Ep. 1559 - The Downfall Of “Pride” Is Here And It’s Glorious

Today on the Matt Wells Show, corporations are already pulling their money out of Pride Month several weeks ahead of time. The BLM movement has collapsed.
The Pride movement is next, it seems. Also, one of the most disturbing cases of alleged sexual abuse by a teacher, the epidemic of sex abuse in our school system continues.
When will the public start to actually care about it? Speaking of which, Trump signs an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. People are mad about it, but it's the right thing to do.
And also, people are angry at me on the internet again, this time because I made the very accurate claim that America is not a nation built by immigrants.

It was built by settlers. There's a difference.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the

Matt Wall Show. Attention investors, while this is a paid endorsement, we've got some good news to share.
We believe that we've turned the tide in the battle for the soul of America. Donald Trump has been elected and is beginning the Herculean task of pushing back against the forces of wokeism in America.
It's true that many businesses are beginning to mothball their DEI, CRT, and ESG programs and focus on serving customers, all customers, rather than political interests. What about you? Have you joined the movement of Americans who are using their investments to hold companies accountable for their ethical behavior? I'm not a client of the firm, but if you'd like to join other patriotic citizens by aligning your investments with your conservative values, go to constitutionwealth.com slash Matt for a free consultation.
Constitution Wealth is a registered investment advisor. You should review Constitution Wealth's disclosures at constitutionwealth.com to understand their services and views.
All investing involves risks, including the risk of loss. We have seen the collapse of a lot of supposedly grassroots movements ever since Donald Trump took office.
BLM, as we've discussed, has literally been dismantled on the streets of Washington, D.C., as in the mayor removed the BLM graffiti from the road and tore up BLM Plaza. And no one even pretended to care about that, even though, you know, just a few years ago, it would have been considered blasphemy against the great St.
George Floyd. But in 2025, there was no rioting.
There wasn't even really a protest about it. And of course, the Women's March is also completely demoralized and gutted.
When Trump was inaugurated back in 2017, half a million protesters reportedly participated in the so-called Women's March in downtown Washington, D.C. They claimed at the time, dubiously, but they claimed that it was the biggest single-day protest in the history of this country.
But for Trump's second inauguration earlier this year, only a few thousand people participated in the so-called People's March. Even though the People's March was supposed to be more inclusive and have more people, they expanded their branding from women to people, and yet they still lost about 99% of their manpower, or I guess we should say people power.
It's enough to make you wonder how many of these movements were ever really grassroots in the first place. To what extent were they relying on funding that's no longer there? Where did that funding come from? These are questions that are worth asking, especially because we're seeing this phenomenon happen more and more often.
As Donald Trump kills federal funding for various NGOs and nonprofits, and as major corporations decide to scale back their activism, some of the left's biggest protest movements are falling apart. They're proving to be unsustainable.
I mean, it's almost as if they were never actually that popular in the first place. Maybe the most extraordinary example of this phenomenon is the current state of Pride Month, which is set to take place, of course, in June.
Now, when we released my film, What is a Woman, back in 2022, Pride Month had the backing of pretty much every Fortune 500 company on the planet. The organizers of various pride parades were flush with cash.
They were setting the dominant narrative, one that valorized hedonism, narcissism, perversion, and child abuse. It was never explained exactly why these people needed lavish parades all over the country for weeks on end in order to celebrate their sexual interests.
We were just supposed to accept it as a kind of quasi-religious ritual, and indeed, many people did accept it. But just three years later, it's clear that whatever power these people once had, they don't have very much of it anymore.
We're now gearing up for the most muted, small-scale Pride Month that we've seen in a very long time. The organizers of some of the largest Pride parades in the country are currently scrambling to raise money because their major corporate sponsors have stopped writing checks.
And that includes sponsors who have been involved with these San Francisco pride events going back for more than a decade. And that's led to a funding shortfall that at the moment is threatening to tragically derail San Francisco's pride month, which is probably the largest in the country.
Yes, it turns out that, you know, they need millions of dollars to prance naked in the streets and demonstrate their sexual preferences to as many children as possible. Watch.
Four major corporate sponsors have pulled out of San Francisco's 2025 Pride celebration, creating a more than a million dollar gap in funding. Cromforce Stephanie Rothman spoke with the director of SF Pride, who says the Trump administration has disrupted funding efforts.
Every summer, San Francisco serves as a beacon for the LGBTQ community. But this year's Pride celebration is facing some challenges.

Sponsors Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, Benefit Cosmetics, and Diageo have dropped out.

These companies represent $1.3 million in much-needed funding.

It definitely felt like the floor was being pulled out from under you.

But, you know, I think we're going to find some new sponsors, some new partners, and we're not going to give up, going to knock on every door in this city. And we don't have a choice.
We're going to have the event. Recently, the event cut ties with local and longtime sponsor Meta due to a lack of fact-checking online and the elimination of DEI programs.
Now, when they say that they ended their relationship with Meta because Meta doesn't do fact-checking anymore, they really mean that Meta has stopped banning people for stating basic biological facts. And when they say that Meta has given up on DEI, they mean that Meta will stop discriminating against applicants on the basis of their race and gender, supposedly.
Those policy changes were apparently a red line for the organization running the San Francisco Pride Parade, which is somehow classified as a non-profit. But in context, it looks a lot like a kind of a you-can't-fire-me-I-quit situation.
It seems like Meta dropped the Pride Parade, not the other way around, given that a bunch of other major sponsors have bailed on the event as well. As you just heard, the list of sponsors who have given up on San Francisco's Pride Month include Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, the wine company La Crema, and Diageo, which makes Smirnoff and Guinness.
So the makers of Bud Light have apparently realized that sponsoring degeneracy is not, in fact, good business. Saltook was one of the most successful conservative boycott campaigns in a generation to make them come around.
And now a bunch of other alcoholic beverage makers, including some of Anheuser-Busch's rivals, are preemptively making the same decision. As a result, the organizers now say they're going to knock on every door in San Francisco as part of a desperate last-minute bid for cash.
In another interview, the organizer of this Pride event, San Francisco, offers some more insight into how dire the situation has become. And in this conversation, it becomes more clear that Meta indeed made the decision to stop funding these people, not the other way around.
Listen. Meta is one company that people have been asking questions about.
What is the current relationship between SF Pride and Meta, and do you expect they're going to be there in June? I don't believe they will be. I'm both proud and sad that we don't have a relationship with Meta.
That was discontinued last year. So at this moment, and I don't see it being rectified, Meta will not be included.
And is that because the individual employees don't want to be a part of this? Is it because the company at large and their leadership doesn't want to be a part of this? I think their leadership has made clear that they don't want to be active in SF Pride anymore. What about Google? Have you had conversations with their employee groups at all? You know, in the last few years, Google, last year, Google made a contribution.
They had some people march in the parade, but it was not the presence that they've had in years past. Well, in the last few years, I think, and I think we haven't told the story enough, but we have pushed the corporations to the back of the parade.
Only our top sponsors, people like Kaiser and Gilead, BMO, Alaska Airlines, are in the first start of the parade. the other corporations are in the back.
And in the front of the parade, we feature our nonprofit partners here in San Francisco, especially those queer nonprofits. Now, if you can get past the depravity, and it is, I mean, it's amazing that corporations don't want to give that person money.
Can you imagine? But if you get past the depravity, these people are actually kind of entertaining to watch. This person is trying to demonstrate that the Pride Parade is really grassroots and anti-corporate.
This is their way of sticking it to Meta and also Google, apparently, which seems to be dropping the event as well. And accordingly, we learn that the corporations are placed at the back of the parade and that the non-profits are at the front, especially the queer non-profits.
And you might think, hey, that actually sounds somewhat principled for an anti-capitalist revolutionary style pride parade with the theme of resistance, which is what they're going with this year. You know, it's just like the French Revolution, except instead of killing the elites, they're just putting their floats in the back.
Other than that, it's basically the same thing. But then we're informed that there's a big asterisk to this highly principled revolutionary anti-capitalist stance, which is that corporations that pay a very large amount of money can still buy their way to the front of the line.
In other words, in the same breath that these activists claim that they care more about their mission than the money, they admit that they're willing to make an exception if a megacorporation, ideally a big pharma giant, let's say, can come up with the right amount of cash. Then they can do whatever they want.
Now, read between the lines, and it's obvious that this nonprofit is running a pretty transparent grift. This is a shakedown operation, essentially.
That's exactly what you'd expect when a bunch of highly immoral people get together and plan an event, of course. And that's exactly what you get with the organizers of the San Francisco Pride Month.
And at various points in different interviews, this organizer essentially admits that this whole operation is a shakedown. Watch.
Well, we're going to remember the people that support us and the people that don't. How that looks, I don't know yet.
Of course, the board and I will be discussing that. We do not want to stop our relationships with people.
Obviously, we're going to have some tough conversations with some corporations. It's coming from all sides for us.
And we're going to remember who stood by us. And this is going to swing back.
This won't last forever. We're going to fight and we're going to be OK.

But, you know, it's like watching an unkempt, delusional, homeless ex-mobster shaking down the local business for protection money. They're threatening companies like Meta and Google and Comcast as if these people have any leverage whatsoever.
They're still acting like we're back in 2020, and most Americans haven't yet become completely fed up with the insanity that so-called pride parades represent. But people are fed up with it because the gay pride movement, so-called, such as it is, has totally backfired.
I mean, the best thing that the LGBT activists could have done if they really wanted their lifestyle choices to be normalized and accepted, the best thing they could have done is act normal. I mean, all they had to do was keep their clothes on and just behave like regular people.
Instead, they put on leather bondage gear and danced in the street in front of children. In some cases, they did a lot more than just dance.
They pushed for the tolerance of increasingly deranged lifestyles and sexual behaviors. They demanded more and more tolerance until the tolerance well just ran dry.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time until we follow in Hungary's footsteps and ban pride parades where children can be present, which we should, by the way. We are witnessing the death of the pride movement, including pride parades and pride month.
At the moment, various far left publications appear to be realizing this. They're melting down in response, quoting from Pink News, quote, San Francisco publication SFist has called out companies S-Fist.
That's what it is, S-Fist? Okay, I don't even want to know why it's called that, has called out companies including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, and British multinational alcoholic drink Diageo for pulling support for the event, calling the decision to back away shameful fair-weather friend behavior in a time of frightening fascist action. So now they're lashing out in hysterics because they realize that the money's not coming back and every normal person who sees them react like this can tell immediately how unhinged and unstable they are.
And it was always destined to end this way. The LGBT movement at its core is a Marxist movement that despises Western civilization and everything that it was built on, namely Christianity.
And that's why at the school board meeting we discussed yesterday in Illinois, one of the trans activists railed against the so-called white God. That's why they show up in large numbers to demand that young girls undress in front of male students.
The more you let these people speak, the more overt and obvious their anti-Christian animus becomes. But put simply, they just couldn't quit while they were ahead.
I mean, even when they had every major corporation and the entire federal government on their side, it wasn't enough. Their never-ending drive to push further and further and get more and more extreme is, of course, what makes them so dangerous.
But it's also what makes them beatable. And it's why, like BLM and

the Women's March and so many other supposedly grassroots movements on the left, they are

failing. We have seen pride in action.
We have been subjected to nationwide celebrations of

one of the seven deadly sins. And now, as was inevitable, we are seeing the fall.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Did you know that over 140,000 family farms in the U.S.
have closed down since 2017? Shocking, right? Well, meanwhile, grocery stores are stocking their shelves with mystery meat from, well, who really knows where? That's the mystery. But hey, at least it's cheap.
If you actually care where your food comes from, it's time to check out GoodRanchers.com. I go with Good Ranchers because, call me crazy, I prefer knowing my dinner wasn't shipped from the other side of the planet.
Their meat is born, raised, and harvested right here in the USA. Revolutionary concept, but that's what they do.
And get this, no antibiotics, no added hormones, and no seed oils, just meat. Imagine that.
One ingredient you can actually pronounce without a chemistry degree. These folks are practically showing off when it comes to transparency about where your food is coming from.
All their meat is farm to table, zero mystery, meaning you're supporting American ranchers while serving food that won't make you question your life choices at 3 a.m. I've tried many of their steaks and other choices, and they're quite possibly the most tender, tasteful, clean protein options I have ever had.
Right now, during their spring in action promotion, they actually managed to save you money while providing better, high-quality food. When you sign up, you'll get free bacon, ground beef, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or wild-caught salmon in every order for a year, plus $40 off with code Walsh.
So again, unless you enjoy mystery meat roulette, visit GoodRancers.com today. Use code Walsh to get free meat for a year and $40 off your next order.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered. Okay, I want to start with this disturbing story.
It's a very familiar type of story, which is why I want to talk about it. But this is even more disturbing than usual.
So to begin with, here's a local news report on this, on yet another

teacher sex scandal. But the details here are, as I said, even shocking by the standards of

these kinds of stories. Listen to this.
New tonight, more teenage students in Morgan County

are now coming forward and they're accusing a former teacher of sexual misconduct with a minor.

Ashton Hackman is in Morgan County to explain why the prosecutors are now looking to bring even more charges against this woman. 31-year-old Brittany Forenberry has been held here at the Morgan County Jail since her arrest last month on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor.
Since then, five new victims have come forward with additional allegations. Prosecutors have asked to file up to 24 additional criminal charges against her, including 10 counts of child molesting, sexual misconduct with a minor, and 13 other charges for disseminating material harmful to minors and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Court documents say all of the teens reported Fortenberry would send them nude and explicit photos and videos on Snapchat and force them to have group sex at her Martinsville home. A child victim advocate says it's important for parents to feel comfortable having difficult conversations with their children.
And what we just encourage is that parents kind of ask that open-ended question and they give their children a chance to speak and then they praise their courage at that time rather than asking them questions about what they did or why they didn't tell. The last thing that we want is a child to feel blame or shame as a result of making a disclosure.
We reached out to the Morgan County Prosecutor's Office to see when these formal charges will be filed. We have not yet heard back.
Now, it actually gets much worse than what you just heard, because according to WTHR in Indianapolis, this woman allegedly abused multiple middle school boys, 13 years old, were the victims, at least some of the victims. And that includes on one occasion, allegedly having them all wear scream masks, you know, masks from the movie Scream, while she molested them.
And she was also paying them, these young boys, hundreds of dollars for them to send her explicit pictures, $100 to $800 in some cases. And she told them that if they reported any of this to anyone, that she would kill herself.
And she was also drugging them, allegedly drugging them as part of this whole process of grooming and molestation and abuse. Now, assuming this is all true, it makes you wonder, as you always have to wonder in these kinds of cases, how in God's name did a woman like this get a job as a teacher in the first place? Yes, we can assume that she was not advertising the fact that she's a sexual predator.
She probably wasn't putting it on the resume or on the job application. She wasn't mentioning it in the interview process, but it's just impossible to believe that there were no warning signs.
It's impossible to believe that she came off as totally normal and never gave any indication that she was a demented, predatory freak. It's not like these people are, these people are not criminal masterminds.
Okay, these are not evil geniuses we're talking about here. I mean, they're sending, allegedly, pictures back and forth.
That's the easiest way to get caught is to send that to create this digital paper trail, which in these kinds of cases, you always, every single time you hear that, that's always part of So my point is that these are not people who appear to be brilliant deceivers, right? And if that's the case, then how do they get the job? I mean, we know this about predators. You don't just start off one day molesting multiple children in Halloween masks at your home, allegedly.
This happens as part of a long, long pattern of behavior. It's a pattern of increasingly awful, deranged behavior.
And it's very difficult to believe that there were not warning signs. But the most disturbing thing is the larger pattern, the systemic pattern.
You want to be able to write this off as an aberration, as an extreme case, as an isolated incident. You want to be able to say, well, throw this woman in jail forever and the problem solved.
You want to be able to say that, but that is not anywhere close to the reality. This is not isolated.
This is constant. I mean, we all know that.
It's a constant, never-ending thing. One teacher after another, after another, after another.
For decades and decades, decades upon decades, hundreds, thousands at this point, probably, of predatory teachers, one after another.

We hear about open secrets.

During the Me Too era, we would always hear about this or that predator.

There was an open secret that this was.

Well, what's happening with teachers is an open secret among the entire American population. It's an open secret among everybody.
We all know it. And for everyone that has been caught, we know it stands to reason there's another one or five others that haven't been caught.
Because we also know that when you've got a systemic problem of sexual abuse inside an institution, you're not catching all of them. So this is a system-wide problem.
This is an epidemic. There is a decades-long epidemic of sexual abuse by educators in our school system.
Yet we have not reached a point even now where the public is ready to treat this as an epidemic. And that's what I just, and I'm not even playing dumb or saying this rhetorically.
I really don't quite understand why there is not mass public outrage bordering on even hysteria over the fact that our public school system is

infested with sex predators. It's very difficult to understand.
The public school still has not

gotten the Catholic church treatment. I mean, I've been talking about this epidemic of teacher sex abuse for many years.
Going back to when I was just blogging for a living, I've been on this story for many, many years. And every time I talk about it, the response is like a big yawn.
Most people don't care. They don't want to discuss it.
Sex abuse scandal in the church. Yes, that's a big deal.
Let's discuss it. Sex abuse scandal in Hollywood.
Yes, let's turn that into a news cycle that lasted like an entire year. But sex abuse in public school Where we send like 50 million children every day

Somehow doesn't attract anywhere close to the same level of interest

Even though almost none of us have children in Hollywood, very few people these days, I mean, comparatively few people these days are going to Catholic church. And therefore, comparatively few, And so and even if they are, sending their kids in to be altar boys and all the rest of it.
So those are institutions where compared to the public school system, right, very few children are at risk. The public school system, though, again, what's the latest number? I think it's around 50 million kids are going every single day into this environment.
And yet, and we all know, I mean, there's no one, if you said, well, there's a sex abuse epidemic with teachers in public school, I don't think you'd meet anyone out on the street that would deny that and would say, well, I haven't heard that. What are you talking about? That's crazy talk.
And every time we see one of these stories, we all say the same thing. Oh, another one? Yeah, here we go.
Here's another one. And yet we're just not treating it like an epidemic.
now I do know part of the reason. I know why the media is not interested in pursuing this story.
You know, what was that movie that won all the Oscars, Spotlight, about the Boston Globe journalists or whatever it was that help uncover the sex abuse epidemic in the Catholic Church, particularly in the Boston area. And the movie was fun.
It was kind of a boring movie. It didn't deserve to win all the awards it did.
But that's Hollywood calling attention to that problem and sort of canonizing these journalists that were chasing down the story. Well, where are the journalists chasing down this systemic abuse epidemic in the public school system? Where is the Boston Globe-style expose?

I'm not talking about just reporting

on one case or another isolated,

but where are the big stories?

Right, or the journalists that were chasing down

in the early days of Me Too.

Where are the big stories reporting on,

look, here's this, it's not just one thing,

here's the whole story of how this is happening.

Look, here are the administrators that are covering it up.

Here are the teachers that are accused of inappropriate conduct.

And rather than being arrested or fired, they're just moved to another district.

All of that is happening.

The story is right there.

And there's no interest in chasing it down.

And for the media, it's obvious why they're not interested in chasing it down.

Politically, it doesn't serve them to point out that there are a lot of sex predator public school teachers.

A lot.

It doesn't serve them anything to point that out.

And maybe that's kind of it. Maybe that explains the whole mystery here.
It doesn't serve them anything to point that out.

And maybe that's kind of it.

Maybe that explains the whole mystery here of why there doesn't appear to be any sort of intense public interest in this epidemic.

And maybe the answer is that, well, the media still does have a lot of power to shape narratives.

And this is a narrative that they're not interested in shaping or talking about.

And so it isn't discussed. I don't know what it is.
So I can't explain the kind of lackadaisical attitude that not everybody, but that so many people seem to have about this. But whatever explains it, like we got to snap out of it because this is a real thing.
mean you go back i every time i talk about this i bring up the 2004 study that was done by the department of education about the teacher sex abuse epidemic and this is back in 20 years ago that they did this study and they found that i think it was at the time like one in 10 students, by the time they graduate,

will be the victim of sexual misconduct by a staff member at a school.

One in 10, that's 10%.

That's millions.

That's millions and millions of kids.

That's not a small number, okay?

That's a huge number.

10% is a mind-boggling number.

And that was 20 years ago. Has it gotten better since then? Is that how it usually works? When you've got a sex abuse epidemic in an institution and you just ignore it, does it go away? Does it get better? No.
It only gets worse. It gets worse and worse and worse until somebody does something about it.
All right, here's a good follow-up. Fox News has this.
President Donald Trump is moving forward with plans to abolish the Department of Education. Trump is expected to sign an executive order following through on a campaign promise to disband the department, claiming on the campaign trail that the department was full of radical zealots and Marxists, which it is.
A White House fact sheet states that the move will turn over education to families instead of bureaucracies. Trump and proponents of eliminating the department have long said the agency has failed American students, which it has.
But in order to completely eliminate it, Congress has to act. And so this is another area where Congress needs to come in behind Trump and codify his executive orders.
And they need to do, there's a bunch of executive orders they need to do that with, and they need to do that with this as well. But we're moving in the right direction.
This is great news. Yeah, abolish the Department of Education, burn it down, destroy it, incinerate it, dump its ashes in the ocean.
Absolutely. And of course, the left is going to panic over this.
They panic over everything. But I'd like for them to answer this question in the middle of their panic.
A simple question, which is this. What has the Department of Education achieved? Let's take a look at the state of education in America prior to the department's existence, compare it to the state of education today, and tell me where you see the department's achievements.
Now, the Department of Education was founded in 1979, and so you can kind of compare that today. Now, you can look at test scores and all that stuff, but I don't think we need to, because does anyone seriously believe that the average high school graduate in 2025 is smarter, better read, more well-rounded, knows more about history and civics and literature than the average high school graduate in 1978 did, or 1948 for that matter? Does anyone really think that? And by the way, here's a measure that we don't talk about enough, I think.
Because we can talk about how well or how poorly educated the average graduate is today, and I think that he's quite poorly educated. But the even bigger question is this, what is his appetite for education? Does the average high school graduate, after his experience in the

school system, graduate with a great desire to keep learning and to learn more and to continue

gaining knowledge? I'm not talking about college. A lot of people go to college for reasons that

have nothing to do with a hunger for more knowledge. And there's a lot of people that

don't go to college who do have a hunger for more knowledge. But whether he goes to college or not, does the average high school graduate have an appetite for education? Does he want to keep reading and learning and expanding his mind? That's a hard thing to measure, of course, but there are certain measurable things you can look at.
For instance, we know that Americans are reading books a whole lot less than they used to. As one recent survey I saw said that half of Americans had not read a single book in the past calendar year.
So there are some very serious indicators that a huge number of high school graduates have very little appetite to continue learning and to continue gaining knowledge. And that's really what matters most.
Because it doesn't matter how good of a student you were. It doesn't matter, you know, you could have gotten straight A's.
It doesn't really matter if you don't continue learning. If you don't continue expanding your base of knowledge, continue consuming knowledge, then you will become an ignorant moron in pretty short order.
Any straight A student can become a total ignoramus in the span of just a few years if they stop learning, if they stop pursuing knowledge. Knowledge is perishable.
Knowledge is perhaps one of the most perishable things that there is. And I certainly don't get the sense that we are a society populated mostly by people with an insatiable desire to gain knowledge.
I think what ends up happening is that you've got kids that leave the public school system

and that whole experience, and they have completely soured on the concept of learning. They have no interest in learning anything else ever again.
Now, is that all the fault of the Department of Education? Of course, you know, it's not, of course, but there's just no evidence that the department has improved anything. What are the fruits of its labors? Where are the wins? I don't see them.
And meanwhile, to bring it back to what we discussed a minute ago, there's been this decades-long sex abuse epidemic in the schools that the department has done precisely nothing to address. I said they did a study 20 years ago, which they did.
And they confirmed in the study that, yeah, we got a big problem here. We've got millions of victims, millions, millions and millions.
And then they did nothing. And they did exactly nothing with that information.
Not a single thing was done. Not one reform was put in place.
They just said, oh, wow, look, millions of child sex abuse victims in the school system.

Well, that's unfortunate.

Anyway, so if the Department of Education had any use whatsoever, then it would be precisely this kind of thing.

It would be to address systemic problems in the education system

as a whole. But they're not doing that.
They're doing the opposite of that, actually.

So, yes, get rid of the department. And at a minimum, it will have no impact, right? At a

minimum, worst case scenario, you get rid of the Department of Education and nothing changes. But I think more likely is that we actually see some improvements in the way education is handled.
Okay, Tim Walls has some thoughts about masculinity. As we know, he's a real expert on the subject.
Let's listen to that. But I think this notion of toxicity and masculinity needs to be separated.

And I think it's been conflated.

And I think we're going to have to work on that a little bit.

And I think there's, look, there is a crisis.

I think some of us scare them.

I think I scare them a little bit why they spend so much time on it.

No, I'm serious, because I can fix a truck.

They know I'm not on this.

I'm not putting this in people's grill. I don't know if my identity is not hunting.
My identity is not football coaching. My identity is not, you know, a beard in a truck.
No, Tim, you don't scare us. You creep us out.
And there is a difference. The difference is this.
See, if I'm scared of you, it means that I would be nervous standing next to you in a room. If you creep me out, it means that I'd be nervous if my child was standing next to you in a room.
It is very much the latter in this situation. I would not be worried being in a room with you.
I'd be worried if my kids were around you unattended in a room. Okay, you creep me out.
You're a creep. You creep us out.
Okay, you're a weirdo creep, and that's our issue with you. Also, it's funny that he says that his identity is not hunting or football coaching.
I mean, we know that. Famously, the guy can't even come up with a coherent football metaphor.
Anytime he talks about football, he sounds like if my 11-year-old daughter tried to talk about football or use a football analogy to make a point. But he certainly did try to make it his identity.
He couldn't give a single speech during the campaign without mentioning the fact that he was allegedly a football coach. And now he says it's not his identity.
So okay then. But we hear Gavin Newsom talking about toxic masculinity.
And I just wanted to say this. I'll make a prediction.
I'll throw down a marker here and I'll make a prediction about the culture. and my cultural predictions are usually right.
I'm usually pretty good. Now, if I'm predicting

who's going to win a football game, or if I'm predicting who's going to win an election,

you can mostly ignore me about that because I'm usually wrong about those kinds of predictions.

But when I predict cultural trends, I'm very often right. Not always, but very often right.
And so

I'm going to say this, that I think that toxic masculinity, so-called, the war on men, this will be the major battle of the latter half of the 2020s. Now, obviously, it's already been a battle for a long time.
What I'm saying is that this is what the left is going to pivot to in a big way. It'll be a heavy pivot.
So it's going to be less

about race. It's going to be less about LGBT.
It's going to be more about men versus women, about why men are toxic, about why we need feminism, why men are the problem, and so on, and so on, and so on. Race was the major culture war in 2020 and 2021.
Trans was the major cultural conflict in 2022 and 23 and into 24. And I think that this kind of assumes that position in the coming years.
And I think that we're seeing signs of it. The big streaming show right now that everyone's talking about on social media anyway is this show called Adolescence on Netflix, which is apparently all about toxic masculinity.
So we see Hollywood turning back that way. We know politically that the gender divide is growing.
It's maybe the most salient, the most relevant political fact, right, in our country right now, is the political gender divide. And so what the left is doing and what all their institutions, the media, Hollywood, and so on, what they're always doing is they're looking for the pressure points.
They're looking for the grievances. They're looking for the special protected classes of people that they can use.
You know, where are, you know, what's the, what can, what's our vehicle going to be? What's going to be the most useful vehicle for the next few years to push forward, not just our agenda in that area, but our entire agenda. And for a few years,

it was the race hustlers. For a few years, it was the trans LGBT activists.
And now I think it's going to be the liberal women, the feminists, the man-haters. And I think that's where we're heading.
All right, let's get to the comment section. If you're a man,, which has become a standout brand in the health and wellness world.
Their products have been gaining attention for their quality and effectiveness, with so many people experiencing positive results after making Qualia part of their regular wellness routine. Qualia's health formulas meticulously blend many ingredients with complementary relationships into easy, once-a-day formulas.
This makes supporting some of our body's most nutritionally complex health system needs very simple. Qualia senolytic is a formula that's been clinically tested to help your body get rid of those pesky senescent cells naturally, you know, so you can age more gracefully.
These cells are basically what cause all those annoying agent symptoms that we deal with, the aches and pains taking forever to bounce back after a workout, and that mental and physical sluggishness that makes you think, is this what middle age really feels like? It helps tackle all of that. Plus, Qualia keeps each formula vegan, which is so important to me, non-GMO, gluten-free, and backed by a 100-day refund guarantee.
Take a look at Qualia's line of truly inspired health formulas. Go to qualialife.com slash Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout for up to 15% off your purchase.
That's Q-U-A-L-I-A life.com slash Walsh for 15% off your purchase. Thank you, Qualia, for sponsoring this episode.
The dry humor and or sarcasm is getting old. I agree with a lot of your commentary, particularly the anti-woke stuff, but I'm atheist.
And so your pro-God Jesus Christian comments come across as gibberish to me. Well, saying that sarcasm and dry humor are getting old, that comes across as gibberish to me.
I mean, that's my language. You might as well say that English is getting old.
Your English is getting old. Why don't you speak in French from now on? That's just, that's totally absurd.
It doesn't register. Having flat feet can hold incredibly worthy people from joining the military.
Having delusions about objective reality sure should too. That's a good point.
And also keep in mind that mental health disorders can already disqualify you from military service. I mean, there are all kinds of mental health problems that a person can have, so-called mental health problems a person can have that would disqualify them from military service.
So this is not a big change. Talking, of course, about banning trans people from the military.
I mean, this is gender dysphoria. That's the mental health disorder that falls under.
And so it's not really a change at all. Matt, Guyana is in South America, not Africa.
Yeah, I'm an idiot. I had a geography flub in the show yesterday.
And I think what happened is I confused Guyana and Ghana, which I think can happen. And I was mad at myself too, because I generally consider myself to be, I pride myself on being pretty good at geography.
I was just going over with my daughter a few days ago, and it was actually African geography. She was quizzing me a little bit because that's what she's doing in her lessons now.
And she had the, you know, the note card with like the continent and all the countries were blank. And I did pretty well.
You know, I haven't even studied it, you know, in a while, but I did pretty well. I felt good about it.
And then I make that mistake. And the bad thing is that geography, to me, it's like spelling, that if somebody makes a basic spelling mistake, not a typo, but an actual spelling mistake, like they didn't know how a thing was spelled, then they lose about 20 IQ points in my mind.
And I'll never forget it. I will hold a crutch.
There are certain spelling mistakes. If you make that mistake, I'll always remember that you made the mistake.
And I'll always think a little bit less of you, of your intellect because of it. And it's the same for if someone makes a basic geography mistake, which means that all of you must now assume that I'm 20 IQ points dumber than you initially thought.
And I didn't have a lot to lose. So this is bad.
The only question is, is Guyana, is the Guyana-Ghana flub, is that a basic geography? Is that like a, is that an acceptable geography mistake for a person to make is really the question. and I can't honestly say that it is an acceptable one.

That's the rough part. All right.
There has to be a better word for Indians in the context of North America. I'm not offended by it in the least, quite the opposite.
It literally means someone from India. The only reason Columbus called them Indians was because he messed up and thought he was in India.
Not a great look. Native American doesn't make sense either.
They weren't American until the country was formed, just like everyone else. I'm not sure what the proper word should be, but Indian and Native American are both pretty absurd if you actually think about it.
But you raise an interesting point, and you're right that none of the words we use to refer to these people really make sense in a literal sense. I've talked before about why Native American doesn't make sense.
Indigenous also doesn't quite make sense. Indian, obviously, is a term that's rooted in a misconception.
It is, or a mistake. So you might think, but this is what makes it difficult, is that you might think, well, okay, what word did the Indians use to describe themselves? Maybe that's the word we should use.
Well, the problem is that the Indians didn't have a word for a group that we call Indians. They didn't have a word for so-called Native Americans.
They didn't have that word. They had a word for their own tribe and maybe for the other tribes around them that they were aware of.
And often the word they used for their tribe, the one they used to describe themselves, Navajo, for example, just meant people. So they were just referring to themselves as the people.
The point is that the Indians did not recognize Indians or Native Americans as some kind of distinct ethnic group. They didn't feel any sort of kinship with or identify themselves with other Indians at all.
And so that's where the trouble and the naming comes from. Love Matt, but he's solidly wrong about steak.
Marinate in soy sauce, garlic, and onion powder overnight, then grill. Best steak on earth.
Soy sauce? Do not marinate your steak in soy sauce. You're completely destroying the steak flavor by marinating it really in anything, but especially in soy sauce.
Don't do that. Finally, but do you at least cook the steak in butter? Yeah.
Okay. Here's my steak strategy since we're talking about it and five people care, I'll tell you.
So pretty simple, pretty simple recipe. First of all, you got to buy a nice cut of steak.
Doesn't matter how you cook it. If it's not a nice cut of steak, then it's not going to, if it's a cheap steak, it won't be any good.
So you got to get yourself a nice cut. You got to splurge on a nice cut of steak.
Pull the steak out of the fridge about 30 minutes before you cook it because you got to eat it down to room temperature. Put a bit of oil on the pan, okay? You don't want to use butter initially because that's why you don't use butter initially because it'll burn.
So you turn it up to high heat, get a very, very hot salt and pepper on the steak. That's all you need.
Throw the steak on three minutes on one side, three minutes on the other. Very high heat.
Sear the edges of the steak. Very important to do.
Put some butter in the pan, you know, midway through or two thirds of the way through. Base it in butter a little bit.
If you want to use garlic, fresh garlic, fresh rosemary, you throw that in the pan with it so you let some of those aromas get into the steak, but in a very subtle way. And then you pull it off, let it rest for five minutes, and you're good to go.
Like, that's it. I mean, that's how you make a steak.
It's as simple as that. You don't need all the fan—you don't need the steak sauces, all the fancy seasonings, the rubs.
You don't need any of that. You don't need it.
If you have a good quality steak and you cook it that way, that's going to get you a good medium rare sear. And that's all you got to do.
So I'm well on my way to making the transition into being a full-time cooking influencer, which is truly my dream. Right now, Ben Shapiro is breaking down one of the most controversial cases in modern history, the case for Derek Chauvin, an exclusive five-part series on The Ben Shapiro Show.
Episode two drops today, and you don't want to miss it. In today's episode, Ben walks you step-by-step through what really happened when George Floyd tried to pass counterfeit money in Minneapolis, the struggle, the police encounter, and the events leading up to his death.
This is not the slanted woke tale we've all been sold by the media. It's the whole story from start to finish.
Ben Shapiro is making the case for why President Trump should pardon Derek Chauvin. You need to hear it for yourself.
Listen now on Daily Wire Plus. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we're going to cancel hundreds, if not thousands of people in one fell swoop. We are canceling all of the people who are outraged at me on social media right now.
Now, of course, there are always people outraged at me on social media, but there has been an unusually intense wave of it due to something I posted on X yesterday. I was reiterating something I said on the show earlier that day, which itself was a reiteration of something that I've said many times on the show.
But here was the post, which has now been viewed four or five million times,

many of them angry views, a lot of angry viewing going on. And the post said this,

America is not a nation built by immigrants. America was built by settlers.
There's a difference.

Settlers ventured out into the wilderness to build a civilization from scratch. The modern

immigrant comes to a place that's already built. Settlers plant the trees.
The modern immigrant comes to eat the fruits. If you cannot see the difference, I don't know how else to explain it.
Now, as you can imagine, there are many angry responses to this, and I can't read them all, but let me give you a representative sample. I'll read five or six of these and give you the flavor of how people are responding.
First one says, The slaves from Africa provided the white settlers colonizers free bonded lifelong slave labor while white settler colonizers killed Native Americans, a civilization to be proud of. Another says the Americas were already inhabited by tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of indigenous people long before colonizers arrived.
Another says you constantly dog whistle for white supremacy, yet you remain a confused bigot whose base consists of people who can't be bothered to read a history book or any book for that matter. America wasn't built from scratch by settlers.
It was taken from thriving indigenous civilizations built on the forced labor of enslaved people and expanded by waves of immigrants who continue to shape it today. The idea that settlers built civilization alone ignores the history of destruction, displacement, and stolen land.
Indigenous nations had governments, trade networks, and advanced societies long before your ancestors, mostly thugs and fugitives, arrived. Another says, settlers, you mean colonizers, who took land from indigenous people and built an economy on slavery, because that's the reality of how America was actually built.
And the idea that immigrants today just eat the fruits without contributing is pure nonsense. Every generation of immigrants has worked, innovated, and strengthened the country, whether it was the Irish, Italians, Chinese, or today's diverse wave of newcomers.
America was and still is built by immigrants. The only difference is that today's immigrants don't have to commit genocide to settle here.
And then actually, America was built by neither immigrants nor settlers. It was built by illegal invaders who came here without permission from the local population, committed genocide on them, and utilized enslaved free labor to build it.
And then it wasn't a wilderness and the settlers did not build anything from scratch. They invaded a continent that was already cultivated and slaughtered the people who cultivated it.
This Matt Walsh douche is one of the biggest fascists around and he's proud of it. And finally, Keith Olbermann chimes in and says, Settlers wiped out the population that was here to make room for inbred mother effers like you.
Now, it is pretty bold for Keith Olbermann to call anyone else inbred, considering that he looks and sounds like a dimly sentient wart come to life. Olbermann's only achievement in life, really, is that he's been fired more than anyone else in the history of media.
He enjoys being fired so much, in fact, that he got fired from ESPN and then bounced around to other media outlets and got fired by all of them and then went back to ESPN and got fired a second time by them. So now he's an unemployed man in his 60s with no wife and no children.
And when he dies, his bloodline will be terminated like his ESPN contracts. That's how committed this guy is to getting fired.
But anyway, needless to say, that was mean, but it was also true. Needless to say, all of the outrage and accusations of racism and fascism have not dissuaded me or convinced me that I'm wrong about my initial point.
They have achieved, if anything, the opposite result.

So let me make a few points in response to all this. These are all points I've made before, but I'll make them again and keep making them because defending America's history and its foundation has become, I think, one of our most important cultural fights.
At least it is to me. So first, it is not true that all of this land In the Americas Was already occupied Yes, there were Indian tribes living here But even so, most of the land Was not occupied The continental United States and Canada comprise about 7 million square miles Give or take Nobody knows how many Indians lived here prior to first contact The tribes had had no written language.
They had no sophisticated method of record keeping.

They certainly weren't conducting any kind of census.

But most estimates would say that there were maybe six or seven million people living in North America

or specifically, especially in the continental United States and Canada.

On the very high end, 13 to 18 million maybe.

I doubt it was close to that high.

But even if it was, we're talking about the population of Pennsylvania spread out over a continent. Now, you can go to Pennsylvania right now and find thousands of acres of unoccupied forest.
With this population of 13 million people, you can still walk around Pennsylvania for days if you're in a forested region without seeing a single human being. So now imagine that population

spread out over the entire continental US and Canada. Now you could travel for weeks and months and never see another human.
The point is that the vast majority of this land was not occupied. Almost all of it was not occupied.

Almost all of it was empty of human life. Nobody was living in it.
Nobody was using it. This side of the world was mostly empty of human life.
Now, does that mean that all of this land was unclaimed? No, not exactly. Most of it had been claimed by some native tribe or another.

But what does that mean?

Well, let's take a look at one example, okay?

Let's use actual examples.

The Cherokee, for instance.

By the beginning of the 16th century,

the Cherokee claimed an incredibly vast swath of land

that would include modern-day West Virginia,

Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,

South Carolina, I think Georgia and Alabama too. So that's like 30 or 40,000 square miles.
Okay. That was Cherokee land.
There were only maybe 20 or 25,000 Cherokee people total. That's about two square miles of land per individual.
That's like if half the population of Scranton, Pennsylvania claimed that it owned seven entire American states. Now, it's absurd.
So when we say that it was Cherokee land, all we mean is that a very small primitive tribe had driven out or killed whichever group was there before and announced that it owned an absurdly huge slice of land, a white settler could have been a two-week journey away from the nearest Cherokee, and yet he was still on Cherokee land. And it was Cherokee land only because the Cherokee said so, and for no other reason.
But in truth, it was unoccupied wilderness. So what they don't emphasize in school is that white settlers were very often slaughtered by Indians for building a small cabin many, many miles from the nearest Indian village.
And yet somehow we're supposed to see the white settlers as the bad guys in that scenario. Second, these settlers were not illegal invaders.
They were not illegally taking possession of anything. The word illegal implies the existence of laws and government.
And while the Indians had customs and rules within the tribes, and in some cases, even a form of government, the only law that determined the boundaries of their land was the law of conquest. They owned the land that they owned because they were able to take it and defend it.
That was the law that governed the entire hemisphere. Whatever you can take is yours.
The concept of illegally taking something didn't really exist because if you could take it, then it wasn't illegal, as long as you were taking it from an outside group. Now, they may have had laws or rules against stealing from somebody within your tribe, but if you're taking something from another tribe, as long as you can take it, it's yours by definition.
This is how the Indian tribes operated. It's how they lived.
It's how they determined who gets what and which land belongs to which tribe. The settlers entered into that fray, into the ongoing game of war and conquest.
They didn't start it. They didn't invent it, they didn't introduce it, they entered into it.
They became one party involved in that eternal struggle, just as they didn't invent or introduce slavery or rape or pillaging and so on. All of that was happening long before they arrived, and it was happening much more often and in a much more brutal form most of the time.
Third, finally, to answer a question posed in one of the comments I just read, is our civilization one that we should be proud of, even in spite of its history of conquest? No, not in spite of that history. I'm proud of it in large part because of that history.
It is one of the great triumphs of all time that our forefathers had to first conquer an ocean in order to then land on a giant mass of uncharted wilderness filled with untold dangers and wild beasts and, yes, primitive warring tribes, many of whom practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism, and who, if they captured you, would torture you for fun and rape your wife and children before killing you, maybe eating your internal organs and taking your family as their property. And yet in the face of those unimaginable horrors, our forefathers and ancestors conquered this entire hemisphere and settled it and single-handedly dragged it out of the Stone Age and built from the wilderness the greatest civilization the world had ever known.
Am I proud of that? Yes, I am. Now, the natives lived in the Americas for 20,000 years.
And this is something that the left and the people who hate this country like to bring up all the time. Well, they were here for so long.
Yeah, they were here for a long time. What did they do in that time? During that time, they never figured out the wheel.
They never figured out written language. Most of them progressed hardly at all over the course of 200 centuries.
They were still eating each other and living in tents, many of them. The great tribes of Mesoamerica had advanced the most.
And by that, I mean, they had caught up to the ancient Egyptians by the time that the Kisador showed up. They were building pyramids at a time when Europeans were using the printing press.
Then European settlers arrived here, and in less than three centuries, they had established a nation. In another 70 or so years, that nation would stretch across the entire continent from one ocean to another.
In another 50 years, they'd be digging a giant trench through the earth to physically connect one ocean to the other. At the same time, they would be building vehicles that can fly through the air.
In another few decades, they'd be walking on the surface of the moon. These settlers took a wilderness sparsely inhabited by hostile Stone Age natives and in a matter of a few centuries built the greatest, most advanced, most globally dominant nation the world has ever known.
Am I proud of that? Oh, yes. I am very proud of that.

And I will always be proud of that. And I will never apologize for it.
Period.

And that's why anyone who is not proud of it and who says that we should somehow be ashamed of

these monumental human achievements is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for

watching. Thanks for listening.
Have a great day. Talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.