotional first-hand testimony on the subject under the legislation. Terminally ill people would be able to take a substance

to end their lives. The bill must still pass the House of Lords and parliamentary committees. So I'm going to start by reading a quote from Esther Ransom and for our international audience and who don't necessarily know, who might not know who she is. She's a British former talk show host, BBC journalist, and she was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. And what she said was, what is happening at the moment is compelling people to have

really agonizing deaths. That memory of someone in agony becomes a tragic memory that overwhelms other happy memories for the family left behind. Now, the stated limitations in this bill are that in order to kill themselves, people need to be at least 18 years old. They need to have some kind of terminal diagnosis with less than six months to live. More on that in a moment.

Two doctors along with a judge need to give their approval and the drugs that end the person's life need to be self-administered. So the doctor can set up all the drugs that will kill you and get everything ready for you. But you have to press the button after you've filled out all the necessary paperwork to kill yourself. Nothing dystopian about that at all. Now, before we get into the more substantive issues with this bill, it needs to be said that

In practical terms, these limitations, so-called, are extremely superficial. They're designed to make people think that euthanasia will only be administered in the most extreme cases in which people are about to die anyway, which still would not be okay. But that's not true. It's not going to be limited to that. It never is. As a conservative member of parliament named Danny Kruger pointed out during debate on the bill,

It's actually pretty easy to qualify as terminally ill under this legislation, even if you're not. Quote, all you need to do to qualify for an assisted death, the definition of terminal illness under this bill is to refuse treatment, like insulin if you're diabetic. In the case of eating disorders, you just need to refuse food, and the evidence is, in jurisdictions around the world and in our own jurisprudence, that would be enough to qualify you for an assisted death. So in other words, this bill legalizes suicide by people who are not, in fact, terminally ill. You can make yourself terminally ill,

By refusing to take necessary medications or by refusing to eat. And then you qualify, you know, because you're going to die if you do not eat or if you don't take the insulin. Now, there's no need for any kind of objective finding in this bill, like a brain tumor that shows up on a scan or anything like that. So really, there are no guardrails. That's what it comes down to.

Now, of course, even if guardrails did exist, they wouldn't exist for very long. In every country where assisted suicide has been legalized, it starts out with quote unquote restrictions. And then those restrictions very quickly disappear. In Canada, for example, MAID began as assisted suicide for people with diagnosed terminal conditions. Within five years, it was expanded to include anybody with incurable conditions, even if they're not terminal.

That includes any chronic condition that, for example, requires somebody to use a wheelchair. It also includes cancer patients. If you have arthritis, that's a chronic condition, although not terminal. But you can get made for that. As The Telegraph reports, quote, a woman undergoing life-saving cancer surgery in Canada was offered assisted suicide by doctors as she was about to enter the operating room. The patient, a married 51-year-old grandmother from Nova Scotia,

explained that she was set to undergo a mastectomy operation for breast cancer when a physician asked her if she knew about medical assistance in dying. Despite declining the offer of the MAID program, the woman was asked about assisted dying again before undergoing her second mastectomy nine months later, and she was spoken to a third time while recuperating in the recovery room after the procedure. She said that repeat offers made her feel like a burden to doctors and that the people in her position were better off dead. I mean, it's...

It's so dark and absurd that if it wasn't real, you'd almost have to laugh about it. It comes off like the darkest comedy imaginable. Just the idea, even the way it's phrased, of a doctor offering you suicide. Even after you're in recovery, you're in the recovery room. And the doctor comes in and says, hey, we could kill you if you want. But here's some treatment, some pills you could take. This will help with the pain. Or if you want, we could just kill you.

What do you think about that? You want us to just kill you? Yeah, give it some thought. Give it some thought. Think it over, talk it over, and hey, if you want us to kill you, we will. This is how MAID has expanded already in Canada, and of course the expansion is continuing. There's now a push underway to allow the mentally ill to seek MAID, even if they have no other medical conditions. And this year, a committee in Canada's parliament has determined that so-called, quote-unquote, mature minors should also be able to kill themselves.

Now, of course, mature minor is a contradiction in terms. And even Canadians seem to recognize that in many different contexts. They don't let children buy tobacco or alcohol, for example. There's no such thing as a mature minor who's so mature they're allowed to buy booze. But apparently suicide is completely fine. Canadians went from banning assisted suicide entirely to voting to allow children to partake in less than a decade.

If you're a supporter of the assisted suicide bill that just passed in the UK, you might view all of these objections as what ifs. You might say that the UK will defy the odds and it won't end up like Canada, where they're now killing as many people as they possibly can. You might think the UK will only euthanize a very small number of people in keeping with their restrictions. But there are several different reasons, there are several different problems with that reasoning, even if we assume that the premise is true. First of all, and this is the most important thing,

As a matter of principle, and I know this sounds provocative these days, but doctors should simply never kill their patients intentionally, okay? It should just simply never happen. This should be just about the least controversial statement that a person can possibly utter. There's a reason that we have the principle do no harm from the Hippocratic Oath. Once doctors transition from a life-saving role to a life-ending role,

then patients can no longer trust doctors to have their best interests in mind. It's especially true when, as in Canada and the UK, the doctors are essentially employed by the government, which is going broke because of rising healthcare costs. And on top of that, a lot of these doctors are working closely with funeral homes now too. So there are conflicts of interest all over the place, which is why, again, doctors should just simply never kill their patients intentionally. We should never allow any form of that ever.

Secondly, it's not hard to see that assisted suicide, even if it's not an explicit goal of the policy, is part of a broader effort to devalue life in the West. And in particular, it's part of a broader effort to devalue certain demographic groups that may have been devalued in many, many other ways already. You can see the signs everywhere, as in literally you can see the signs. For example, if you look at how the government in the UK is promoting assisted suicide, it's

You'll notice, interestingly enough, a striking lack of diversity in their posted advertising. Other than ads for divorce attorneys, this is one of the few areas where you'll see mostly white people in the commercials in the UK. Or if it's a home alarm system and they need someone to play a burglar, then you'll certainly see a white person. But here's a video from Westminster Station. Look at this. So you see the advertisements there. Now,

You can look at that and say, well, you know, we can't read too much into it. It's just a couple of advertisements with an unusual number of white people in them. Just one data point, hardly conclusive. But if you take a look at the statistics on who's actually pursuing assisted suicide, you'll notice another pretty striking data point. On top of the fact that, by the way, just advertisements promoting suicide, it's already horrifying. It's a horrifying idea, the fact that this is a real thing that's happening online.

billboards, a series of them all down, you know, all across the station there. Promoting suicide is already a horrifying thing. But as one NPR member station reported in Sacramento, quote, California's aid in dying laws mostly used by white people

Roughly 88% of people using California's physician-assisted death law are white, according to a new data from the California Department of Public Health. That's been the case every year since the law took effect in 2016. And by the way, that's white as in actually white. Doesn't include Asians, Hispanics, black people. 88% of the people getting assisted suicide in California are white, even though the state is only around one-third white in terms of its general overall population.

And that number is understandably surprising to researchers who have been looking at the data. Jill Weinberg, a sociologist at Tufts University, said she was expecting more diversity in the statistics as compared to states like Oregon, Vermont, Washington. After all, California is far more diverse than those states, but that's not what they're seeing. Quote, California is the first state in which we're starting to expect to see more diversity in euthanasia patients. And in fact, we're not seeing that.

So this is another major issue with assisted suicide that, as far as I know, pretty much no one is really talking about. Governments that say white people are evil are also killing them at very disproportionate rates under the guise of healthcare. And the people who usually complain about disproportionate statistics are strangely silent about that. Just like they're quiet about the disproportionate rates of white men who die from overdoses. It's almost as if they're putting decolonization into action. And by the way,

We don't have a racial breakdown of MAID patients in Canada yet, although the government says it's eventually going to release that data. They've stalled the release of these reports because they're so politically damaging. But we can assume, based on Canada's demographics, that most MAID patients are probably mostly white there as well. These are the kinds of figures that you'd think would trigger some outrage among the opposition party, at a minimum. But in Britain, many conservatives, so-called conservatives,

are just as silent as the liberals about what's going on. Former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put out a column calling the bill compassionate. Here was his argument, quote, I believe that where possible we should prevent suffering. I know from speaking and listening to many of you that too many people have to go through painful, traumatic, drawn out deaths. These moving, deeply personal stories have left a profound impression on me. This bill will make these ordeals, which are so traumatic for patients and their families, less frequent.

So this is what passes for a conservative perspective in Britain. And to restate his argument, he says, where possible, we should prevent suffering. And this is a principle that, on the surface, if you don't think too much about it, sounds nice. We're all opposed to suffering. Nobody likes suffering. But if you take us to its logical conclusion, it justifies the murder of all kinds of people, basically everybody. And it doesn't even require their consent, really.

I mean, the idea is pretty simple. If somebody is suffering enough, then it's your right to kill them. It's just like abortion. If the child is inconvenient, you can kill them. If you judge that the child will have a life that is not worth living, that's reason enough to take his life from him. That's the ideology that underlies all of this. It's an ideology that's shared by both conservatives and liberals in the UK. And this is why wherever assisted suicide is legalized with restrictions, it very quickly expands to

So that there are no restrictions anymore. And that's because at the center of this legislation or any legislation to legalize euthanasia is this idea that physical suffering in all of its forms shouldn't be a part of the human condition. It's the idea that we should and can play God over our own lives just as easily as we can change a child's gender. Leftists think we can determine when our lives end.

And this is also, by the way, what explains the dramatic rise in the medicalization of the human condition and the antidepressants and anxiety drugs. And everybody's hopped up on all those drugs all the time. And it's because of this idea that just like

People shouldn't suffer. They shouldn't experience suffering. I have a right to not ever feel any physical, emotional, or mental discomfort or suffering. And if I do, I have to do whatever I can to just obliterate those feelings and experiences by whatever means necessary. Now, this isn't just a contradiction of biblical teachings. It's the culmination of the narcissistic self-absorbed mentality that in many countries has largely replaced religion in the public consciousness.

And once it's allowed to fester, it takes over very quickly. That's what Canada has already discovered, is cancer patients and disabled athletes are told that they should really just kill themselves instead of getting any kind of treatment, instead of enduring any more suffering. The obliteration of their existence is preferable to experiencing pain. That's the idea that's being sold. But the truth is that life isn't always easy or painless. In fact, it never is. It never is.

but it's still life and life has meaning, life has value, life is sacred. Either you believe that or you don't. Either your society treats life as something precious, something sanctified, or it doesn't. It truly is an either-or choice. It is one or the other. It is black and white. And what we know from experience, recent experience, and the entire history of human civilization, is that when a society chooses the latter,

When it decides that life is inherently expendable or even undesirable, terrible things follow. Dystopian horrors beyond comprehension are what await you every time without exception guaranteed. This is what you choose when you embrace something like euthanasia. It's a choice that you always regret in the end. And the UK is about to learn that the hard way. Now let's get to our five headlines.

.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promotes human flourishing and creates a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.

change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With 350 academic programs as of June 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.

The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private Christian affordable. Visit gcu.edu. All right, let's talk about something that affects us all, taxes. The October 15th deadline has long since passed at this point, but if you're not prepared, you could be in for a world of hurt.

Do you owe back taxes? Are your returns still unfiled? Did you miss the deadline to file for an extension? Now that we're past October 15th, the IRS is probably gearing up for some aggressive enforcement. Trust me, you don't want to be on their radar. We're talking wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, even property seizures. It's not pretty, folks. But before you start panicking, there's still hope. Tax Network USA has helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and filed over 10,000 tax returns.

These guys specialize in reducing tax burdens for hardworking Americans just like you. Look, I get it. Dealing with the IRS is about as fun as a root canal, but ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So here's what you got to do. For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit the website at tnusa.com slash walsh. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash walsh today.

Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. So Hunter Biden has issued a statement about the pardon he received from his dad. Turns out he's happy about it. You know, I was wondering what his take would be. And it turns out he's in favor. He's in the pro-pardoning Hunter Biden camp. Hunter Biden is.

And the Post Millennial reports, President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, has promised he's going to make amends after his father issued him a widespread pardon of all his crimes as well as offenses he may have committed or taken pardon since January 2014. Hunter was convicted earlier this year on federal gun charges as well as tax evasion. In a statement issued to news outlets, Joe Biden's son stated, I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction, mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport.

Despite all this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith in the unwavering love and support of my family and friends. Hunter Biden added that in the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages in recovery. We can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded. Oh, isn't that nice? Isn't that nice for him? He's in recovery.

Now, can I just say, first of all, because you see this from people all the time, especially famous people that go into rehab and they go into recovery. And it's supposed to just be like a free pass for everything they did. Well, I'm in recovery now. It wasn't me who did that. It was the addiction. It was all the, no, it was you. It was you. First of all, you chose to start taking the drugs you got addicted to. That was you. You weren't born addicted.

You chose to, in fact, you chose, I know this is unpopular to say, and this is a little bit of a detour, but you chose the whole time. I mean, even when you were addicted, you still chose to keep doing the drugs. It was you, it wasn't anybody else. You weren't being controlled by some mystical outside force. It was still you. Hate to say it. So you don't get some kind of free pass. Well, Hunter Biden does get a free pass. That's the point now, but-

Morally, you don't and just being able to chalk it all up to, that's kinda nice. You just do drugs for a while, act like a complete piece of, do horrible things and then just go to rehab and say, no, that was not me, none of that was me. 30 years of being the worst human on the planet, none of it was me. I'm a changed man now, so you can't hold any of that against me, doesn't matter what I did. It was all the drugs, the drugs I chose to take, which you can't blame me for, for some reason.

So anyway, that's all. It's very nice of him to accept the pardon with such humility. And of course, he says he's taken responsibility, but that's the exact opposite of what's happened here. You can't take responsibility for

for your actions if you're being insulated from all of the potential negative consequences of your actions. And that's why I said that as a father, I would not have issued a pardon like this to my own child in a similar situation. Now, granted, I realize that Biden did it mostly for himself. I understand that. But pretending that's not the case for a moment and just considering the question in a vacuum, would I do this for my own child? The answer is no. I would give my child a pardon for a tax crime.

I think as I said yesterday, I would pardon every single person who's ever been convicted of a tax crime, if it were up to me. I'd pardon them all.

I would not give my crackhead 54-year-old son a blanket pardon for any federal crime he's ever committed over the period of a decade, precisely because it ensures that he will not take responsibility. He will not be reformed. Responsibility, reformation, repentance, all of these things can only happen if a person is made to experience the consequences of their bad choices. It really cannot happen otherwise. So Hunter Biden will just continue being a scumbag

Which, granted, would probably have happened even if he went to jail, but at least then there would be some hope for him morally and spiritually. Now there basically is none, and that's because he has a terrible father, and he's a terrible human being himself. But the funny thing has been to watch the media grapple with this. Lots of great clips, of course, that we could play. I think this one from CNN is one of the best. Here's Representative Daniel Goldman self-destructing on camera. Let's watch.

In July of 2023, just after that plea deal fell through, this is what you said. I want to watch. Do you think a pardon for his son would be a mistake?

Yes, and I don't think there's any chance that President Biden is going to do that, unlike his predecessor, who pardoned all of his friends and anyone who had any access to him. And I think you see that in this case where he kept on and Merrick Garland kept on a Trump appointed U.S. attorney to investigate the president's son. If there is not an indication of the independence of the Department of Justice beyond that, I don't know what what we could look for.

What does that feel like, watching yourself back then reassuring people that Biden was not going to issue a pardon for his son? Yeah, and I think that if that plea agreement and that plea deal had gone through, there would be no pardon. That was a satisfactory outcome. It had already fallen through. Sorry? When you reacted, this was when the deal had fallen through.

So she kind of lets him off the hook there at the end by not forcing him to respond to that last point. He says that he guarantees there will be no pardon, and then there was, and then he's asked about it, and he says, well, if there had been a plea deal, then what I said would be true, except that he said that after it was already cleared there wouldn't be a plea deal, and he wasn't forced to respond to that because she kept talking, kind of bailed him out from the worst of the meltdown. But either way, you know, clearly this guy's full of crap. The interesting question to consider is whether

um, all of these Democrats are liars or stupid. Now they can be both. I mean, they are both, but when it comes to this Hunter thing, when they were on TV for months, stating with certainty that Biden would not pardon Hunter, were they consciously saying something that they knew probably wasn't going to turn out to be true? Or were they stupid enough to actually believe that Biden wouldn't pardon Hunter?

I think it's probably more the latter than the former, and that's the most pathetic thing of all. How could you not know this was gonna happen? I mean, actually thinking, well, he said he wasn't, so it means he's not going to. Even though Joe Biden has lied about everything his whole career, there's no way he's lying about this. That level of gullibility, willful gullibility is the most pathetic thing.

But it's also fun to watch these people try to try to justify the pardon. So here's Julie Roginski also on CNN doing her best to come up with some sort of defense. Watch. If you're talking about lying or you're talking about Joe Biden's war, Joe Biden's out of here in just a month or two. Right. We're not going to hear from Joe Biden again. He's going to be a former president. That's going to be the end of that. But I want to be clear about something. Donald Trump broke something in this country.

when he got elected the first time and then he shattered it into a million pieces when he got re-elected. And we will never get that back again. When you have a president of the United States, an incoming president, effectively saying that he's going to weaponize the Justice Department to go after his enemies,

When he called the Biden family, the Biden quote unquote crime family, and made it very clear that he was going to do everything in his power to appoint people who were going to go after them, regardless of whether they committed crimes or not. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand which way the wind was going to blow. And as I said again, presidents should not have the ability to pardon. But it's very understandable when you have somebody like Donald Trump come in,

why somebody might say, you know what, I don't want my son prosecuted for crimes that I have even considered that he may have done. And that, by the way, doesn't just apply to Hunter Biden. He's lucky his dad's the president. It applies to all of us who criticize Donald Trump. He is abnormal. He has broken every norm and he has broken every precedent.

that we've had in almost 250 years of this country. So these people, totally shameless. Again, we hear about the theoretical horrors of Trump weaponizing the Justice Department to go after his political enemies. Even though Biden did exactly that, the Democrats actually did it. They didn't just say they would, they actually went and did it in real life. But that doesn't count somehow. But notice something else. Notice how she says that Donald Trump broke something when he got elected the first time and then broke it again, I guess, when he got elected the second time.

She didn't say that he broke something when he was actually governing. She didn't cite any kind of official act as president, any policy that he enacted that broke the country. That's because he governed well and he governed with restraint. He governed fully within the bounds of the law and the constitution. So instead, it's just the fact of winning. That's the crime he committed in Julie's mind. He won legally, he won fair and square, but

He won because people voted for him, but that broke the country, which is really to say that the voters broke the country. That's what she really means. To vote against her wishes is to break the country. The country is broken if it doesn't do exactly what she wants. And of course, we know that that's their mentality. Okay, we haven't checked in on Taylor Lorenz in a while. It's probably because there's no good reason to ever check in on her, but we'll do it anyway right now. Here's the New York Post.

Quote, former Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz has claimed that people who don't wear masks in public are raw dogging the air in an expletive laden social media rant. Lorenz, the controversial columnist who grabbed headlines for branding President Biden a war criminal, unleashed the foul mouth tirade Monday as she ripped criticism of her continued mask wearing during the ongoing, quote unquote, COVID pandemic campaign.

She raged on ex-rival Blue Sky, quote, I love when people find photos where my mask is off for five seconds outside for a photo at my book party, where every single attendee had to PCR test as some kind of gotcha.

She continued, planning a COVID-safe book launch took months and thousands of my own dollars ensuring testing, outdoor space, far UV lights, and a litany of other precautions. Meanwhile, you dumb Fs are out raw-dogging the air and spewing your disease-laden breath all over your elderly neighbors. We are not the same. We certainly are not, Taylor. We certainly, certainly are not. Um...

So breathing without a mask is raw dogging the air, is what she's saying. And that's not a joke. She actually said that, not to be funny. And there are people like this in the country. Not just one person either. I mean, there are people whose lives still revolve around COVID and always will, it seems. And when you get these little snapshots, these little glances, brief, highly disturbing glances into the lives of these kinds of people, it's not a joke.

If you're like me, it's always shocking to remember that these people exist. And also, you can see why you so easily forget that they exist. For one, you want to forget. So you're happy to forget that they exist. But also, you don't see them. They basically dropped out of society. And I was thinking about this recently because if you go back three years or so, I thought at the time,

That at this point in 2024, almost 2025, and for years after this point, I thought there would still be a noticeable number of people wearing masks. And I thought that because I thought that the COVID panic and the lockdowns had broken the brains of a large number of people and that they would just never recover.

Well, it turns out that fortunately some people did recover or maybe the more optimistic view or maybe this is the more pessimistic view actually, I don't know, is that their brains were actually never broken. They were never paranoid or panicked about COVID. Some of these people that were wearing masks all the time, they were just going along with it because they were told to. They actually weren't scared. They were more obedient than scared, which is probably worse on second thought. That's probably the worst way of looking at it. But

That explains partially why we don't see very many people walking around in masks. But the other part of the reason though is that the rest of the maskers have, as I said, dropped out of society. They don't go out. That's why you don't see them. I mean, how many of them are there? How many Taylor Lorenzes are there in the country? I'd be interested to know. I'm not sure if anyone's looked into it, but

So I have no idea how many. I'm guessing it's a small crowd, but it could be larger than we think. These are people who, you know, their brains really were broken, just completely shattered. Now, Taylor Lorenz already had a brain that wasn't exactly high functioning before COVID, but COVID panic just destroyed what was left of it, destroyed it. And why did that happen?

And, you know, I think I made this point many times during the height of it. But COVID was for a lot of people in our culture, it was their first real confrontation with mortality. And I think that's the reason why it broke the brains of people like Taylor. They found themselves for the first time really staring, you know, into the eyes of death and they never recovered.

They just didn't recover. And that's, and when I say eyes of death, that's not to say they were actually, it's, it's, it's, it's in spite of the fact that of course, most of them were never seriously threatened by COVID. Like they weren't actually, it was no serious threat to them, but, but they thought that it was, and they still do. So in their minds, it was a confrontation with mortality. In their minds, it was staring at death, you know, in the face. And, and,

It's the kind of confrontation they had just avoided up till that moment and they didn't know what to do with it. They couldn't handle it. They like psychologically could not handle it. For those of us who were not crippled by the COVID panic,

I think we tend to think, well, we weren't crippled by it because we had a more rational view of COVID and the relative risk it posed. And we just knew that it wasn't, as many of us said, for a long time, it's basically a bad cold, it's the flu, whatever. And that's part of it. So if you weren't crippled by it, it's probably part of the reason is that you had a rational view of it, whereas someone like Taylor Lorenz didn't. But the other part was that no matter what kind of risk COVID did or didn't pose,

we, those of us in this camp, we already knew that the world's a dangerous place and that a million things want to kill us and eventually something will. And so even before you get into like figuring out, well, exactly how much of a threat is this thing? COVID is just part of that symphony. It's part of that symphony of awful things that might kill you and, you know, but these things are on a

are not all the same. They're on a spectrum and some of them are more dangerous than others. So it's not anywhere close to the most prominent part of that symphony, but it's in it. It's just part of that. It's like we live a life, we're frail creatures and we're all going to die. And people who know that tend to respond better in these situations. So when we were told

that we had to do all this crazy stuff to avoid this one particular sickness, we were all like, well, why? Why? I mean, there are a million things that can kill me. What am I supposed to do? I'm just going to live my life in the meantime. What else can I do? That was our attitude because we were already aware of our own mortality. We'd already, you know, we just were aware of it. And COVID wasn't any kind of shocking revelation for us.

But for some people, especially secular, liberal people in modern culture, mortality was a revelation for them. It was just a revelation. They'd never confronted it. They'd never thought about it, really. They'd never meditated on it. Part of that is not being religious. When you are religious, the reality of death is really part of the religious experience. You're aware of it. The fact that you're a mortal being is very much at the

forefront of your religious life and your religious activities, you know. But if you're kind of secular, liberal, superficial person, you don't ever think about those things, I guess. And for some of them, they were forced to think about it for the first time and it just shattered them. It just shattered them. And they've never gotten over it. And they never will. They probably never will. All right.

Finally, here's something important. A video went viral this weekend of a rapper named David Bluntz. I don't know if Bluntz is his Christian name or not. I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't know. But his name, his name is not the most notable thing about him. The most notable thing becomes obvious when you see the video. So I want to show you the video. This is David Bluntz on stage performing at some kind of concert.

And first he is addressing Snoop Dogg, who apparently said something mean about him. And so he does that and then he performs a bit. And so let's watch and enjoy this together. Yeah.

I'm talking about you for real.

As long as you don't leave me, then I'll probably be alright. One time that you left me, I didn't get no sleep that night. One time that you left me, I took ten birds to get high.

I mean, Lizzo's voice sounds better than usual. I'll give her that. That was too obvious. That was not obvious. You just knew. You knew we were going to come out of that and I was going to make some Lizzo joke. You just knew it, didn't you? And I...

And I didn't fail you. I didn't let you down. Or I did, depending on how you look at it. But I'm not going to make fun of it. That's really not my point, to make fun of anybody. I don't believe in making fun of people. I don't believe in fat shaming. And the truth is that, honestly, I want to look on the positive side of this and just say that as I watched that, I was actually really impressed. I didn't expect to be impressed, but I was impressed with the performance of the couch. That's the greatest...

That couch is incredible. It's the greatest couch performance of all time. That's like an industrial grade couch. I need to know what kind of couch that was. Where did they get that couch? That's just a good couch. I mean, it's nice to have a couch like that in your house if in case you ever, you know, in case a Buick ever comes over to visit in case the planet Jupiter ever comes to visit.

I'm not trying to be rude either, to be clear. I'm not insulting the guy. Actually, my point about the couch is unrelated to his weight. I just want to be very clear about that, especially for any of the YouTube overlords. Two separate thoughts here. There's the guy and then just the couch. I think the couch is great. And obviously, he weighs less than Jupiter. So honestly, he probably weighs less than all the planets in the solar system, even the small ones. So I'll say that.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Anyway, astronomy trivia aside, I cannot think of a one-minute clip that could better encapsulate our societal decline than what we just witnessed. Everything about it. Awful music being belted out by a morbidly obese rapper with an oxygen tank sitting on a couch on stage five minutes from going into cardiac arrest. The whole thing.

That's modern culture right there in a nutshell. If I ever went back in time to 1870 or something and somebody asked me what the future is like, I would show them this video. I'd show them a video. I'd say, yep, that's pretty much it. That's, this is it. This is what you have to look forward to. Everything you're doing right now to build human civilization, all of the toil and striving and suffering and bleeding and dying, it's all to lead to this, just so you know.

And then I just watch all the hope drain out of their face. And I get back in my time machine and say, well, see you later. Nothing, no other explanation. I would enjoy that.

You've seen those big wireless carrier commercials everywhere, right? The ones promising a free iPhone. But let's take a closer look at what free really means in the fine print. To qualify for that free phone, you'll need to trade in your current device, not just any device, but one worth about $1,000. And then you've got to sign up for their premium unlimited plan at $100 monthly. And don't forget that sneaky $35 activation fee they tack on. So,

Not much of a free deal, I guess we could say. Starting to look pretty expensive for something that's supposed to cost nothing. That's where Pure Talk, my cell phone company, comes in with a genuinely better option. Here's the deal. You can get a brand new iPhone 14, and yes, it has all the bells and whistles you actually need, plus unlimited talk, unlimited text, a generous 15 gigs of data, and mobile hotspot capability. The total cost, just $50 a month.

Think about that for a second. You're getting everything you need for half the price of what the big carriers charge. Here's the best part. You'll be running on America's most dependable 5G network, so you're not sacrificing quality for savings. Here's what you got to do. Head to puretalk.com slash Walsh today. Making the switch is surprisingly easy, and when you use that specific web address, you'll get an additional 50% off your first month. That's puretalk.com slash Walsh. Pure Talk, America's wireless company.

If you've ever thought about joining Daily Wire Plus, now's the time. Our best deal of the year is here, but it ends this week. 50% off new annual memberships of Daily Wire Plus. We say that again, 50% off for an entire year of Daily Wire Plus. That means one year of uncensored daily shows with limited ads, access to our entire entertainment catalog, including Am I Racist? and Jordan B. Peterson's new series, The Gospels. And for families, unlimited access to our kids app, BentKey.

If you're already a member, well, it's the holiday season. Give the gift of DailyWire Plus and save 50% on a gift membership. There's never been a better time to join. Head to dailywire.com slash cyberweek right now. Node code needed, just 50% off. But hurry, deal ends soon. Don't wait. Join the fight today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

A few years ago, a group of researchers and academics embarked on a bold experiment. They wanted to answer the following question, quote, is it possible that people with no Ph.D. in any field could write a paper in that field every two weeks and get it published? In other words, they wanted to know whether they could write complete gibberish and still have it published in a prestigious peer reviewed academic publication.

And what they found was that, indeed, it is quite possible. In fact, it's very easy. For example, the researchers wrote one published paper that explored the conundrum of why straight men like to eat at Hooters. The paper delved into a fake two-year study concerning a thematic analysis of table dialogue at Hooters, as well as the concept of restaurant masculinity.

Yes, that's breasturant masculinity. They use that term about 10 times in the paper. And apparently, every time, the editors loved it. There was no red flag there. Another hoax paper discussed rape culture and queer performativity at dog parks in Portland. And that one sailed past the editors as well. But maybe the hoaxers' most impressive work was their article entitled, Our Struggle is My Struggle.

which lifted passages directly from Mein Kampf and placed them in a feminist journal of social work totally undetected. So the whole exercise was pretty entertaining and of course it proved its point, which is that peer-reviewed publications will publish anything that sounds like something a left-wing intellectual would write. And then the experiment ended and the hoaxers went about their normal lives. Or at least that's kind of the official story. A paper that was just published in the peer-reviewed journal Springer Nature out of Germany

There's a lot of people questioning whether yet another hoax may be unfolding in the world of academia. Now, to be clear, for reasons I'll outline in a moment, it doesn't look like a hoax. But a lot of people are hoping it is because the alternative is just too depressing to contemplate. A PhD named Colin Wright first drew attention to the paper the other day on social media. The paper is entitled...

Loving the brine shrimp, exploring queer feminist blue post-humanities to reimagine the America's Dead Sea. The paper is written by somebody named Ewelina Jarosz, who uses she, they pronouns, of course, and holds the position of assistant professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Research at UCAN in Poland.

And here's what she/they came up with. The paper's abstract states, quote, "The article aims to transform narratives surrounding Utah's Great Salt Lake, often referred to as America's Dead Sea, by reimagining how brine shrimp are perceived in science, culture, and art. It introduces the concept of hydrosexuality to bridge these realms, thereby enriching feminist blue post-humanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy.

The hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive systems of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology, and culture. This cultural analysis draws inspiration from low trophic theory and queer death studies. Those are all words, I think.

The paper goes on to explain that hydrosexuality is a term that emphasizes the, quote, more than human sensuality and sexuality, emphasizing fluidity and relationality and deploys watery thinking to dissolve the hegemonic notion of the autonomous and bounded human subject.

Now, at this point, you can see why people thought that the Hooters guys had struck again. But then Colin Wright noticed that in this article, the authors referenced something called a post-media environmental performance that they had recently performed in the Great Salt Lake in Utah. The performance was called Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp. And the performance, according to the authors, was intended to express their human love towards the vulnerable yet tough brine shrimp by means of, quote,

A communal bath in the GSL, which some of us, including myself, perceived as making love to the lake. By the way, that's a quote there. So some of us, including myself, I wasn't saying myself sees it as making love. I'm reading a quote. I just want to be clear. So naturally, Colin Wright and his followers went looking for the footage. And if they could find it, it might demonstrate that these authors weren't playing a prank. Or if they were, they were really, really committed to the bit. What Wright and his followers found appears to confirm that this paper is indeed real.

Now, to be clear, normally I wouldn't subject you to extended footage of ecosexuals molesting the natural world, but it's been about eight months since we last talked about ecosexuals in the context of that show Naked Attraction. So we've had enough of a cooling off period, I think. And if this footage is any indication, things are deteriorating very quickly in that community, which is a surprise.

You know, they always seem like such a stable and high-functioning people, but apparently not. So here's how the cyber wedding to the brine shrimp begins. You'll notice that the Mystery Science Theater guys have been overlaid to the front of the footage for comedic effect by one of Colin's followers, but I really don't even think it needs that sort of assistance to be unintentionally funny. Here it is, watch. We are gathered here today to celebrate the wedding of the brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana.

to the ecosexuals. We call upon the Spiral Jetty to witness our wedding to the Brine Shrimp. I am the Spiral Jetty. I've lived in this place since 1970, witnessing the ongoing environmental change in the Great Salt Lake. Over the past 50 years, my shape and status has been constantly transforming. Some decades under the water, some above the water.

Now you can see my naked basalt rocks vulnerable to the ongoing droughts and shrinking shoreline. I'm dry, thirsty, and concerned about this unique ecosystem I'm a part of. So it begins normally enough. The ecosexuals announced their intent to marry the brine shrimp.

Nothing strange about that. We've all been there. Who hasn't had a romantic dalliance with a crustacean? Totally normal stuff. But then out of nowhere, we hear the voice of the Spiral Jetty. And that's apparently a piece of land art that was constructed in 1970 by Robert Smithson in the Great Salt Lake. And as you heard, the Spiral Jetty apparently felt the need to insert himself and his personal problems into this wedding. He's apparently dry and exposed and thinks that's relevant to the wedding between these people and these brine shrimp.

It seems kind of rude, really, to be injecting yourself in this solemn ceremony. So he doesn't shut up. He keeps going and going. And eventually he devolves into reciting land acknowledgements, of course. Watch. I am wishing you all the best on this ecosexual cyber wedding to the brine shrimp.

I am happy to be a part of this next chapter because in the 70s when Robert Smithson put me here, the only things that mattered were my size, aesthetic shape, and his ambition to expand sculpture into this public land.

But this land has never... Thanks. Thanks, Spiral. Now, nobody thinks about getting rid of this guy at any point. That's what's really incredible about it. Imagine you're getting married and out of nowhere some effeminate voice pipes up and starts reciting a land acknowledgment.

Then tells you about all how your wedding will benefit him. Even if you're an intersectional feminist, it's enough to make you root for global warming to accelerate a little bit and ruin the whole beach. But eventually the land art quiets down and they're allowed to recite the vows. And then there's even more drama because somebody interrupts once again. This is a theme of these ecosexual weddings, apparently. None of these people can shut up. There's a lot of talking that goes on. Watch.

Annie and Beth, are you ready to make a vow to the brine shrimp? Oh yes we are. Yes we are. Justyna and Evelina, are you ready to make vows to the brine shrimp? Oh yes we do. Yes we do. Does anyone here object to this wedding between us humans and the brine shrimp? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Human! Human!

I carry with me a by proxy objection from your art uncle Newton Harrison. He says, "What did you ask for consent from the brine shrimp?" Let's ask them. Oh, Uncle Newton. Let's ask them. We will ask the brine shrimp. Brine shrimp? Brine shrimp. Are you ready to marry us humans? We have your consent to marry you. Listen.

I hear yes. I hear yes. I don't hear no. I hear that they want our love and they consent. My sense is not all of them, but most of them. Probably enough. Probably good enough. Imagine you go down to the beach with your family, a nice beach day, down at the ocean, and this is what you witness. This is what you witness. Overweight feminists doing unspeakable things with the ocean life.

So they asked the shrimp for psychic consent and

One of them says, "I don't hear no. My sense is not all of them, but most of them." And apparently that's good enough for these people. They subscribe to the Harvey Weinstein School of Ethics over there in Poland's eco-sexual community, I suppose. So the marriage takes place, although there's a caveat. As the paper puts it, quote, "To avoid potential harm to living critters, vows were made to the brine shrimp's exponentially enlarged augmented reality image, which popped up at the lake's shore above the humans' heads."

And they consummated the marriage by walking into the water with their hands in the air. I'll spare you having to witness the consummation of the marriage, but that did happen. We're not going to play that. Now, at this point, I have to come clean. I have to admit that I don't have much of a grand overarching point to make about the wonders of feminist blue post-humanities and heterosexuality. These people are so far gone that you legitimately can't tell if they're mocking the very concept of humanities, if this is all one great satire. But I will say this, that we have

clearly reached the logical end point of wokeness. Not in this particular moment, but we have reached it in general in Western society. Every slippery slope argument conservatives made for the past 50 years

has been vindicated, every single one. And as we've seen it time and time again, the only mistake that conservatives made with the slippery slope was they were not, if they missed anything, it was just a lack of imagination. It was just not being able to conceive of just how demented things would actually get. But the general gist has been vindicated over and over again.

When you have feminists marrying the brine shrimp while a talking sculpture recites land acknowledgments in the background, it's abundantly clear that wokeness has jumped the shark or married the shrimp, as the case may be. This is the end point, but I would not say it's the bottom. There's no bottom. The slippery slope slides down to what would be the bottom, but then the bottom gives way to a vacuous eternal abyss.

And that's the point that wokeness has reached. And that is why the hoaxers have become indistinguishable from the serious credentialed feminist ecosexual professors. And that is why ecosexuals, peer-reviewed publications, and feminist academics of all types, especially those who marry shrimp, are all today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.