NASDAQ CEO (5:54)

Watch where they're an investor. And so we focused on disclosure as a foundation for our proposal. So the first thing is we're asking every company to disclose the composition of their board based on self identifying each of the board members, self identifying their diversity, and then putting together a standardized table so investors can and understand it easily and can compare companies across the spectrum of NASDAQ listed companies at least. And then the second thing is that we establish standards that we are asking companies to meet, which is to have at least one woman and at least one person of either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ on their board. But if they don't meet that standard, we are not asking them, we're not going to require that they get delisted, but rather that they are required to disclose why they are not meeting the standards. So it's really allowing again, investors to have a full set of understand of information to make an informed investment decision. But that standard is not subject to delisting. The disclosure standard though, would be.

Matt Walsh (6:59)

So the idea is that every company is listed on the Nasdaq, which amounts to several thousand companies, including Apple, Google, Amazon, so on, has to publish a DEI report every year. And this report requires one of two things. The first option is for companies to state in their report that they have two members on their board of directors from an underrepresented group, quote Unquote, including at least one female. And in addition to the female, one person who, quote, identifies as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Alaskan, Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, biracial, or lgbtq. Alternatively, companies have the option of explaining in the reports why they didn't meet the requirement. They have to publicly provide an explanation as to why they didn't meet Nasdaq's quota, which of course is intended to subject these companies to accusations of racism and bigotry and all the rest of it. So this is coercion. Obviously. It's also unconstitutional and extremely, comically arbitrary. For some reason, Nasdaq demands that companies have a female on the board, although they can't define the word. Obviously, that's a must have. And if you don't have a female on the board, then you can't pass. You can't pass go, you can't collect your $200. But at the same time, Nasdaq isn't insistent on having, say, a gay man on the board. That's not very important to them. If you have a Pacific Islander, that's good enough. So that basically counts as a gay guy. In Nasdaq's eyes, all of the ethnic minority groups are interchangeable along with lgbt. They just put them in one basket, pick one at random and you're fine. You know, go grab an Alaskan Native from the bargain bin. If you can't find one, see if there are a couple of Native Americans on the clearance rack. I mean, that seems to be the attitude now. Later on in the same interview, the Nasdaq CEO decides to drop the pretense that this rule is about disclosure. She all but admits that the point is to strong arm companies into making diversity hires. Watch.

NASDAQ CEO (8:54)

And I think it's been an issue over, you know, over the last decade to try to understand how can we bring more diversity onto boards. There's a huge body of evidence to show that there's, that there's a lot of benefits in terms of financial performance and control environment when you have a more diverse board. So I think that the research is helpful to understand why this is something where we think it'll give investors more confidence and therefore, as an exchange, we should play a role here.

Matt Walsh (9:22)

She repeats the debunked McKinsey study about how diversity supposedly makes companies more money, which is a complete fraud. We've talked about it before. McKinsey never found that DEI makes companies more money. They actually found that companies with a lot of money tend to practice dei, which just proves that when companies have a lot of excess money lying around, they tend to waste it. So saying that DEI makes companies money because successful companies have DEI is like saying that owning a Ferrari makes you money because people with lots of money own Ferraris. But the important part of that clip is how the Nasdaq CEO admits that there's been more than a decade of thinking about, quote, how can we bring more diversity on boards. That's their intent. And they finally decide on this course of action, they're going to publicly shame companies that try to select board members on the basis of merit instead of race and gender and sexual orientation. The rule went into effect shortly after that interview, and it's been in effect for some time now, ever since then. But yesterday, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans, finally put an end to this insanity. They ruled that the securities and Exchange Commission didn't have the legal authority to approve this DEI policy. And it's quite a takedown to the point that it's worth going through some of it. So here's one section of the majority opinion, for example, said, quote, what is the public interest here? Nasdaq claimed there is an established link between the racial, gender, and LGBTQ identities of a company's board and the quality of a company's financial reporting, internal controls, public disclosure, and management oversight. But Nasdaq offered little support for its assertion that there is an empirically established or even logical link between the racial, gender, and sexual composition of a company's board and the quality of its governance. Nasdaq offered only the barest speculation to support the proposition that there is any link between investor protection and racial and sexual diversity. In other words, the court did what no one in corporate media did for the past five years. They actually looked at the studies that supposedly show that DEI helps companies improve their performance, and they found that there's no evidence at all. Of course, this is something that activists in the federal government simply asserted out of thin air and accused you of being racist if you disagreed. That tactic used to work, doesn't work anymore. Now, there are other reasons the court struck down this rule as well. One of them is that the SEC is supposed to regulate things like market manipulation and proxy voting. They're not supposed to be involved in forcing DEI mandates and social engineering down everybody's throat. So they're wildly overstepping their authority, especially since states, not the federal government, are supposed to have the primary authority to regulate corporations. Now, the only surprising part of this ruling is that it took so long. I mean, initially, when the fifth Circuit heard This case, they upheld the DEI rule, probably because all three judges on the panel were appointed by Democrat presidents. But two conservative groups, the national center for Public Policy Research and the alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, appealed to a full panel of the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately overturned the rule. Now this is, among other things, a devastating blow to the DEI agenda. It's a rejection of the federal government's efforts to force some of the most powerful companies on the planet to practice. It also creates a lot of problems for so called ESG investing, where major investment firms direct money to companies that practice dei. These activists recognize that financial incentives are some of the most potent tools they have in order to force compliance with their agenda. And now they're losing control over those incentives. And this is just one of the major court victories in the past week concerning DEI. Separately, federal judge Reed O'Connor in Texas just struck down Boeing's proposed plea deal with the Biden administration concerning the crashes of those 737 Max jets. A few years ago, the Biden DOJ and Boeing came to an agreement that would allow Boeing to avoid a federal criminal trial for its negligence. And part of that deal involves the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee Boeing since they appear to struggle with designing planes that don't try to deliberately crash themselves. But the plea deal had a major problem which the DOJ and Boeing tried to slip past the judge. It requires that the monitor be selected on the basis of dei, and the judge threw out the plea deal. As a result. He's not going to tolerate DEI being used when people's lives are at stake, which in this situation, they clearly are. Watch.

Judge Reed O'Connor (13:44)

It's been five months since Boeing pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the federal government after allegedly violating an agreement related to the two 737 Max crashes that killed 346 people. In that plea agreement, Boeing admitted to dec deceiving the FAA over a critical software system which led to incomplete pilot training. Now, U.S. district Court Judge Reed O'Connor has rejected that deal, meaning Boeing can be prosecuted. Judge O'Connor provided two reasons for rejecting this deal, and both have to do with Boeing's oversight or its independent monitor. Judge O'Connor took issue with Boeing's diversity and inclusion policies, saying the monitor selection should be done solely on competency. He also said that the courts need to be involved in this oversight.

Matt Walsh (14:34)

We talked about this case a few weeks ago. It looked like Judge O'Connor was going to toss the plea deal. He grilled lawyers for Boeing and the Biden administration about the provision that the independent monitor should be selected, quote, in keeping with the department's commitment to diversity and inclusion. Specifically, the judge wanted to know whether the government had excluded any candidates based on race or gender. And the lawyers provided inconsistent responses because they didn't want to admit that the answer was obviously yes. That's what DEI is. That's the whole point of it. So here's what O'Connor wrote in his ruling last week. Quote, in a case of this magnitude, it is in the utmost interest of justice that the public is confident this monitor selection is done based solely on competency. The party's DEI efforts only serve to undermine this confidence in the government and Boeing's ethics and anti fraud efforts. So once again, this is a major blow for DEI activists in both the federal government and in government contractors. Unless they want future programs and plea deals to be held up in court, they're now on notice that they should get rid of DEI entirely. And already it's pretty obvious that Boeing understands that. They've recently announced that they're scrapping their DEI department entirely. They're under new leadership now, and the new CEO has decided in no uncertain terms that the whole concept of DEI has been a disaster for the company. In this case. Boeing's announcement came after the filmmaker Robbie Starbuck reached out to the company, vowing to wage a war against their DEI policy. Starbuck has already pushed multiple major corporations, Jack Daniels, John Deere, Harley Davidson, Walmart, Ford and others to gut or eliminate their DEI programs. And apparently Boeing didn't want their own public shaming, so they did the right thing, begrudgingly. But there's another important reason why Boeing and other companies are getting rid of DEI as well. Republicans in Congress are currently advancing the dismantled DE act, which will eliminate DEI in the federal government. But also, crucially, the bill would also ban the federal government from hiring any contractors that practice dei. In other words, these companies stand to lose billions of dollars if they keep discriminating on the basis of race for companies like Boeing, which make nearly half of their money from the government. That would be devastating. It would destroy the company. So they're getting rid of the nonsense. In other words, Republicans in Congress for the first time in a while, are generating positive and noticeable social change by actually using the power that they have at their disposal. And Democrats, for their part, can only screech and howl in response. I covered some of their reactions to the bill recently that they're losing. They know they're losing. They know they have no argument. And that's been the story of DEI in general this year. From states and universities dismantling their DEI program to the success of my film Amiraces, to the crushing defeat of Kamala Harris, the ultimate DEI candidate, it's very clear the DEI is on its way out. The ideology that was so dominant just a few years ago has now been thoroughly exposed, humiliated, laughed out of court. Just like BLM and hateful, fraudulent, anti white narratives, DEI has rapidly become irrelevant. Merit, competence, the rule of law are now ascendant. That's one of the right's biggest victories of 2024, and it's worth celebrating and memorializing so that we never make the mistake of allowing these corrupt and moronic peddlers of race hatred to ever hold power again. Now, let's get to our five headlines. You've probably seen these big wireless carrier commercials everywhere, right? Or the ones promising a free iPhone. But let's take a closer look at what free really means in the fine print. To qualify for that free phone, you'll need to trade in your current device. And not just any device, but one worth about $1,000. Then you've got to sign up for their premium and unlimited plan at $100 monthly. And don't forget that sneaky $35 activation fee they talk on. Some free deal, huh? Well, it's starting to look pretty expensive for something that's supposed to cost Nothing. That's where PureTalk, my cell phone company, comes in with a genuinely better option. Here's the deal. You can get a brand new iPhone 14. And yes, it has all the bells and whistles that you actually need. Plus unlimited talk, unlimited text, a generous 15 gigs of data and mobile hotspot capability. Total cost just 50 bucks a month. Think about that for a second. You're getting everything you need for half the price of what the big carriers charge. And here's the best part. You'll be running on America's most dependable 5G network, so you're not sacrificing quality for savings. Here's what you got to do. Head over to PureTalk.com Walsh today. Making the switch is surprisingly easy. And when you use that specific web address, you get an additional 50% off your first month. That's PureTalk.com Walsh PureTalk, America's wireless company. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating, folks. From the Maui fires to Hurricane Helene, we're seeing entire towns wiped out in 24 hours with barely any warning. And what happens? People are left without basic resources, scrambling to survive. Now, I know what you're thinking. It Won't happen here. Well, that's exactly what everyone thinks until they're in the middle of a catastrophe. Being prepared isn't just smart, it's essential. That's where the wellness company's emergency kit comes in. These aren't your run of the mill first aid kits. We're talking about a personalized mini pharmacy right in your own home. No more relying on overworked doctors or understocked pharmacies. When disaster strikes. Bacterial infections, staph bite wounds, UTIs, strep throat, respiratory illnesses. These kits have you covered. It's like having a doctor in your pocket. Minus the liberal indoctrination from med school. Look, you keep a fire extinguisher handy, right? Well, consider this your medical fire extinguisher. It's not paranoia, it's preparedness. Here's how it works. Just fill out a form online, a pharmacist reviews it and boom, your kit arrives in two weeks. It even comes with a medical board approved guidebook. It's that simple. And right now, when you go to urgentcarekit.com Walsh and use promo code Walsh, you'll save 60 bucks plus get free shipping. That's urgentcarekit.com Walsh to save $60. This is preparedness simplified. Invest in your family's self managed insurance plan today. Urgentcarekit.com Walsh USA residents only report for the Daily Wire. An Illinois man allegedly attacked South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace of the United States on the United States Capitol grounds on Tuesday over her views on trans identifying men in women's spaces. According to Nancy Mays, she said in a post on X, I was physically accosted tonight on Capitol grounds over my fight to protect women. Capitol police have arrested him. All the violence and threats keep proving our point. Women deserve to be safe. Your threats will not stop my fight for women. That's what Nancy May said. And the alleged assailant, 33 years old, James McIntyre is his name. He faces charges of assaulting a government official. So he was arrested. So this is not one of those hoaxes where we're told something happened and we don't know who did it. We don't know the person was actually arrested. And Nancy Mace, this was an LGBT activist. And by the way, Andy Ngo has obtained some photos of the alleged assailant. Again, his name is James McIntyre. We have one of those photos. Let's put that up on the screen. So this is the guy and Andy. No, says James McIntyre, the leftist queer activist staffer accused of assaulting Congresswoman Nancy Mase for her Views critical of trans ideology, was released from federal custody in the Capitol yesterday. He flew home to Chicago. His next court date is on January 27th of this coming year. Then you see him there. He's a big guy, Very big guy. Huge, overweight. Now, Andy Ngo reports that this guy grabbed Nancy Mace by the arm, allegedly, and tightened his grip and, I guess, shook her around by the arm. And if that is what happened, then, yes, that is assaulting a government official. That is a federal crime. And Trump's doj, because federal crime. So Trump's doj, when they get in there, they should absolutely throw the book at this guy. I mean, years in federal prison is what he should be looking at. That's what we know would happen in the reverse. We all know that. I mean, if I went to Capitol Hill and angrily grabbed AOC by the arm or something, I'd be screwed. I would just be finished federal prison. No question. No doubt about it. Now, of course, I would never do that, because I don't assault women. LGBT activists, on the other hand, do. These are very violent people. They are the most violent activists in the country, even worse than blm, and they always have been. And the reason why is that LGBT activists, trans activists in particular, feel morally entitled to lash out violently because they've convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is an existential threat to their very existence. That's what they've convinced themselves. It's delusional. Obviously, it's not true. Makes no sense. Nancy Mace, by keeping men out of the women's room in the Capitol, is obviously not causing physical harm to anyone. She's not even inconveniencing any of these people. None of them work in the Capitol, so it doesn't even affect them. But yet they see her as a mortal threat, because anyone who does not affirm them, who does not agree with them, does not give them everything they want, is a mortal threat. So they are entitled to do whatever they want to that person and are totally morally justified in doing so. That's the way they see it, and that's what makes them potentially so dangerous. All right, moving on to this. You know, Jasmine Crockett is one of my favorite members of Congress. She's great because she's easily the dumbest person to ever walk through the halls of Congress, which is really saying something. But I think it's true. I don't even mean it as a joke. She really is the dumbest. She's extremely, extremely dumb. And on that note, here she is in an interview with I think NBC saying something that she doesn't realize she isn't supposed to say out loud. Listen, why do you think Democrats lost, and what do you think needs to happen by the midterms in the next presidential election in order to find your footing again?

Jasmine Crockett (25:08)

Well, Kristen, no disrespect to you, I think you do great work. But the reality is that those that tune in to our traditional news sources, they absolutely went for us. And we know that the standards that you have to live by as an actual journalist are completely different from other platforms. And so we know that we were winning for those that were tuning into the traditional news sources. But when it came down to people getting their news from places that really aren't even news sources, they were going for Donald Trump by 19 points. And that is exactly why we lost. The reality is that we're going to have to play in spaces that we've never had to play and make sure that we're communicating in all ways. Unfortunately, we can't just rely on the mainstream media to get our message across.

Matt Walsh (25:52)

Unfortunately, we can't just rely on the mainstream media. Amazing. I mean. I mean, it's not amazing. Of course. We all know that what she just said there is exactly correct. Democrats have relied on the mainstream media to be their messaging apparatus, their PR and marketing firm, and they still rely on that. But the problem is that nobody cares about the mainstream media anymore. They have very little influence. And all that is true. What makes it funny is that Jasmine is just saying this out loud. I mean, you're not supposed to admit that the mainstream media are Democrat propagandists. Did you forget you were on camera? Did you think this was some sort of personal zoom call or something? Yes. You guys need to get together and figure out what to do now that your propaganda arm has become irrelevant. You probably don't want to talk about it on national television. But don't let me stop you. If you want to have this conversation in front of all of us, I think it's great. But it is certainly true that this is the problem for the Democrats. One of their many problems, this is one of the many problems for Kamala Harris is that they just sort of assume that the rules of the game would be the same as they've been now for decades, and they relied on the mainstream media to do most of their campaigning for them. That has worked in the past, but it only works if people actually watch the mainstream media and care what they say. All right, I hadn't really planned to discuss this, but I do Want to mention it. Lily Phillips is a woman who recently went viral for the wrong reason, for one of the worst possible reasons a person could go viral. She is, I guess, an OnlyFans, what they would call an onlyfans model, but really an onlyfans prostitute. And she decided to have sex with 100 men in one night. Okay, 100 men in one night. And it was filmed, of course, and I guess made available on her OnlyFans page. Now, there are a bunch of videos now circulating of Lily Phillips after the fact, talking about the experience of having sex with 100 men. And in the videos, I don't have any of them to play right now, but you can find them on X and all that in the videos. She looks. She looks like someone who just had sex with 100 men. Okay? She looks terrible. She looks gross and sad and depressed and in pain and used up just exactly how you would imagine somebody might look after an experience like that. And she's talking about it, and she's saying that it was a pretty horrible experience. What do you know? It wasn't very enjoyable. And yet, by the way, she's planning to do it again. In fact, her next goal is to have sex with 1,000 guys in a day, which just physically, in terms of the time constraints, I don't even know how that. That would seem to defy the laws of physics, but that's her plan. So she's not stopping. She's gonna continue doing it. And there's been a lot of discussion about this, and much of the discussion has been really on both sides of the political divide. Much of the discussion has been extremely sympathetic to Lily Phillips, as if she's the victim of this thing that she did and plans to do again. Not only that, but much of the commentary on social media and in the media blames the men who participated in this more than Lily Phillips herself. They're the villains here, is what we're being told. So, for example, just one example of many. Here's the Spectator. Here's an article that they just published. Headline, shame on the Men. Exploiting Lily Phillips. Not Shame on Lily Phillips. Shame on the men. So there's been a lot of that, and this is the way it goes Now. Feminists demand that we celebrate a woman's sexual freedom. But then when a woman makes a really bad choice with her sexual freedom, suddenly she's a damsel in distress, and it's everyone's fault but her own. That's the game. You know, it's always been the game with feminists. They want freedom without accountability. That has always been the problem. Again, one problem of many. But there's always been one of the central problems with feminism from the beginning is you want all the freedom, all the choice, you want all that empowered, everything. The accountability part is the part where it always breaks down. You will not accept accountability and it doesn't work that way. You cannot have one, but not the other. Responsibility is a dimension of freedom. You can't sever them. It's like saying. It's like if you have a quarter in your pocket and you say that it's your quarter, you own it, but you own just the head side, not the tails. Oh, the tail side of the quarter is not yours, just the head. You can't have it. You cannot have one side of the coin, but not the other. You just can't. So it's nonsense. And now I've heard that, well, Lilly is harming herself. This is a self destructive thing that she's doing. It's self harm. And it's no different from if she was cutting herself, mutilating herself in some way. It's like that. And so she's a victim. Well, now you're right, it is harmful. It is self destructive. It is in many ways sort of self mutilating. Yes, but the men are also harming themselves. Having sex with a woman when you are, you know, number 62 in line out of 100 or whatever, that's a lot of things. That is disgusting, that is revolting, that is nauseating, that is awful. That is demeaning, that is emasculating. That is all the bad things. It's also harmful. Harmful to the men. They are putting themselves at severe risk. Severe, you know, for physical reasons. Big one being the diseases that you are subjecting yourself to, almost certainly also harming yourself mentally and emotionally. So if she is a victim, why aren't they, in fact, if she's being exploited, why aren't they being exploited? She's the one profiting. She's the one selling the video. These men are just marks, they're pawns. You could say, oh, well, no healthy woman with a right mind would do something like this. So she's a victim. No healthy man in his right mind would be a part of this. I mean, to volunteer to be a part of this is on either side means that there's something really wrong with you. And yet it only goes one way. The accountability only goes one way. It only ever goes one way. It's like when a man has sex with a drunk woman. And is accused of rape. Drunk sex is non consensual sex, they say, except that he was also drunk. So if he raped her, then didn't she rape him? Aren't they raping each other by that logic? If they're both drunk, if they're both inebriated, didn't she take advantage of him also? But you never hear that ever. You never ever hear that. You never hear of a woman getting accused of, much less charged with rape for having sex with a drunk man. Never hear it. It only goes one way. Accountability only goes one way ever on this sort of thing. Now, the only way. This is the important point, okay? Because we can lament the double standards. I mean, the double standards are very obvious here. You can't. I mean, it's like getting smacked in the face with a two by four the account. That's how obvious it is. You can't miss it. But let me try to make sense of it. The only way to make sense of this double standard where two people, man and woman, can willfully engage in a certain act, enact that. In this case with Lily Phillips, not only are she willfully engaged, she is initiating it, inviting the men, advertising it, selling it, making money on it. The only way to look at that and say the man is exploiting her, not the other way around. The only way to do it is to say that the man is the leader, that the man is in charge, that the man is basically the captain of the ship. And so he gets the blame when the ship goes down. Even if a dozen other people are also to blame, even if, in fact the captain didn't screw up, even if the captain did everything right, still he gets the blame. And in the old days, he goes down with the ship, even if it wasn't his fault. Right? Right. The Titanic hits the iceberg, the captain was asleep. He had somebody else in charge at that. It's not his fault. He's got to go down with the ship. That's the burden of leadership. You know, the burden of leadership is responsibility. And Buck stops with me, right? And you gotta take blame for stuff that you didn't do. So the only way to look at Lily Phillips and condemn the men and not her is to say that the men are supposed to be leaders and the leaders take the blame. That's the only way. Which means you have to abandon feminism entirely. You cannot be a feminist and say that Lily Phillips is being exploited. You can't. The only way to say it is to say that the men are more responsible because they're supposed to be leaders. So any person, any feminist who looks at this as, oh, well, she's the victim, you have abandoned feminism. It's done. You're out. You are out. What you are saying, this is as dramatic a statement as you can possibly make reinforcing the most traditionalist idea of so called gender norms imaginable. Okay? You are saying the men are in charge, the men are leaders, they should know better, they should be guiding her. And they're not. That's what you're saying. The problem is that most of the people involved in this discourse are not willing to admit that because they want to have it both ways. Always. They want to have the cake and eat it too. But even then, let's say, because there are, like I said, there are some people on the right who are also looking at this and say, oh, she's a victim of a poor woman. And many of them, I'm sure, are listening to this and they'll say, yeah, you know what? I do think men are leaders. I'm not ashamed of that. And so, yeah, I blame them. Okay? And I'll just say those people are the only ones I can even take seriously in this conversation. I can't. The feminists. I can't take you seriously because your whole. It doesn't make any sense. It's completely incoherent. One minute you want to get rid of the gender norms, women, men and women are the same. Men are not leaders. Women are the boss babes, they're in charge. In fact, women are more competent, smarter, and the next minute, oh, she's a damsel in the street. That doesn't make any sense. You're not serious. You're not serious people. I can't listen to you. The only people I can even take seriously in a conversation like this are the very traditionalist conservatives. At least then you have a case because you're being consistent. And you always say, yeah, I think men should be leaders in society, they should be leaders in the home, they should be leaders in relationships. And okay, but even in that case, even in that case, you still cannot entirely absolve the woman. Like she has no free will, like she has no agency. Because when you do that, now you are going, now you're drifting past just sort of a traditional notion of gender norms. You're drifting past that and you're drifting into the demonization of men and the total infantilization of women. You're treating men, women like infants or robots who have no free will and no ability to make any Decisions for themselves. And you're treating men, you know, you're unduly demonizing men. In that case, if you are basically totally absolving the women, like, you can't blame them at all. You cannot condemn their behavior at all, which is some of what I'm hearing. Because in reality, okay, Lily Phillips is an adult person making a choice. And yes, we should condemn her behavior. It's disgusting, terrible behavior. And yes, it is also exploitation on her part, too. She is also exploiting these men in a very real sense, just having them line up so that she can make this disgusting video. So my take on it is I condemn the behavior of everybody involved. Okay? That's my very simple way of looking at this. I condemn the behavior of everybody involved. I don't think there are any victims here. Everybody is choosing to be a part of this. It's disgusting and we need to. It's disgusting, evil behavior by everybody, and we should condemn it in no uncertain terms. It is shameful, gross, and we should just condemn the behavior of everybody involved. Nobody's being forced into it. Everybody does have free will, and that's it. All right. One other thing we talked about. DEI is collapsing, and along with it, tied to it, wokeness in general is collapsing. We know that, but it's not dead yet. And there are some corporations that are clinging to it and will cling to it for as long as they can. So here, for example, is a new Christmas ad from Google Watch. So dry this winter. Dryness, is not it? Especially when I have so many holiday looks to pull off. Thankfully, I know just the thing, and it's in stock nearby. Hydrated skin is a gift to everyone. No wrapping needed. Happy holidays to me. So that's obviously a man, as you no doubt noticed, just an absurd ad. The same question you always have with this stuff, you know, applies, which is, who is this supposed to be for? Who is this supposed to appeal to? The product that's being advertised is for women. I imagine women make up like 98% of its customers, if not more. That's who the product is for. But who is the ad for? If you want to appeal to the people who actually buy the product, why not have a woman do the ad? Why go with an over the top flamboyant gay man in women's clothes? Sure, flamboyant gay men also may use the product, but how many of them are there in comparison to women in your customer base? So it's just a ridiculous marketing choice, but we know that the ad isn't really meant to be an ad for a product. It's a signal, it's a virtue signal. Google is advertising its own wokeness, which itself makes little sense at this point, given that wokeness is on life support. I will say though, that the silver lining, the one silver lining with an ad like this, we've seen plenty of them, is that it only proves yet again that a simple concept that shouldn't need to be proved, but it does prove that womanly things are for women. You know, the left has claimed, of course, that gender is a social construct and really there's no such thing as women's clothes or men's clothes that, you know, society just sort of arbitrarily decided that certain clothes are for women. But it could have gone the other way. That's the way they look at it. But then you see a man in women's clothes in an ad like this and just from a purely aesthetic perspective, it's very painfully obvious that this is not just arbitrary. Men look ridiculous in women's clothes. Women's clothes are actually for women. They're actually made for women only. Women look good in women's clothes. This is not arbitrary. It really isn't subjective. Actually, when you see this, it's incongruent. It looks out of place and not because we've been conditioned by society or whatever. It just doesn't. It doesn't make sense. And we all know that. We can all see it. And as I said, most of us don't need that proven. But when you see it, it does prove the point. Time is running out. Don't miss Jeremy's razor cyber deals for the sane self respecting men and women on your Christmas list right now. Save 50% on men's and women's one year razor bundles for 365 days of woke free shaves. Get gifts from a company that's can tell naughty from nice and men from women. Don't wait. You must order by December 12th, the ship standard by Christmas. Order now at jeremysrazors.com@the Daily Wire. When we say join us in the fight, these are the fights we're talking about. It's fighting Biden's vaccine mandate, taking the battle all the way to the Supreme Court and winning. Protecting your rights against government overreach. It's taking our fight directly to Congress, challenging Garm's biased censorship of conservative voices and winning. It's making groundbreaking documentaries like what is a woman disrupting Hollywood? With our nationwide theatrical release of Amiracist, the number one documentary of the decade with Dailywire. When we fight, we win. We can't do it without your support. There's never been a better time to join. And if you're already a member, this is the perfect time to get the Give the gift of DailyWire plus right now, which is 40% off. Go to DailyWire.com to join or give the gift of Daily Wire plus today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. If you never watch the show Squid Game, it was a runaway success for Netflix a few years ago. The basic idea was that 456 people with desperate financial problems are invited to a contest at an undisclosed location where they all participate in a bunch of children's games like Red Light, Green Lights, and similar games. The winner gets $40 million. But then when you get there, there's a catch. You realize that if you don't win the game, you get murdered. Which is a bit of a. It's why you want to look at the fine print on these game shows. Now, the show's popularity didn't really come down to its plot or any kind of deeper meaning. There wasn't much to it. I mean, you could spin it as a metaphor against capitalism just as easily as you could spin it as a metaphor against communism. It was basically just well executed torture porn, and you had to enjoy watching these characters fight for their lives in these bizarre, occasionally creative death traps. Kind of like the Saw films with A Little more. And apparently a lot of people did get some mileage out of that conceit. It's now very obvious, though, that a lot of fans will not be enjoying Squid Game Season two, the obligatory follow up that will be released the day after Christmas. This is the season that will jump the shark for a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum. We know that because Netflix has now revealed the characters for the second Squid game. And one of these characters is a male former Special Forces soldier who identifies as trans and who is competing in this game to raise money for sex change surgery. Now, before I go any further, it's important to establish right off the bat that Netflix does indeed appear to be serious about this. The creators of this show and the actor who plays the male character genuinely seem to believe that this is a brave, intelligent casting decision. So here's part of the video where the actor introduces this new character. Obviously he's not speaking English, so for the benefit of the podcast listeners, we'll just play a really quick clip of it. But just so you have the visual, here it is. Now, in case you couldn't see the subtitles. He says that this character is a former Special Forces soldier and transgender woman who joins the squid game because, quote, she's short on money for her gender affirming surgery. I'm reading the direct quotes of the pronouns there. This character, quote, faces prejudice and tough situations, but demonstrates, quote, incredible strength and decisiveness and breaks down stereotypes on his journey to securing the cash for self mutilation. So we'll give this character the benefit of the doubt for a second and assume that this aspiring transgender character didn't realize the Squid game was a death match when he decided to join. We'll assume that like many of the other contestants, he was tricked into participating because he was so blinded by his desire for this trans surgery after getting out of the Special Forces like so many Special Forces soldiers have been throughout history. Very common thing, of course, but even with that in mind, this still is still coming off like some kind of very unsubtle right wing parody of trans ideology. It's not intended to be, but that's how it comes off. Because here you have someone who is clearly so reckless and so consumed by his desire to disfigure his own body that he somehow inadvertently joins a game where he has a 455 out of 456 chance of dying a horrible excruciating death, which is greater than a 99% chance of dropping off a bridge or being shot by a machine gun or being impaled or whatever. And he's facing that fate because he was short on money for a sex change and decided that he would do anything to get it. That's the premise. That would probably be too on the nose if you were trying to mock the idea of transgender surgeries and the trans agenda in general. It serves no purpose but to highlight quite dramatically the self destructive nature of this agenda. But apparently we're meant to feel sympathy for this character. We're also supposed to observe that although he's willing to do anything to get his genitals cut off, he's also extremely brave and fearless under fire, keeps his composure in life threatening situations, has incredible strength, exceptionally stable mentally speaking. Presumably that's the stereotype that's being broken down here. Just imagine being in the writers room when they decided that this would be one of their prominent characters for their new season. It's just stock cliched pandering that everyone's seen a million times by now. And incredibly, this isn't even why a lot of people are outraged about the new season. Conservatives for the most part, either really don't care about the show, or they're just used to this kind of thing. Instead. There has been outrage over this character, but it's all coming from the left. But of course they're not upset that this character is completely ridiculous. They're on board with the whole trans surgery plotline. Their objection is that the character playing this quote unquote trans woman in real life is a man. So they apparently wanted Netflix to find a self identifying, quote unquote trans woman to play the part. And they're upset that instead the actor, whose name is Park Sung Hoo, is in fact a male who does not identify as transgender. As Breitbart summarized the controversy in one of the better headlines of the year, quote, squid game 2 season squid game season 2 sparks backlash after normal man cast as transgender the article contains several distinct arguments by trans activists as to why exactly this casting decision is an outrageous and every single one of these arguments is completely and unequivocally terrible. First argument comes from somebody using the name Don. And Don makes the argument that actors can't play people who are unlike themselves, which is to say that actors can't engage in acting. Here's Don's specific complaint. Quote, this is not how you give representation. A CIS man pretending to be part of a minority group just doesn't sit right with me. Especially when they could have hired an actual trans actress. Then somebody makes the obvious point that it's the job of actors to pretend to be things they're not. For example, an actor might pretend to be a police officer when in real life he's just an actor. It's a little trick that actors play all the time. It's kind of the whole idea of acting. When Daniel Day Lewis portrayed Abraham Lincoln, he was pretending he wasn't really Abraham Lincoln. Just to clarify, but Don responds with this quote, yes, but acting or pretending to be a police officer, burglar, villain, et cetera, is a lot more different than pretending to be transgender, neurodivergent and poc. Now, Don never says exactly what's a lot more different about pretending to identify as trans as opposed to pretending to be a police officer. But apparently it's a lot more different. Unfortunately for those of us seeking to do the work and educate ourselves in this particular issue, Don did not really elaborate. So in search of specifics on that point, I kept scrolling through the complaints from trans activists. Then I came across this response. Quote, I'm crying. Instead of a trans femme actor, they decided to slap a wig on Park Sung Hoon and call it a day. Somebody else followed up that response with this post, which belongs in a museum somewhere. Quote, men playing trans women reinforces the harmful notion that trans women are just men in dresses. So the claim is now that a male should not put on a dress and pretend to be trans on tv. Although that's what being trans is. I mean, if anything, Park Sung Hoon is doing some serious method acting here. He's taking his commitment to the craft to the next level, and he's doing it in a country where gay marriage isn't even legal at the national level. So he's really breaking some barriers. I guess, if you're trying to understand their non existent logic, the idea is that it's okay for a man to put on a dress and pretend to be a woman, but a man can't put on a dress and pretend to pretend to be a woman. That's one level of pretending too far. And it's not an exaggeration to say that it appears to be driving some of these people even more insane than they already are. And as one angry fan put it, quote, could they not cast an actual transgender woman? This is going to me off. Now, putting aside the fact that the phrase actual transgender woman is an oxymoron, the phrasing there does raise an interesting question, maybe the most important question of this whole debacle. And that question is this. Shouldn't these people be demanding that a female actor play the quote unquote trans woman? They claim that trans women are women. That's what they say. They say there's no distinction between a quote unquote trans woman and an actual woman. So wouldn't the most validating option be a woman playing the trans woman? That is a woman playing a man pretending to be a woman? Which would also be an interesting acting challenge. But I scrolled through a lot of these angry comments, and I never found a clear answer to that question. As always, trans activists are just screaming nonsense into the void. They're not sure what they want or why they want it. They're just sure that they're deeply unhappy and profoundly confused, which, of course, is their natural state. They're so angry, in fact, that even when Netflix tries to pander to them, they still find a way to lose their minds. And in the process, once again, they reveal that they have no coherent ideology and are totally incapable of making rational arguments that withstand any scrutiny whatsoever. Meanwhile, the rest of us on Team Sanity simply won't watch the show because it looks really quite dumb. And that is why Squid Game season two and the trans activists complaining about its recent casting decisions are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Have a great day. Godspeed.