Ep. 1577 - LGBT Activists PANIC After This Huge Move In The Fight To Protect Children

Today, the Matt Wall Show, Hungary has passed a constitutional amendment which effectively bans pride parades in the country. The media is predictably hysterical about it, but I'll explain why we should put a similar measure in place in this country.
Also, SNL shocks the world with a skit making fun of the idea of gay men having babies. Gayle King says that her carnival ride into space with Katy Perry makes her an astronaut, and anyone who disagrees is a sexist.
And archaeologists discover more evidence of child sacrifice by indigenous tribes.

But don't worry, this was, according to a CBS article, nonviolent child sacrifice.

We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. Ever wonder what gives elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers their edge? Many are turning to Armra Colostrum.
This remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level. Armra helps build lean muscle, speeds up recovery time, and enhances overall performance.
Whether you're running a company, pushing your limits in training, or simply looking for a natural advantage in your daily life, Armra Colostrum optimizes your body systems for peak performance and sustained energy. Research has demonstrated that colostrum does more than just strength and performance.
It enhances your body's ability to absorb essential nutrients, supports the development of lean muscle mass, and improves endurance. At the same time, it works at the cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping you bounce back faster after intense physical exertion.
Plus, Armora Colostrum can also support your microbiome and balance and strengthen immune defenses throughout the body. And who doesn't want a stronger immune system? We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmra.com slash Walsh or enter Walsh to get 15% off your order.
That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh. Before it's possible to discuss any policy position that supposedly progressive people have, the first step is always to escape the world of euphemisms and to start talking in explicit detail about what is actually happening.
This might sound straightforward, but every single organ of the left is committed to making sure you don't do this. They would much rather you debate the abstract concept

of a woman's right to choose, for example,

than discuss how children are dismembered

and discarded like trash by abortion clinics.

They would also prefer to use terms

like gender-affirming care

instead of discussing chemical castration,

which is what the drugs do, and on and on.

Euphemisms are one of the most potent tools

that these people have.

They are everywhere in every single debate on every issue.

And in every case debate on every issue.

And in every case, they're a gross misrepresentation of reality.

They need to be neutralized before any actual discussion can begin.

So to that end, take this headline from the other day.

It ran in The Guardian, quote, Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ plus gatherings. And the Associated Press ran a similar story, quote, Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ plus public events seen as a major blow to rights.
The article explains that Hungary's parliament just overwhelmingly passed an amendment that will outlaw, quote, public events by LGBTQ plus communities. Now, if you're just skimming these headlines, this might seem like a surprising development.
You might wonder, well, what exactly are public events by LGBTQ plus communities exactly? And what precisely is an LGBTQ plus gathering? And if you take these headlines literally at surface level, then it sounds like the government of Hungary has just made it illegal for gay people to appear in public for any reason. It's a total crackdown on figure skating and musical theater and art exhibitions.
Gay people can't even get together and watch, you know, glee reruns on the couch without getting hauled to prison. This is the current state of Hungary, if you believe The Guardian and the Associated Press and the rest of the corporate media.
But in reality, of course, Hungary has not banned gay people from assembling in public. What they have banned are disturbing and morally objectionable public displays of sexual hedonism that can easily be observed by children.
And that includes Hungary's annual pride parade.

Pull up any footage of this parade that's posted online

and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about.

Here's some of it, or at least the parts we can play.

This is from Budapest several years back.

Watch.

More than 10,000 people in Hungary's capital, Budapest, have been taking part in gay pride. They were calling for greater tolerance and protesting against discrimination, as well as a chance to have a good old party.
It comes after recent years when street clashes have erupted with violent far-right demonstrators. Dozens

of far-right extremists, including neo-Nazis, held anti-gay protests, but a heavy police

presence stopped them from attacking people. Elsewhere in Ukraine, Kiev's gay pride was

cancelled. So in case you're fortunate enough to be listening to the audio podcast, there is a man

in only his underwear waving a pride flag, and then we see a little girl jumping up and down. And again, this is just the most sanitized footage that we could play.
This is what the corporate press means when they say that Hungary has banned LGBTQ events and LGBTQ gatherings. This is the truth behind the euphemism.
They mean that Hungary has banned public indecency that everyone, including children, can see. They've banned events where men walk around in just their underwear in front of children.
In fact, in many cases, these public displays are explicitly directed at children. And this is what pride parades always entail, as we've discussed dozens of times on this show.
So if you actually look at the text of the amendment that just passed in Hungary, and again, it was an overwhelming vote in Hungary's parliament, passing by a margin of 140 to 21. And if you look at it, you'll immediately understand why it passed.
This is not simply an amendment about pride parades or gay gatherings or anything like that. It's not, as the Associated Press claims, an amendment that constitutes a major blow to rights.
In reality, it's exactly the opposite. This amendment, with very forceful and unapologetic language, affirms the right of everyone, and especially children, to enjoy public spaces without being confronted by someone else's sexual obsessions.
As far as I know, this is the first major piece of legislation, certainly the first constitutional amendment, to explicitly state that, you know, essentially gay and trans activists are not, in fact, the only people on the planet with rights that deserve protection.

Until relatively recently, that didn't need to be spelled out, but now it does.

So here's the National Review summary of the amendment.

Quote,

Quote, the amendment forbids LGBT pride events that conservative lawmakers argued threaten the well-being of children. One of its provisions specifically declares that children's rights to moral, physical, and intellectual development supersede the right to peaceful assembly and almost every other right except the right to life.
Hungarian authorities are also allowed to use facial recognition software to identify and potentially find demonstrators at the newly prohibited pride parades if they're held in defiance of the law, close quote. Yes, this is an amendment which codifies a law passed by Parliament a few weeks ago, which states that a child has a right to be protected physically, morally, and spiritually, and that this right supersedes the right of gay people to celebrate their sexuality in the town square.
Now, that's exactly the right way to frame this. It's certainly the honest way to frame it.
Virtually all of our cultural and political debates, regardless of the particular topic, ultimately come down to a battle of competing rights and interests. And that's not normally how you see policy debates framed, but it's the truth.
That's what all of this always comes down to. I mean, even something as simple as a speed limit involves weighing various rights and interests.
On the one hand, you have people's reasonable interest in traveling to their destinations quickly. On the other hand, you have people's reasonable interest in not being killed in a high-speed car accident.
These two interests are obviously in tension. I mean, if we wanted absolute safety on the highway, we'd set the speed limit to five miles per hour, but we don't do that because we've decided that other interests are also important.
And every functioning society has to weigh competing interests like this in every single area of policy. So the only way to sort through this mess is to come to some kind of understanding about which rights are most fundamental and most important.
With this amendment, Hungary has decided that apart from the right to life, the most fundamental right, the right that is most important in a functioning society, is a child's right to protection and care for their adequate physical, mental, and moral development. Now, you can agree or disagree with that philosophical claim.
I, of course, strongly agree with it. But regardless of your particular stance on the issue, you can't deny that at the very least they are dealing with these questions in a clear and coherent way.

The opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, are not responding coherently. Instead,

they're reacting in exactly the kind of hysterical manner you would expect.

They're lying about the content of the amendment, as we just discussed. They're also setting off smoke bombs in Hungary's parliament and blocking the entrance to

government buildings. Watch.
So again, if you're listening to audio podcast, you've got guys setting off these smoke bombs in the middle of the parliament. This is the response you expect from people who know that they have no actual argument.
They'll blockade buildings, they'll spread propaganda, they'll detonate smoke bombs. The one thing they won't do, because they can't do it it is rationally explain why you're wrong.
And they are right. In this case, these LGBT activists simply cannot articulate any reason to oppose this amendment.
And there are a couple of reasons for that. One of the reasons, of course, is that these so-called pride parades are indefensible morally and practically.
Every sane person knows that they should be banned from public streets. This, again, would have been commonly understood by basically everyone until 15 seconds ago.
And anyone who's ever seen footage of these parades understands this. But the more fundamental issue is that even if the pride parades weren't bizarre and explicit and objectionable, these activists would still have a problem.
And this is the really basic philosophical problem that the left has that they just never, ever grapple with. So put simply, the leftist conception of human rights gives no real basis for objecting to this constitutional amendment or to any other law that they don't like.
Because these people believe that rights are social constructs that are codified by the government. They generally reject the idea that rights come from God.
After all, it's hard to make the case that the right to, let's say, abort a baby created by God

somehow comes from God. God creates the baby and then also gives us the moral right to kill the baby.
It's impossible to argue that, and so they have to abandon the idea that rights come from God. They also don't believe in God, most of them, or they pretend that they don't.
But if rights are social constructs, which is, again, what they say, then society can abolish a right just as easily and just as legitimately as it creates it. And that's exactly what has happened here, from the perspective of the left, if they're being consistent.
Hungary, through its democratically elected government, has decided that the absolute right to gay pride displays no longer exists in their culture. As a result, it makes no sense for the left to object.
They can't say that the rights of LGBT people are being infringed in Hungary. We saw that headline.
They say, a major blow to rights. Well, no, it's not.
That right doesn't exist anymore. Rights are a social construct, according to you.
And in that society, in that culture, that right just doesn't exist. That's a construct that they have no longer constructed.
They have deconstructed that right. It no longer exists.
There is no authority higher than society and government, according to you if you're on the left. And those authorities have spoken.
So that's all there is to it. In other words, gay activists are melting down in Hungary right now because they're realizing, if only subconsciously, that their ideology can be erased just as quickly as it took hold.
As it turns out, a fiction that's maintained by a patchwork of laws and government policy can also be eliminated by law and government policy. And it's not just the so-called LGBT community in Hungary that's coming to that realization.
In this country, as we've discussed, in America, pride parades are also facing serious problems, mainly because the major sponsors are pulling out and people are losing interest. They're going door to door in San Francisco right now to cover a multimillion dollar funding shortfall for their pride events this summer.
In every respect, this movement has become weak and desperate. And if there was ever a moment then to implement a Hungary style ban on pride parades in this country, now's the time.
Yes, activists in this country would inevitably freak out, just like they're doing in Hungary. But there are some things that are a lot more important than the feelings of screeching left-wing protesters.
And one of them is the right of children to grow and develop and have their innocence protected. Hungary is now finally enforcing that right.
And for the benefit of every child in this country, we should do the same. Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, I'm juggling life as a husband, father and show host. Trust me, things are generally chaotic around here.
Can you imagine trying to somehow eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every single day? Sounds absolutely miserable, not to mention the hours it would take. And to be honest, sometimes I just want to roll through a drive-thru and order something that would maybe make a doctor quietly weep.
And that's where Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies comes in. It's literally the easiest way to get all those fruits and vegetables that you should be eating, 31 whole ingredients to be exact, into your diet every day.
Balance of Nature takes real fruits and vegetables, freeze dries them, which preserves all the good stuff, grinds them into a powder, and stuffs them into convenient capsules. Just take them daily and your body knows what to do with them.
No chopping, no prep, no sad wilted produce in your fridge drawer of good intentions. Go to BouncingNature.com and use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's BouncingNature.com, promo code Walsh.
I want to start with this from SNL, which could win the award for the most improved show. If there was an Emmy category, I'd give it to, for most improved show, I'd give it to SNL.
I'm not sure if you really want to win that one, but I think they should win it. Now, the bar is very, very low.
SNL went through a period of like 15 to 20 years where they did not produce a single funny sketch at all. And now it seems like every episode they come up with one or two

ideas that are amusing, sometimes even actually funny. I don't watch the show myself, but I'm just basing this on the clips that I see circulating.
So anyway, this SNL skit from this past weekend is getting a lot of attention. Conservatives are saying, some conservatives are saying that it heralds its evidence of a vibe shift.
And here's just a quick clip of it. Watch.
Oh my gosh, whose baby is that? Excuse me? It's ours. Wait, but how? Okay, I'm sorry, but gay people can't have a baby? Why is it when it's us an interrogation? I don't ask you why you're poor.
I loaned you $10,000. I think we're just wondering who the mother is.
Okay, well, between the two of us, I'm more emotional. And I like shopping, so me, I think.
Now, first of all, the funniest line in the skit didn't even get a laugh. To me, the funniest bit was when he said, I don't ask you why you're poor.
And she said, well, I loaned you $10,000. I don't know.
I found that. I found that pretty funny.
No one else laughed in the audience. Anyway, of course, the notable thing here is that the whole joke revolves around the fact that two gay men have a baby.
It's the kind of the absurdity of two gay men having a baby. And that's the premise for this SNL skit, which is notable.
It's hard to imagine. Five years ago, it's just hard to imagine a skit like this existing, especially not on SNL.
And so many conservatives are celebrating this, saying that it represents a significant shift in the culture. And then there are other conservatives who are saying that those conservatives are being naive, that this is not any kind of sincere evolution for SNL, that they're just trying to pander to right-wingers, that they see which way the culture is trending.
And so they're just trying to sort

of jump on the bandwagon for their own purposes. And that's all this is.
And so those seem to be the two camps. But I'm kind of in a third camp on this that says that both are right.
Of course, this is not any sort of sincere change of heart by the writers of SNL. This was not intended to be a real defense of the traditional family.
One skit on SNL does not mean that we won the culture war. Of course, all that is true.
Obviously, it's pandering. Of course it is.

And I think this is mostly SNL realizing that the show cannot be woke all the time. If they

want people to watch, if they want people to talk about them, then this is the only way to do it.

Wokeness is extremely unpopular. It's especially unpopular in comedy.
It's just not possible to do

comedy that anyone likes, where you're sticking to the rules of wokeness. Nobody's interested in woke comedy.
There's just no market for it. So if this is any kind of pivot, it's a cynical, calculated pivot.
But at the same time, that's good. I mean, it does say something significant about the culture that SNL has to put material like this out there.
If this is pandering to conservatives, well, the fact they feel the need to pander to conservatives is in and of itself significant. SNL is reading the tea leaves, and that's the point.
The point is not that the writers of SNL are brave social conservative warriors, right? Nobody is saying that. Nobody thinks that.
The point is the tea leaves. It's what the tea leaves are saying.
It is good when conservatives are being pandered to. I don't know if that's a controversial thing to say, but when we see these little examples of corporate media, Hollywood, advertisers, corporations, these little glimmers where they seem to be pandering to conservatives for a change, and whenever you see that, you always have other conservatives say, well, they're just pandering.
This doesn't mean anything. Of course they're pandering.
But that's good. We should want them to pander to us.
Okay, if companies were to stop putting out Pride Month ads and then start running ads again with American flags and bald eagles and all that kind of stuff, that's good. We should want that.
Yes, it's pandering. Yes, the people doing it don't really mean it.
Yes, it's entirely cynical. Yes, it's self-preservation on their part.
Yes, they're doing it so they can make money. Great.
Okay, that's good. We should want that.
Not because we think the pandering is sincere. Yes, you're not telling anyone anything that they don't already know when you say, well, it's not even sincere.
They don't really mean that. Of course they don't mean it.
But it's still good because it is an indication of where the cultural power lies. If the media and Hollywood feel the need to pander to us to survive, that is a good thing.
Because it means that we have the power. It means that we're holding the cards.
That's what it indicates. Now, I don't think we're there yet, by the way.
I don't think we actually hold the card, so to speak. But if this SNL skit or things similar to it that we've seen in the culture over the last few months, especially, if it represents any kind of shift, my point is that it's not a shift in what the people who make SNL actually believe.
That's not the shift. It's a shift that they

perceive in the culture, and that is a positive shift. So yes, in that sense, if we start to see more pandering to the right from corporations, then again, that's not anything that we should object to.
That is the corporations as a conservative recognizing your cultural power and influence and realizing that they need to do that. So you don't have to take it as a sincere statement on their part, but also to object to it or to say, this doesn't mean anything.
Who cares about this? That's just

asinine. That's when you start to get into the territory where it seems like you don't actually want there to be any cultural progress.
You actually want to stay on the losing side forever because you prefer that, which I do think that some people on the right, that's kind of where they stand on this. So yesterday we discussed the supposedly historic trip into space taken by the all-female crew that consisted of Katy Perry and Gayle King and Jeff Bezos' girlfriend and a few others.
The problem is that the crew was not really a crew. They were passengers taking a ride.
were in space for like three minutes. There was nothing historic or significant about it And yet as we talked about the media celebrated it as this monumentally historic event Because they were women who took the trip Well, gail king is now speaking out and she is upset that more people are not celebrating her Now the media was celebrating her.
There's a lot of celebration, but not enough. And she thinks that those of you who are not falling at her feet to praise her achievement are sexist.
Let's listen. I don't like that people are calling it a ride, a ride.
You know, you never see a man, a male astronaut who's going up in space and they, oh, he took a ride. We actually duplicated the route that Alan Shepard did.
That's why it's called, this particular capsule is called the New Shepard. We duplicated that route.
No one said he took that ride. It's always referred to as a flight or a journey.
So I feel that that's a little disrespectful to what the mission was and what the work that Blue Origin does. We use space technology all the time, whether it's your GPS, whether it's your satellite, that doesn't just happen.
Every time a flight goes up, they get some type of information. Two of the astronauts, I still have a hard time calling myself an astronaut, but two of the astronauts on board, one is a rocket scientist, one is an astrophysicist activist, we're actually doing experiments.
But every time one of those goes up, you get some information that can be used for something else. So I wish people would do more due diligence.
And then my question is, have you all been to space? Have you been to space? Go to space, or go to Blue Origin and see what they do and how they do and then come back and say this is a terrible thing i've had so many girls and women and some guys who are saying well i saw what you did i'm thinking maybe i should reconsider maybe i could do this too the young girls in particular but it's not just the young girls we're also encouraging i mean the boys look at it and see what women and young girls can do. So, you know, I know there are cranky Yankees.
I know there are some haters. But I'm not going to let people steal my joy and steal the joy of what we did or what we accomplished that day.
I'm just not going to let it in. I'm not.
And these are some of my friends that are just throwing shade. Have you all been to space?

Have you been to?

No, we haven't been to space, Gail, because we don't have a friend who's dating Jeff Bezos.

Okay, we don't have a friend who's dating the guy who owns the rocket ship and the company that makes the rocket ship.

So, no, we haven't been to space.

So I appreciate the suggestion, though.

You know, she says, well, why don't you try going to space first? I'd love to, but I'm not part of the crew there. So that's not really an option for the rest of us.
The only way to go to space is to have a billion dollars or more. That's one way to do it.
Or to be friends with someone who's got billions of dollars. Those are like the two ways to do it right now.
And I don't fall into either category and most of us don't. So she's completely delusional.
She actually calls herself an astronaut. Okay.
So this is not, I think when we talked about this yesterday, I was kind of joking about how they see themselves as astronauts,

but they really do.

She actually thinks she's an astronaut now.

Now, Gail, you can call yourself an astronaut in the same sense

that my eight-year-old son can call himself an architect

because he builds stuff with Legos.

In fact, he has a much more credible claim

to the title of architect than you do to astronaut.

He is actually building something, at least.

You didn't do anything.

You experienced something.

You experienced something pretty great,

which is going to space.

You didn't do it, though.

You did not contribute anything at all to that journey.

So it was an experience for you, not much different than if you go to a movie and you

sit down, you experience the movie. But that doesn't mean you get to take credit for the

fact that the movie exists. You didn't make the movie.
You are experiencing it, though. And just to be clear, the word astronaut does have a definition.
NASA has a definition of an astronaut on their website. And it says this, the term astronaut derives from the Greek words meaning star sailor and refers to all who have been launched as crew members aboard NASA spacecraft bound for orbit and beyond.
The term astronaut has been maintained as the title for those selected to join the NASA Corps of astronauts who make star sailing their career profession. Now, even if we take the NASA part out and allow that someone can be an astronaut, even if they don't work for NASA, which they can still Astronaut involves a lot of training that Gayle King and Katy Perry never went through.
And it means you were crew. You were part of the crew on a spacecraft.
And crew means that you were on the craft and somehow involved in piloting it or maintaining it or working on it in some way. That's what the crew is.
When we talk about the flight crew on a commercial flight, we're not talking about the passengers that are sitting there. We're talking about the pilot or even the flight attendants.
You were not any of those things. You were a passenger.
But most insanely of all, she actually compares herself to Alan Shepard. And in case you didn't know, Alan Shepard is famous because he was the first American to go to space in 1961.
He was the second person to go to space. Yuri Gagarin, the Russian cosmonaut, was first.
But he actually beat, the Russian beat the American by, I think it was like 20 days, 23 days. So it was very close.
But he was the second human and the first American. And he was going into space at a time when the possibility of death was very, very high.
This was extremely dangerous. To be first or to be among the first is always dangerous.
You're the guinea pig. And that's why we celebrate the pioneers who are the first or among the first to do something, because for that reason, that you're taking on all of this risk.
Someone has to be the first to go do it. I would love to go to space now.
I would take a trip if Jeff Bezos offered it to me, which he never will. I would not have wanted to go in 1962.
Okay. I would not.
If it was offered then, I would have said, no, thank you. Because the possibility of exploding on the way up was like really, really high.
So we don't celebrate the people who do it on a tourist trip 60 years later. We celebrate the people who were the first to do it.
And Gail doesn't want us to say that she took a ride, but that is in fact what she did. She took a ride on a remotely piloted craft.
Gail King comparing herself to Alan Shepard, it's like making a phone call in the year 2025 and then comparing yourself to Alexander Graham Bell.

It's like saying, hey, when I made a phone call, I did exactly the same thing that Alexander Graham Bell did in 1876.

Anyone who denies my achievement is sexist.

Oh, sure.

When that man, when that man, Alexander Graham Bell, when he makes a phone call, you guys act like it's a big deal.

But when I do it, nobody cares. Sexism is alive and well.
Oh, sure. When Magellan circumnavigated the globe

in 1520, everybody thought it was so cool. But when Gayle King takes a carnival cruise ship

to the Cayman Islands, no one's celebrating her. That's the patriarchy right there.
Oh, you know, when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, everyone was freaking out about it. But then when Gayle King walks through the snack aisle for a moon pie, no one, no one, no one.
Everyone says it's no big deal. You know, that's sexism.
I tell you what, it's a real life handmaid's tale. That's what it is.
And it really is a shame that these women are insisting on being so insufferable about this, because like I said yesterday, it is cool to go to space. It is or should be a profound experience.
So if they just came back and said, wow,

that was amazing. I'm so grateful I was given the chance to do that.
I have so much gratitude.

Let me tell you what it was like. If they said that, I wouldn't criticize it at all.

In fact, I'd be interested to hear their perspective on it because they got to see

the world from a perspective that few human beings have ever seen it in person anyway or will ever see it. And that's really cool.
It's not an achievement at this point. You didn't do anything, but it's a really cool thing to be able to experience.
But they've taken this immense experience and they've turned it into something small and petty. Because the experience was not bigger than their egos.
And it's a shame. This is the tragedy of narcissism.
That for a narcissist, that narcissism makes the world a very small place. That nothing that happens in the world, nothing in the world, not even the entire world itself, is bigger than your own ego, than your own need to be admired and to be congratulated.
And so she comes back from space. Coming back from space should change your perspective on things.
Right? It should be this really humbling experience. And yet these women come back and the first thing they're doing is complaining that people aren't congratulating them enough.
So rather than coming back with more humility, they come back with less somehow, which is pretty remarkable. Okay.
I've had this for a few days. I wanted to mention it.
This is not really a headline, but I'm annoyed, so I'm going to talk about it. Jack Dorsey is the former CEO of Twitter.
And he tweeted something a few days ago that I found to be very extremely stupid and bad. But it garnered a fair amount of support, including from Elon Musk.
And of course, I'm a huge Elon Musk supporter and fan, as you know. I think he's one of the great men of history, as I've said many times.
I disagree with him on this issue pretty strongly. He tweeted,

rather, Jack Dorsey tweeted, and Elon Musk agreed, tweeted this, delete all IP law. That was it.
That was the whole tweet. Delete all IP law.
And of course, that's intellectual property law that he's talking about. And those are the laws that give you ownership rights over your ideas, over your creative output.
And he wants to delete it. And Elon agreed, and a bunch of other people agreed too.
And that's why I find this so concerning, because it is needless to say, or it should be needless to say, it is a monstrously terrible idea. It would mean that anyone would have the right to steal any of your ideas.
You would have no recourse legally, no protection of any kind. Anything that you create, any creative product of yours can be taken by anyone.
And it means that if you, for instance, wrote a book, somebody else could just come and take the book and copy it word for word and put their name on it and sell it under their name. And if they have a bigger name than you and they have a bigger platform, then they can reap the profits and you won't.
And there's nothing you could do about it because you don't own the story if you get rid of intellectual property. I mean, you could come up with a story that's entirely yours, and without IP law, you don't own it.
Anyone can take it and do anything. A movie studio could come along and make a movie out of it and not give you a dime for it, or even give you credit.
And you repeat that process with literally anything else, movie scripts, art, anything. Anyone could come along and just take anything you've done and any idea you've had and pilfer it.
And the only thing stopping them would be their own sense of propriety, their own ethical sensibilities, which is to say nothing would stop them. The idea of abolishing intellectual property right is really no different than abolishing physical property rights.
Saying I have no ownership over my own ideas is like saying I have no ownership over my home. And you could even argue that it's worse in many ways, because most of us don't build our own homes from scratch.
Most of us don't build our homes at all, you know. But we do build our own ideas, our own stories, our own art.
Sure, you're inspired by other things when you're making something creatively, but that's like the lumber that you use to build your own home. You're using pieces of other things, but you're creating your own thing out of it.
And so to say that you don't have that ownership, it's just pure communism. This is communism.
That's what it is. But here's what makes it relevant, I think.
Why is Jack saying this? Is this just trolling? Is this engagement farming by Jack? Is he falling on hard times and he needs to do some engagement farming on X for the monetization? Well, no. He's saying this because Jack is a big tech guy.
And as a big tech guy, he is, of course, very involved with AI. And this is all about AI.
This is why every tech bro will be a communist soon enough. That's why so many of them are starting to sound like communists, strangely enough.
It's because they want to be able to build their AI platforms without having to worry about pesky things like intellectual property. And that's because all of these AI platforms are based on theft.
I mean, they all just steal with abandon. And because the AI obviously doesn't come up with their own ideas, the AI has no brain.
And so all it does is just take from what already exists and spit out an amalgamation based on that. People are very impressed that you can go to chat GPT and ask it to write you a screenplay about anything.
Just write me a screenplay about this and that. And then it generates a screenplay in five seconds.
And that is really impressive technology. I mean, I can't even wrap my head around what goes into that on the back end to make that kind of technology possible.
But all it's doing is just stealing from other screenplays that have been written and ripping them and just creating this kind of amalgamation of all of them. And so it creates this big problem with intellectual property.
Something has to give. Either we're going to start enforcing IP laws against these AI platforms.
either were going to say that, you know what, actually, you know, AI is a cool technology, but that doesn't mean that we're just going to, doesn't mean that creative, that intellectual property no longer exists. We're not just going to give up on that concept because this technology is super cool.
So either we're going to enforce IP laws against these AI platforms, or we're going to abandon the entire concept of IP so that AI can take over and destroy human creativity entirely, which is what would happen. You know, if Jack gets his way, if Jack Dorsey gets his way and we just get rid of IP law, that's the end of human creativity.
It's the end of it. There's no incentive anymore to create anything.
There's no way to profit off of it. So you can't,

like, it's over. I mean, you have a great story that you want to write.
What are you going to do

with it? Are you going to send it to a publisher? Well, they could just take the story. That's the

problem. You're going to send your

Thank you. want to write, what are you going to do with it? Are you going to send it to a publisher? Well, they could just take the story.
That's the problem. You're going to send your great manuscript to a publisher to publish it? Well, without IP law, they could just take it.
They could say, oh, thanks for this gift. We're going to do whatever we want with it, and we will pay you nothing.
And there is nothing you can do legally about it. Are you going to self-publish it? Well, again, you're just a normal person.
You're not famous. Anyone else could just come along and find this book that sold five copies and they could say, well, we're just going to take that.
And we've got the platform. We've got the ability to distribute it.
We've got the marketing dollars. And we're going to take it and we're going to reap the reward.
So it's the death of human creativity is what it is. And I think that that is a big deal.
I think that that's a problem. I think that's something that we need to avoid like we avoid the plague or even more so.
I mean, this is one of the basic things that makes human life worth living. It's one of the things that gives life meaning.
It's one of the most basic fundamental things. It's creativity, art.
This is like what separates us from animals, and we cannot sacrifice it or give it up under any circumstance. I mean, we must defend that to the death.
It's one of the most important things on this earth to defend. But Jack prefers that we get rid of all that because it means that he makes billions of dollars on his AI stuff.
That's all this is about. All these AI guys, like the IP laws, kind of the one thing standing in the way, sort of right now.
It's an inconvenience for them. And they're worried about laws that protect the IP even more.
And that'll be inconvenient to them. And they just want to erase all of that and make a trillion dollars so they can each become trillionaires.
And they become trillionaires, and human creativity is dead as a result. That's the cost the rest of us pay.
I don't know. I don't think that's a great deal.
I don't think that I give up, that humanity has to give up art and then Jack Dorsey gets to be a trillionaire.

Like, I don't, to me, that's not, I don't find that deal very appealing.

I don't think that we quite, it's great for him.

I can see why he likes it.

But for the rest of us, not so much.

Let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bid.
Hey, we're the sweet baby gang. Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning.
If you missed the April 15th deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse.
with over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishment, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast.
The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got you covered.
Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control.
Your consultation is completely free, and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
You may have missed April 15th, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move.
Anytime you tell someone who claims to have ADHD that it isn't real, they lose their minds. People love defending their mental illnesses.
It's so strange. Yeah, this is a phenomenon that I've been dealing with for many years, and I've obviously been outspoken about fake mental illnesses for a long time.
And so I'm consistently running into this. People get very upset when you question whether they really have a mental disorder, which at a surface level doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Because if you say that ADHD or anxiety or depression are not mental illnesses, you are not saying that the experience isn't real. You aren't saying that the people aren't experiencing the things they say they're experiencing.
It's not about denying the experience. It's a debate about categories.
It is an academic debate and a philosophical debate, really, about categories. What category do you put these experiences in? And my point is simply that ADHD is a category error.
And yes, I think that depression and anxiety are also category errors. I think the DSM is full of category errors, which again, doesn't mean

that those things, if you say I'm depressed, I'm feeling this way. I'm not denying that.
I totally

accept that your feelings are completely real and legitimate and even important.

What I'm saying is that to put it into the category of mental illness is an error, I think. And we can debate that.
I actually think it's an interesting conversation. The fact that people get so emotional about it, and they take it as a personal attack if you say that, hey, look, I think what you're experiencing is real.
I don't think that it qualifies as a mental illness, however. People get so upset by that.
And it does seem, as I said, on the surface, it's a little confusing. Because even if I'm wrong, why would that make you angry? And I think the answer is that people cherish their quote unquote mental illnesses.
And they cling desperately to the label because it makes them a victim. It removes any accountability, any agency from them.
It means that they can't actually do anything about it or change it without drugs anyway. And a lot of people find comfort in helplessness.
They find comfort in being a victim. They find there is just this sense of relief, and people won't admit it.
Most people will not admit this, but we all know it's true, that there is a sense of relief that people feel when they're given a diagnosis. When they're feeling a certain way, when they're experiencing something mentally, when they're struggling internally with something, and they go to a psychiatrist, they go to a psychologist, whatever, and they get a diagnosis.
And the medical professional says, oh, here's what that is. And it's an illness.
And it's not your fault. I think a lot of people leave that feeling relieved.
It's a relief. It's like, okay, well, that's what that is.
I don't have to think about it anymore. It's not my fault at all.
There's nothing I can do about it. Takes the pressure off of me.
Here's a drug. Take the drug.
And then there are people that go even farther than that, and they actually take pride in it. They think that the mental illness makes them interesting.
It makes them whatever. It makes them unique.
They start describing themselves as neurodivergent and all these

things. And they actually take pride in that identity in a really similar way that people, it's almost like it's an LGBT.
I don't know if we've included N for neurodivergent in the LGBT alphabet soup yet, but it will end up there because some people embrace it as an identity in that kind of way.

So I think that's what you're noticing.

And... It will end up there because some people embrace it as an identity in that kind of way.

So I think that's what you're noticing.

And I'll admit that, and maybe this is why people get especially angry at me because I do have a disconnect here. That I just, I can't relate to that desire to be diagnosed.
I feel exactly the opposite way. If anything, I will get offended if you tell me that I don't have control over something, which has its own problems, I admit.
I'm going to be on the opposite end of this extreme, where I want to feel like I have control over everything. And if a doctor comes to me and says, well, you have no control over this or this, I don't want to hear that.
I don't want to hear it. Don't tell me that.
Okay. If anything, I'd rather you tell me I have more agency than I actually do than less.
So that's just the way that I'm wired. And to me, it's like intuitive.
I don't know. To me, it just seems as a human being, if you're going to err on one side or the other, it makes sense to err on the side of wanting to feel like you're more in control than you actually are.
But this desire to feel like you have no control, like even your mind is not under your control. I cannot relate to that desire.
To me, it's a nightmare. And to want that makes no sense to me.
But all of that is almost irrelevant because whether you want it or not, no matter which reality we would prefer, what matters is what is the actual reality. And I think in actual reality, in particular, ADHD is just a category error.
All right, Matt, I'm an adult with ADHD. It's not a scam.
Trust me, it's real. I still struggle in my adulthood with ADD.
I'm not hyperactive anymore, but have issues to stay focused on things that don't interest me. It's proven that our ADHD brains can't control dopamine properly.
Well, as for that last part, that's not true. It's not proven that ADHD is a neurological disorder at all.
If you were listening to the monologue yesterday, that's what we talked about yesterday. That is not proven.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
That is not the case. So if you're someone going around saying, well, it's proven ADHD is a neurological disorder.
No, it is not proven. That is not proven.
In fact, as we talked about yesterday, some of these scientists who are the reason why you think that have recanted. They have since admitted that, well, you know, maybe that's not true.
Okay, but this is the problem. It's like the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
That has been debunked. It is not true.
That is not the case. There is no evidence that there is any kind of chemical imbalance that leads to depression.
But this is what doctors said for a long time. And people just, they refuse to let it go.
They refuse to let that go. And I think it's the same thing with ADHD.
And as for the rest, look, man, having trouble staying focused, that just makes you a human. Okay, that's called being a human being.
That is a normal human experience, especially these days. Everybody struggles to focus, everyone.
We're surrounded by distractions all the time. And you might say that, well, yeah, I struggle more than most people.
How do you know that? How could you possibly know that? You have not been in anyone else's mind. How do you know? Well, yeah, but I struggle much more.
How could you possibly know that? You can't. You only know what's going on inside your own brain.
And you've come to this determination that it's like worse or it's a whole different category for you as opposed to other people. That is a total fantasy.
You cannot know that. And even if it was true, even if it was true that you experience, that you are more distractible than the average person, that doesn't make it a disorder.
All human traits come with variance. Okay, every human trait that we can think of, there are going to be people who are more that and less that, whatever it is.
Whether we're talking about, you know, people, some people are more focused, some people are less focused, some people are more optimistic, some people are more pessimistic. Some people are more inclined to, you know, being cheerful, some people are more inclined to melancholy.
Any personality trait, anything that you can think of, it all exists. I mean, to use the phrase everyone likes, it all exists on a spectrum, right? And so you're going to have extremes.
You're going to have people that have these traits more than others. What you're basically saying is that for all these traits, there's the normal right down the middle, and anything that's on this side or that side is a disorder.
But how can that be true? What you're saying then is that the proper order of things is that we all have what? Exactly the same temperament, exactly the same personality. That's the way it should be.
And if it's not that way, then it's evidence of this epidemic of mental disorders. I think it doesn't make any sense.
Finally, I agree. Okay.
But the point is that some children are struck by the boredom much more than other children. And that's what we call ADHD.
I agree it happens for everybody, but it's a spectrum of intensity. And I totally agree that this disorder is able to happen only because in today's sick world, young boys are confined to stay still in a desk and listen to a middle-aged depressing woman, unpassionately reciting some math or other things.
But that's the world we live in, and by its standards, these boys are indeed disordered because they aren't fit to live in it, like it or not. That legitimizes ADHD and its way of treatments.
No, no, no, no, no. I hate everything about your comment.
I hate everything. I find it grotesque, honestly.
I find it disgusting. You're telling me that society has set itself up a certain way and anyone who struggles with it is disordered, that is an awful way of looking at things.
Because what if society is disordered? What if we have set things up in a way that is disordered? Have you considered that? Have you considered that the school system, the way we approach it, is disordered? That maybe we approach education in a way that's just wrong? Okay, if the school system needs to drug half the kids in order to even function, maybe that's an indication that the school system is broken. Not that the kids' brains are broken, but there's something wrong with the school system.
Our children are not disordered. The school system is.
And rather than try to fix that or to approach that in a different way, what you're saying is, well, look, man, it's just the way it is. Put the kids on drugs, even if it destroys them, even if it stunts their growth and causes all kinds of health problems down the line, well, we just got to do it because they got to get with the program.
Can't change the program. The program is the program.
And anyone who doesn't click with the program, we just have to, even if they're not really mentally ill, we just have to treat them as though they are, is basically what you're telling me. And I strenuously Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a Daily Wire Plus member right now and chat with us.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Over the years, I've made my position on the hagiography of so-called indigenous cultures about as clear as I possibly can.
These cultures were barbaric, violent, and altogether vastly inferior to the ones that replaced them. There's no elevation of these primitive cultures that isn't also a reflection of a deep-seated hatred for this country, for white people, for civilization in general.
Even if we pretend that the various tribes were indeed the first ones to lay claim to this land, which they weren't, it still doesn't change the fact that the world is a much better place today because of men like Christopher Columbus and the conquistadors. Public school teachers and Democrats will say otherwise, even though there would be no public school or Democrats if these people had their way, which is maybe one mark against Columbus and the conquistadors.
The good news is that today we have one of these opportunities to talk about this again. But before I go any further with the specifics of this story, let's do a little thought experiment.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to pretend, as a matter of professional survival, that the indigenous tribes were in reality enlightened, peaceful, progressive people.

Imagine that you have to revere the Aztecs and the Incas, or else you'll lose your grant funding

and your employer will terminate you. Let's say you're an archaeologist or an anthropologist

employed by Harvard or something. Now, if we're being honest, it has to be kind of a tough gig,

at least in some respects. After all, your entire career is based on a lie, and you have to maintain that lie every single minute of your professional life, or else everything will fall apart.
It's a little like being Milli Vanilli or Beyonce, and you have to act like you can actually sing instead of just lip sync. You're going through life with a permanent case of imposter syndrome, and every moment, the professional defenders of indigenous peoples are going through something similar.
They have to maintain a carefully constructed fiction at all costs. And that's not easy because, of course, whenever you're trying to maintain a lie, especially an absurd one, the risks are high that eventually you'll make a mistake and give the game away.
And indeed, that's exactly what just happened to an archaeologist named Maria Belen Mendes, who made the mistake of speaking to CBS News about a recent discovery of ruins in Guatemala. She tried a little too hard to sell the fake narrative that everyone in her profession is expected to sell.
And here's how the CBS article begins. Quote, an altar from the culture that honestly I can't pronounce at the pre-Hispanic heart of what became Mexico was discovered in Tikal National Park in Guatemala, the center of Mayan culture.
And this is footage of what this discovery looks like. Now, when you look at it, so far, there's no problem.
The archaeologists have apparently discovered an altar of some kind. You can see it there.
Pretty cool. Pretty awesome.
It's some sort of very ancient structure, really interesting. But it looks pretty unassuming, as you can see.
Doesn't seem to be any cause for alarm. But then we're treated to this line in the story, quote, Lorena Paez, the archaeologist who led the discovery, said that the altar was believed to have been used for sacrifices, especially of children, close quote.
Now, this is where the story starts to get potentially problematic. Because if you're a true believer in the narrative that indigenous tribes were generally peaceful and that violence and brutality were introduced to this hemisphere by white Europeans, then you've got to come up with some explanation for why they systematically murdered children.
You have to explain why they found the skeletal remains of small children right next to the altar. Now, normally activists and academics will deflect from the issue somehow.

They'll claim that, well, most tribes didn't engage in child murder or something like that,

even though child sacrifice and cannibalism and human sacrifice in general were really,

really common in indigenous cultures, especially in Mesoamerica. But anyway, that's not the approach

that archaeologist Maria Belen-Mendez took. Quite the contrary, in her conversation with CBS News, Mendes decided to basically go all in on defending child sacrifice.
She took the Leroy Jenkins approach, if you will, presumably to the shock and horror of her fellow archaeologists. She kind of said the quiet part out loud.
So here's how CBS reports on what she said, Quote, Maria Belen-Mendez, an archaeologist who was not involved with the project, said the discovery confirms that there has been an interconnection between both cultures and what their relationships with their gods and celestial bodies was like. And then Mendez added this, which is the money line.
Quote, we see how the issue of sacrifice exists in both cultures. It was a practice.
It's not that they were violent. It was their way of connecting with the celestial bodies.
Yes, according to this archaeologist, stabbing a child through the heart and killing him is not, in fact, an act of violence. If you think murdering children is violence, that's just your settler, colonial, white supremacist mindset talking.
Instead, we're told that stabbing children through the heart is really just a way for indigenous folks to connect with celestial bodies. Now, we've heard of mostly peaceful riots, as CNN told us about back in 2020.
Well, now we have nonviolent child sacrifice, which we can kind of add to that list. So there's nothing to see here, really.
This is an actual thought that a professional archaeologist had, and then CBS News printed it. Everybody involved in this publication thought it was a completely reasonable sentiment.
After all, who among us hasn't ripped out a human being's heart in order to connect with a celestial body? It's the most natural thing in the world, at least if you're an archaeologist or a CBS journalist, apparently. That said, we all know how this made it to print.
I mean, these are the same people who don't believe that it's violence to mutilate a child in the womb. They view abortion as a way to assert their own empowerment.
And if that's the standard, then it stands to reason that these people wouldn't object to so-called indigenous tribes killing children for their own superstitious reasons. Legalize human sacrifice as the official platform of the Democrat Party.
That's why, if anything, the altar of child sacrifice in Guatemala will only make these people appreciate the indigenous folks even more. At the same time, we can assume that it wasn't the archaeologist's goal to communicate that to the public.
What Maria Mendez was doing was attempting to protect the very fragile fantasy that indigenous cultures were peaceful and enlightened. Self-described experts like Mendez don't want the public to dwell on the fact that so many of these cultures practice the most nightmarish forms of violence mankind has ever seen.
Because if people realized how violent these cultures were, then they might come to some unapproved conclusions. We might begin to suspect that it's actually good that these civilizations were conquered and destroyed.
And also, by the way, we might start to be more understanding of the European colonizers and settlers and pioneers who came here and had, in some cases, a rather brutal approach to the indigenous tribes themselves. But we might be more understanding of that if we come to understand that this is the kind of thing that these Europeans were witnessing.
You know, and if it's 500 years ago and you arrive on the shores of some wilderness and you witness a tribe of people in loincloths cutting a child's heart out, you might start to assume certain things about those people. And it might be hard for you to perceive them as exactly equals in the way that we do today.
So, you know, but these are the kinds of things you might start wrestling with and thinking about, and those are all not permissible thoughts. So we are left, as always, with absurd, self-describing rationalizations.
This one just happens to be more absurd than most. The truth, which neither CBS News nor these archaeologists want to say out loud, is that this latest discovery in Guatemala is yet more evidence that the conquest of the Americas was a historic act of heroism.
It made life as we know it possible. And we should celebrate it at every opportunity, just like we should relentlessly mock the professional frauds who deny reality, even when reality hits them over the head in the form of a literal altar for child sacrifice.
And that is why the archaeologists defending human sacrifice, along with CBS News, are 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.