Matt Walsh Reacts To Hilarious LGBT Fails

We have a real crisis on the right, a serious problem that keeps me up at night. We talk about it all the time casually, but I don't think we've really stopped to consider what it means.
We don't take it as seriously as we should. We haven't thought about the implications of this crisis, and the crisis is this.
The left has transcended satire. We cannot satirize these people anymore.
We cannot make a parody out of them. They've descended so far and so fast into madness that there's simply no way for the satirists to stay in front of them.
Inevitably, any satire of the left will be satire for maybe like three days before it becomes reality, and that's in the best case scenario. But more often, satire of the left isn't even satire at all, even at the moment that it's created, because it's actually tamer than reality.
The right satirized version of a leftist is very often more normal, more sensible, more coherent than an actual leftist. This is a problem.
It's a problem we face. And there may be a way around it, but we're going to have to start getting very innovative if we want to keep satire alive.
The old methods just don't cut it anymore. We have

to go farther. We have to be more creative, more daring.
That's what it will take because of things like this. So here's a very real news report out of Los Angeles.
This just happened last week. Again, not a joke, not a skit.
Real thing happened in real life. Watch.
LA City Council members Hugo Soto Martinez and Nithya Raman were on hand today to help remove the signs. They say the no cruising and no U-turn signs were put up in the 1990s to prevent people in the gay community from meeting up with other gay people.
I was also surprised that these U-turn signs were still up. At first they seem a little, oh, okay, it's just a no U-turn sign.
But when you learn the history of it and you realize that these were used to profile gay people, it's so important that we have these removed. The L.A.
City Council members say the signs were put up after the gay community began to grow and because there was a gay bar in that area. So there you have it.
A crowd of people came together to remove no U-turn signs because no U-turn signs are homophobic. That's where we are now.
No U-turn signs are bigoted against the gay community. And topping it all off, the city council member who led this rally goes by the name, again, not making it up, goes by the name Maybe A Girl.
Council member Maybe A Girl is leading the charge and finally sparking the long-needed conversation about the homophobic legacy of traffic enforcement. But why are no U-turn signs homophobic? And if we're looking for anti-gay implications and traffic signs, why start with U-turns? Some people have speculated there might be some homophobia in, for instance, exit-only signs.
Now, that's not a gay joke on my part, to be clear to the YouTube censors. I would never engage in such things.
And in fact, I find it frankly objectionable. I read those comments saying exit only is again.
And I said, that's objectionable. I object to it.
In fact, I said that out loud to myself. I really did.
I'm only telling you what other people have said. But, you know, and maybe they have a point.
Like, why wouldn't you start with that? But they haven't started with those signs. Instead, it's the U-turn signs.
Why? Well, council member, maybe a girl, explained in a very long video, which we will, you know, try to cut around and get to the point of. Here's the history lesson.
Here it is. No U-turn signs are homophobic in Silver Lake.
And here's why. So in 1997, let's fast forward a little bit.
Almost 10 years later, LA Times puts out another article detailing how neighbors on Griffith Park Boulevard are fed up with gay men cruising in the area for gay sex. And so signs were installed, no cruising signs and no U-turn signs between 12 a.m.
and 6 a.m. Okay, never mind.
I actually don't care that much. I had the same question everyone did.
Like, where is this even coming from? And then this person posted, it's like a five-minute video. And you get two minutes in.
It's like, I don't care that much anymore. Never mind.
It doesn't matter. It really doesn't.
Maybe a girl apparently went to school and majored in the study of homophobic street signs. We're getting an explanation that stretches back like 900 years.
I felt like I was watching a Putin interview, except with a lot more cross-dressing, of course. This is one of the many problems with the LGBT left.
On top of the fact that they're wrong about everything, you know, everything, and their fundamental worldview is hopelessly confused and incoherent. On top of all that, they also spend their time learning the most useless possible information.
I guarantee that maybe a girl or any of the other people involved in this decision could not pass a second grade level American history test, and yet they could deliver a 10,000 word dissertation on the history of gay cruising in Los Angeles County. Like they couldn't tell you who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but they can point to any random inanimate object and explain why it's actually a monument to homophobia.
And in spite of their extensive knowledge of these utterly pointless subjects, they're still wrong even about those subjects. According to the explanation we just heard, they didn't fall asleep in the middle of it.
What you take from that is that they put the signs up in order to stop gay cruising in the 90s. Gay cruising, as we saw in the newspaper clip that was briefly flashed on the screen, means that gay men were going out and looking for other men to have sex with in public.
The news article mentioned two men caught having sex in a stairwell. So if the no U-turn signs were connected to the effort to stop this kind of public lewdness, it must be because it was somehow effective in preventing gay men from cruising around on the street looking for sex.
So if these signs had anything to do with the gay community, quote unquote, and that's a big if, it's because they were behaving inappropriately in public and the sign somehow helped to get that problem under control. Again, I'm not exactly sure how the U-turn, like, I don't know, you had a gay man that was driving down the the street, and then he saw on the other side of the street another gay man who thought, oh, maybe I could have sex with that guy.
And then he just cuts a U-E real quick to go, is that what was happening? And that was why they had, I don't know. I'm not sure.
There's only so much I want to know here. I already know a lot more than I want to.
But this is how self-absorbed and oblivious these activists are. If the no U-turn signs are connected to them in any way, that should be a source of embarrassment.
It's only because they kept having sex in public and other people in the community didn't want to be forced to witness it, rather reasonably, I would say. So the true history of these signs, if that is the true history, should be something that these people don't want discussed.
They should be ashamed of it. They should just treat the signs like normal signs and go on with their lives.
History, economics, the great works of literature, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Did you study these things in school? Probably not. Or even if you did, maybe it's time for a refresher.
Time and technology have changed a lot of things, but they have not changed basic fundamental truths about the world and our place in it. That's why I'm so excited that Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses in the most important and enduring subjects.
You can learn about the works of C.S. Lewis, the stories in the book of Genesis, the meaning of the U.S.
Constitution, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses, all available for free. That's right, for free.
I personally recommend you sign up for Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. This brand new online course is unlike anything Hillsdale has produced before.
Over the course of six documentary-style episodes, you'll hear from Hillsdale professors of history, politics, and economics as they look at Marx's life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of cultural Marxism in America. Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to start.
It's free. It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to start. Hillsdale.edu slash Walsh.
Cancellation of the new year. We head up to beautiful Lake Washington near the city of Seattle.
Now, just to be clear, I use the word beautiful to describe specifically the physical topography of the area. If you are standing on the bank of the lake and looking out straight ahead, you might admire the clear water and the trees and the mountains in the distance.
Just don't look over to your side or over your shoulder, because if you do, depending on where you happen to be standing along the shore, you might find yourself staring at a collection of very naked people engaged in all manner of activities that you do not want to see them do in the nude or at all. The only thing standing between your eyeline and their fully exposed physique will be the glare reflecting off of their many body piercings.
Now, of course, you stand the risk of getting an eyeful of naked flab if you travel

anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. But on Lake Washington, the risk is even greater because

that is where it is the site of something called Denny Blaine Park, which is, we are informed,

a beloved nudist beach popular with the LGBT community in the area. And in fact, this nudist

beach is so popular and so beloved that the LGBT community recently came together, no pun intended, to protest what they perceived as a mortal threat to this hangout spot, no pun intended. And the threat came in the form of a playground.
So backing up a little bit, a few months ago, it was announced that Seattle Parks and Rec, with the assistance of a sizable donation from a private donor, planned to build a playground nearby. And this

is a problem for the exhibitionist gaze over at Denny Blaine, because although it's legal for them

to gallivant around naked almost anywhere in the city or state, they still aren't allowed to get

naked in front of children. So they're only allowed to expose themselves to other adults,

which is a limitation that these people, as we know, find quite cumbersome. And this means that

Thank you. children.
So they're only allowed to expose themselves to other adults, which is a limitation that these people, as we know, find quite cumbersome. And this means that a playground, in view of the nudist beach, might, one would certainly hope anyway, effectively shut down the nudist beach.
They wouldn't be allowed to be nude there anymore because they're kids, which would force gay nudists in the state to get naked in any of the thousands of other places where the behavior is allowed. Or better yet, in their own homes, where you can be naked all you want because I don't have to be in your home or sit on your contaminated furniture.
But that was not an acceptable compromise because no compromise of any kind in any context is ever acceptable to these people. The Post Millennial reports, quote, Colleen Kimsey Love told King 5 News that the beach, quote, has always been a place for the weird and the wonderful, noting that what makes Seattle such a wonderful city is the weirdos.
In an open letter, advocates said that were Seattle Parks and Rec to go along with the plan, it would be nothing short of gentrification, arguing that LGBTQ plus people do not have other spaces to go to because, but there are other spaces for a children's play area to be built to meet the stated need. According to the King 5 News, Denny Blaine Park was originally chosen due to the fact that there are no playgrounds for residents within a 10 to 15 minute walk.
The $550,000 children's outdoor space was set to be entirely funded by a single donor who has remained anonymous throughout the process. Okay, so what is more important? What's the priority? Should we make sure that families have a place within walking distance to take their children to? Or is it more crucial that we give gay adults yet another place to be naked in public? Well, LGBT activists had their answers.
So they protested the playground. They organized.
They got a petition together. Got nearly 10,000 signatures on the petition.
They were absolutely incensed that the city considered prioritizing the needs of children over the desires of self-described weirdos. Local news had more on the controversy.
Listen. I'm in Denny Blaine Park.
Hundreds of people showed up at that meeting tonight because they say this place is a safe space and putting a playground here would forever change that. As expected, the proposal to put a playground at Denny Blaine Park brought out a lot of people, all of them with their own story about the park and why they're against the proposal.
We can just be ourselves, where we can feel safe, where we can feel heard, where we can see one another. This is a place where people come up and they ask, is it safe here? And we accept it here, and every time I've smiled and said yes denny blaine is a noted lgbtq plus safe space it's been that way for decades under washington law it's not illegal to be naked in public however it becomes illegal if kids are nearby that's what this playground would do want to preserve our spaces the people who showed up here believe the private anonymous donor who's willing to front $550,000 for a playground wants to take that space away from them.
They say that it's not an intention to displace queer communities or any specific community. And that may be true on the park side, but I'd love to ask the anonymous donor whether that's true.
There's also concern that someone with money to burn can make such a big change to a public park. Instead, we're letting people with a fair amount of money do an anonymous notation, clearly choosing how they want to see our parks use.
I asked Andy Schaffer with Seattle Parks and Rec about that anonymous donor. His response? Well, I can't really talk about it a whole lot because it's anonymous.
But he did talk about how moving the public comments were. God, you heard those stories.
You know, if more people could hear these stories, it's much bigger than this part. Yes, the stories, the incredible stories, the inspirational, heartwarming stories about gay people exposing their genitals to strangers.
And if only more people could hear how important it is to gay people that they'd be allowed to expose their genitals to strangers. If only more people could understand just how devastating it is for the LGBT community when they're prevented from taking their pants off in public.
Well, not prevented. I mean, they're just told to move a few blocks over and take their pants off over there instead.
Still, that's simply too great a burden to bear. I mean, they want to take their pants off now, right here in this exact location.
If they can't, they will die. It will be a genocide, a holocaust, if they cannot take their pants off right now in this place.
Indeed, LGBT people who aren't able to take their pants off anywhere and everywhere they want all the time without restriction are truly the most downtrodden among us. I mean, these are the suffering and the needy.

Forget starving people in Africa. Forget children dying of cancer.
Forget everyone.

And focus instead on LGBT people always. Give them everything they want always, all the time, no matter what it is.
Because if you don't, then you are killing them. You are literally killing them.