Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the sexualization of children in our culture continues with a horrifying Netflix film about twerking 11-year-olds. And Five Headlines including last night’s DNC convention finale, and a school system that wants parents to pledge in writing that they will not eavesdrop on their children’s virtual classes. And in our Daily Cancellation we will cancel a Christian publisher for its exceedingly cringey attempt to connect with today’s youth.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the sexualization of children in our culture continues with a horrifying Netflix film about twerking 11-year-olds and five headlines including last night's DNC convention finale and a school system that wants parents to pledge in writing that they will not eavesdrop on their children's virtual classes.
What could go wrong there?
And in our daily cancellation, we're going to cancel a Christian publisher for its exceedingly cringey attempt to connect With today's youth.
All of that on the way.
But starting here, September 9th, streaming behemoth Netflix will debut a new film on its platform titled Cuties, the movie by French writer and director, I'm not even going to try to pronounce the name, but French writer and director, follows the exploits of 11-year-old Amy, who hopes to break free from her conservative Senegalese upbringing by joining a twerking dance troupe.
The official synopsis tells us that Amy, through her, quote, sensual dancing, will, quote, ignite awareness of her burgeoning femininity.
But will the girls successfully, quote, twerk their way to stardom?
You'll have to watch to find out.
That is, if you're on a registry somewhere and interested in watching that kind of content.
Now...
Probably, though probably not on registries, many film critics are indeed apparently interested in that kind of content.
The film currently has a depressing around 80% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Critics tell us that the story of pubescent children dancing sensually is a, quote, compelling crowd-pleaser that, quote, heralds an indelible directorial voice and must be, quote, respected for its audacity.
Now, Much of the backlash and discussion about this movie has been centered around the horrific promotional image that Netflix put together and was, until a couple days ago, using on their site.
Now, here it is right here.
You can see it.
As you can see, 11-year-old girls, scantily clad, striking their quote-unquote sensual poses, one of them on all fours.
As people became aware of the movie and a petition was formed to get it tossed from the platform and outrage grew, Netflix decided to change the synopsis of the film and get rid of this image.
And they issued also an apology.
Here's their apology.
You tell me if it really gets to the heart of the matter or not.
It says, we're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Cuties.
It was not okay, nor was it representative of this French film, which premiered at Sundance.
We've now updated the pictures and description.
Okay, by the way, the fact that it's a French film that premiered at Sundance in no way indicates that it's not horrible and exploitative.
Sundance was co-founded by a man who's now in prison for raping children, after all.
But you notice how Netflix offers no apology for the content of the film itself, nor do they promise to get rid of it.
Instead, they just put up a different poster.
Defenders of the movie, and yes, it has defenders, it does, say that, well, you can't judge a book by its cover.
It's not fair to condemn a movie you haven't seen.
What they don't understand is that normal, well-adjusted, non-creepy adults have no interest in watching a movie that features 11-year-olds twerking in any capacity or context, even if it was just one scene, much less a central plot point.
In fact, you can judge a book by its cover sometimes, and this is one of those times.
Other defenders, including some of those film critics mentioned before, claim that the film is a commentary on the sexualization of children.
Now, even if you're inclined to buy that rather, in my opinion, dubious excuse, it doesn't change how Netflix chose to promote the film through its marketing material.
I don't care if this is a movie about kids at a lemonade stand or something.
If the company distributing it is trying to sell it as quote-unquote sensual, that's a huge problem in and of itself.
But is the commentary excuse credible?
Well, take note of the fact that according to an interview in Variety with the Cuties producer, they filled the lead role with an 11-year-old actress.
If they're looking to give critical commentary on the sexualization of children, it's hard to understand why they would want 11-year-olds to provide the demonstration.
It seems rather counterproductive to decry something by actually doing the thing you are decrying.
There was an interview in The Wrap with the director of the film, and she explained her reasons for making the film.
I'm going to read now from The Wrap.
It says, the director explained how growing up in France with traditional parents from Senegal made her want to explore, in Cuties, the question of whether we should, quote, have the right to choose which women we can be in this world.
In our culture, even today, I can say I'm not totally free.
Because I love to wear short dresses, and at the same time, when I go to a religious ceremony, I wear a veil.
Just choose as a woman.
What do you want to be?
Okay, that was her reason that she gave.
The point, as explained by the director, seems quite different from calling attention to child sexual exploitation.
This would seem to be much more a display of that sexualization than a commentary on it.
So perhaps cuties will comment on the sexualization of children in the same way that a film like The Purge comments on violence.
Namely, by going out of its way to appeal to the sorts of people who want to see the thing that the film is allegedly criticizing.
That's not commentary at all.
It's exhibition.
And here's the main thing we have to understand.
This is not an isolated incident.
This movie is not happening in a vacuum.
We're out of the blue.
This is part of a long-running trend in our culture towards the sexualization of children and the normalization of pedophilia.
It is a trend.
Even just in the universe of Netflix, it's a trend.
For years now, the streaming platform has aired a cartoon aimed at teens called Big Mouth that advocates masturbation, pornography, and things even more graphic than that.
So they've been down this road before.
Plenty of times.
Also, this isn't Netflix, but another example bears mentioning.
Just a few weeks ago, a film called Yes, God, Yes, another masterpiece, according to critics anyway, was released to streaming and on-demand viewing.
And according to the stylist, it, quote-unquote, here's the quote, explores the joys and shame of female masturbation through the adventures of its 16-year-old protagonist.
The writer and director Karen Main says that she's hoping the film helps her younger audience feel less weird about discovering their sexuality.
But really, the most egregious form of child exploitation and sexualization in our culture has nothing to do with films about twerking.
In fact, in this vein, Netflix aired something even more objectionable not long ago.
The reboot of The Babysitter's Club recently featured a storyline about a nine-year-old trans girl, i.e.
a boy who has been told by his parents that he's a girl.
And let's just look at, here's just one short scene from that episode.
Look at this.
Okay.
Took a while, but we finally found a file for a Bailey Delvecchio.
Is 32 Bern Hill Road still the current address?
Yeah.
Have you been giving him fluids?
If he's dehydrated, we'll need to place an IV.
Have him change into this.
I don't like the blue one.
Um, well... I hear someone's not feeling well.
Let's take a look at the little man.
Can I please talk to you two outside?
I know that you guys are busy, but as you would see, if you looked at her and not her chart, Bailey is not a boy.
And by treating her like one, you are completely ignoring who she is.
You're making her feel insignificant and humiliated.
And that's not gonna help her feel good or safe or calm.
So, from here on out, please recognize her for who she is.
And if at all possible, could you find me a non-blue hospital gown?
Always.
Now, of course, leaving all the other issues aside here, there are many excellent reasons why doctors might need to know your actual biological sex.
It can affect what treatment they use, because as it turns out, boys and girls are different, very different.
But more to the point here, this is a storyline normalizing the idea that young children can choose their own gender.
And you should know that the actor who goes by the name Kai is a biological boy who identifies as a girl.
According to his mother, he started showing signs of being a girl at 18 months.
Yes, 18 months.
This mother believes that an 18-month-old baby has some sort of insight into his own gender, which of course is stark, raving lunacy.
Kai completed his transition at 4.
Four.
Now, I have an almost four-year-old, plus two other kids who were four at one time, and I can report unequivocally that four-year-olds have no idea what gender is, have no idea what boys and girls are, really.
If you don't believe me, just ask a four-year-old, what's a boy, what's a girl?
They won't be able to tell you.
They have, indeed, no idea what anything is.
They have no grasp on reality whatsoever.
There's a reason you can tell these kids that a giant fat man flies through the air at the speed of light, climbs down their chimneys and brings them presents, and they won't even question the claim or bat an eye.
They accept it implicitly, like they accept everything else, because they don't have the psychological capacity to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Reality and fantasy.
By accepting and promoting and imposing this absurd, grotesque, mind-boggling lie that four-year-olds can choose their own gender, that they have somehow the maturity and agency and insight and understanding and competency to make life-altering decisions for themselves at that age, we are sending the message that, well, four-year-olds have maturity, agency, understanding, and competency.
We are sending the message that four-year-olds have enough psychological, neurological, and emotional development to choose their sex.
Which is to say, according to this theory, they have quite a significant amount of psychological, neurological, and emotional development.
The problem here, well, one of the countless problems, is that the whole reason, you know, what is the whole reason we say that adulthood starts at 18?
And that, for example, a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor is not a relationship at all, but abuse.
The reason we give is that children are not psychologically, neurologically, and emotionally developed.
The entire basis for the laws that allow us to put adults who prey on children in jail is that children, quite literally, can not consent to sexual relationships because they don't understand what they're doing, or what the consequences are, or what it means, etc., etc., etc.
And yet now we're saying, oh, never mind.
In fact, children even at the age of four actually are enormously mature and developed, so much so that they can choose to alter their entire identity and make decisions that will have a profound impact on their lives forever, even to the point of taking drugs that will chemically castrate them.
So you see where this leads, hopefully.
What we have here is a developing narrative about childhood and childhood psychology and the capacities of children that is extraordinarily dangerous and can only lead to terrible things.
And that is, we should emphasize, completely wrong on every level and contrary to science, common sense, morality, and basic human decency.
So yes, the movie about the twerking girls is bad, but it's a lot worse than that out there for our children.
Which is all the more reason, if you're a parent, to keep your kids close and remain vigilant.
Let's go to five headlines.
I want to tell you about another one of our loyal sponsors and a big thank you to all
of our sponsors who have helped us get through these difficult times over the last few months.
And we would ask you to just support our sponsors.
If you hear a product or service that sounds like you need and might be interested in, then we thank you for supporting them and supporting us.
Especially here with this sponsor, Bambi.
Listen, HR issues can really kill you if you're running a company and you know this.
If you're a small business owner, business owner of any size.
HR issues can be one of the most difficult things to deal with.
Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, all the red tape these days.
It just gets even more complicated every single day, it seems like.
And HR manager salaries aren't cheap, an average of $75,000 a year.
BAMBEE, spelled B-A-M-B-E-E, was created specifically for small businesses.
You can get a dedicated HR manager, you can craft HR policy, maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month.
Okay.
With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat, so you've got that.
You've got someone who's always there for you from onboarding to terminations.
They customize your policies to fit your business, and they help manage your employees day-to-day, all for just $99 a month.
Month-to-month, no hidden fees.
Cancel anytime.
And you don't start your business because, you know, you wanted to spend time on HR compliance.
I don't think it's anyone's dream when they start a business is that they really want to get into HR and worry about all the red tape compliance.
So let Bambi take care of that.
Get your free HR audit today.
Go to Bambi.com slash Walsh right now to schedule your free HR audit.
That's Bambi.com slash Walsh.
B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash Walsh.
All right, let's go to See what headlines we got here.
Number one, the DNC convention last night.
We did our all-access watch party for that.
Hopefully you were able to join.
It was the worst thing that's ever happened to me, personally.
I maintained, though, and I survived for three hours in one of the great feats of human endurance of all time.
The big headline from the convention, I suppose, is that there was no real headline.
They successfully avoided headlines, which I think is part of the point here.
Certainly, that is the The strategy of the Joe Biden campaign is to not make it into the headlines, and I think they basically did that last night anyway.
The entire focus of the convention really was, or at least last night, seemed to be that Joe Biden is a really nice guy, right?
And that's why they told us he's a nice guy again and again and again and again and again.
By my count, there were approximately 75 slow-motion video montages, or at least felt like 75, slow-motion video montages, piano music, you know, and it just telling us that Joe's a nice guy.
At one point, his grandchildren showed up to talk about his favorite flavor of ice cream and what toppings he likes.
I'm not kidding. That's how vacuous this thing was. And then Joe Biden got up there at the end,
and when I was half dead at that point, delivered a speech.
All I could say is that the DNC is thanking God or Gaia or whoever, the divine spirit. Actually,
they had their nun, their fake nun, give an invocation and she prayed to the divine spirit.
But anyway, whoever, they're thanking someone that the speech didn't have to be live.
So I don't know how many takes it took to nail the speech, but the final product was not bad.
Much to my chagrin, you know?
No flubs, no gaffes.
Just a fine speech.
I don't think anyone's going to remember it.
I don't think anyone remembers it now, but it was okay.
There were a few moments of cringe, though.
And I think probably the most extreme cringe came from this.
So what did you think about Kamala Harris' speech last night?
It was tremendous.
I was so happy for her.
I know, me too.
She was fabulous.
I cannot wait to see her debate our current vice president, Mika Ponce.
Or is it paints?
It's pronounced Ponce, I believe.
Oh, some kind of weird foreign name?
Yeah, not very American-sounding.
Yeah, that's what people are saying.
Strongly.
Well, uh, thank you, Andrew, and please give my regards to the gang.
I will.
They're right in the next room.
Have a great night, Julia.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, all the comedy bits were about as effective as that.
The comedy was so lame and bad that I almost thought I was watching a Republican convention a few times.
That's how bad it was.
But then I remembered that I wasn't, because every speaker would carve out some time in their remarks.
Actually, about 75% of their remarks would be allotted to informing us that Orange Man is, indeed, bad, if you didn't know.
So they did tell us that.
So that's what we got.
Joe Biden is nice.
Orange Man is bad.
That was the message.
Let's go on here.
here. Number two, reading now from the Daily Wire, it says the Chicago Police Department
has banned protesters from demonstrating on the block where Mayor Lori Lightfoot lives,
ordering officers to arrest anyone who won't leave. The directive surfaced in a July email
from then Shakespeare District Commander Melvin Roman to officers under his command.
It did not distinguish between the peaceful protestor Lightfoot regularly says she supports and those who might intend to be destructive.
Chicago police have been blocking access to the area using barricades and police and riot gear and Lightfoot told reporters on Thursday that she and her family have been receiving threats daily.
She says, I think that residents of the city understand the nature of the threats that we are receiving on a daily basis.
On a daily basis, understand I have a right to make sure that my home is secure.
Right.
This is the same woman, you may remember, who banned residents from getting haircuts under threat of imprisonment and then went on and got her own haircut.
So this is all par for the course.
And the reason for getting the haircut, the reason she gave, was that she needed to look good.
Which, well, no comment on that.
But the point is that this is one of the biggest hypocrites in the country.
And the hypocrisy here really isn't even funny or ironic or anything.
It's just pure evil, in fact.
She lets rioters destroy neighborhoods, terrorize residents, do what they want.
But oh no, not her house.
Not her house.
Can't come there.
And how does she justify the double standard?
In her own mind, how do you think she justifies it?
Well, I'll tell you exactly how.
She's more important than you.
Simple as that.
And that is what she believes.
And that's how she governs.
Let's go number three.
Back to the Daily Wire.
It says a school district in Tennessee is asking parents To sign a form agreeing not to monitor their children's virtual classrooms over concerns that non-student observers could overhear confidential information.
The form, a copy of which was sent to the Tennessee Star, reads, quote, RCS strives to present these opportunities in a secure format that protects student privacy to the greatest extent possible.
However, because these meetings will occur virtually, RCS is limited in its ability to fully control certain factors, such as non-student observers that may be present in a home of a student participating in the virtual meeting.
The agreement goes on to strongly discourage non-student observation of online meetings due to the potential of confidential information about a student being revealed.
The agreement, of course, raised parents' interests, according to the Tennessee Star, particularly given that the agreement implied items of interest might be being discussed in classrooms without parents' knowledge.
In an email to parents sent earlier this week, the Rutherford School District said that they are taking parents' concerns under advisement.
They said, we are aware of the concern that has been raised about the distance learning letter that was sent out.
The intent was not to prevent parents from being involved with their children during distance learning, but it was intended to protect the academic privacy of other students in the classroom who are visible during certain virtual class sessions.
Yeah.
Listen, you know, you get a letter like that from your school, and I don't know how you react in any other way than just pulling your kid out.
Plain and simple.
Confidential information?
No, no.
There shouldn't be any confidential information being shared in a classroom.
There shouldn't be any information that you as a teacher know about your students that the parents don't know.
But, like we talked about last week and we've talked about before, you know, they're just telling on themselves here.
And what their real agenda is.
So you just got to get your kids out of the school.
I think it really is that simple.
Number four, the Washington Post reports the Kansas City Chiefs said Thursday that they will prohibit fans from wearing headdresses and Native American themed face paint to home games at Arrowhead Stadium.
The team announced the measures as part of what it calls ongoing dialogue with a group of local leaders from diverse American Indian backgrounds and experiences and recent consultation with a national organization that works closely on issues affecting American Indian people and tribes.
So even though they're the Kansas City Chiefs, And that's their mascot.
You're not allowed to dress that way for the home game.
Nobody can explain why this is offensive.
It's just assumed now that if you were to dress up as a Native American, it's automatically... Why?
What's offensive about it?
If anything, it's honoring a culture.
And of course, as many people point out, almost nobody worries about this On St.
Patrick's Day, people are dressed up like leprechauns, drinking green beer, getting drunk.
Like, that's what you do.
That's how you celebrate Irish culture.
To dress up like a leprechaun and get drunk.
Nobody complains.
And as a person of Irish ancestry, I don't complain either.
It just doesn't bother me.
But this somehow is offensive for reasons that are not explained.
Okay, five.
Finally, big news here.
It's being reported that the band BTS has probably broken a record by getting 10 million views on their latest music video in 20 minutes.
10 million in 20 minutes.
10 million people.
That's an incredible number for just 20 minutes.
Now, I have...
Never heard of the band BTS.
This is my first time ever.
I don't know what they are.
I think they're a boy band.
But, you know, I think back in my... but go back to the old days.
You know, way back in ancient times, music videos were aired on, and kids don't know this, they were aired on something called television.
There were these things called channels that you would go to.
And if you wanted to see a video, you had to just sit and watch the channel all day and hope that they played it.
And there would be these things called commercials in between.
And it's very similar to the experience you'd have with, there was also this thing called a radio that you would listen to.
And if you wanted to like make a mixtape, but you couldn't download it on the internet because it didn't exist.
So what you do is you take a blank, something called a cassette tape, and you put it in this thing called a boom box.
And then you just listen to the radio all day.
And those of us who are avid mixtape makers, like I was, um, it was, you know, this, this would be a, this would be hours long project.
If you want to make a mixtape and get like 10 songs on a, on a tape, but you wait for the song to play, you got your fingers on record.
Soon as it plays, boom, you hit record.
Sometimes you get a little bit of the commercial beforehand in the, in the recording, but that's fine too.
And that's how it worked back then.
But now, and so if you want, if one music video, was going to get 10 million views, cumulatively, it would take probably about 19 months for that to happen.
And now it happens in a little over 19 minutes.
So, pretty incredible.
But congrats to the guys over there at BTS.
Big fan, big fan of theirs.
I just decided that right now, because I'm in touch with the youth of today, of course.
Speaking of which, let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now for our daily cancellation.
This will be a short one because I'm not intending to pile on, but I also can't possibly let this week come to an end without mentioning it.
And besides, I have no control over the daily cancellations.
The cancellations come to me.
As though in a dream, and I can only accept them.
So today we will be canceling Lifeway, which some of you probably know is a major Christian publisher and distributor.
They teamed up with a group called Sunday Cool to put out a devotional for the youngins, the youth, Gen Z. And it's called The Word According to Gen Z. You hear that, and if you've been around the block enough, you're probably thinking, oh no, this is going to be bad.
And yes.
You're right.
Your insight is correct.
It is.
It certainly is.
Now, Lifeway has already pulled down the devotional.
They aren't selling it anymore after the rather negative reaction to it, and they've apologized.
They say that what I'm about to read to you was meant to be playful, but they regret it now and that it was taken the wrong way, and so they pulled it down.
And in fairness, I'll tell you that this devotional does, or did, I guess, before it was removed from sale, seemed to have plenty of perfectly fine, sort of normal devotional stuff, meditations, reflections, prompts, that kind of thing.
And all of that, from what I saw, though I didn't read the whole thing, seems to be unobjectionable and, you know, even some of it's pretty good.
The issue, though, are the Gen Z Bible translations that are at the top of each new chapter, each new day in the devotional.
And this is the part that Lifeway says was meant to be playful, but let me read a few of these to you, just to give you an idea, and you tell me what you think.
Okay.
Hebrews 4.12 originally says, For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any
double-edged sword.
It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow.
It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
The Gen Z translation, this is the way it's translated.
It says, Cap-G's words are one hundo.
Straight up slicin' and dicin' and knowin' it all.
Cap-G is God, in case you were confused.
Straight up slicing and dicing is supposed to be, I guess, something that kids say.
And admittedly, my kids are still young, but I've never heard a teenager ever use the phrase, straight up slicin' and dicin'.
That sounds like maybe something that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might have said in 1996.
I don't know.
Moving on.
Okay, this one really got a rather negative reaction online.
John 1.1, of course, one of the most famous and sacred lines in the whole of Scripture, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Here's the Gen Z translation.
Since day uno there was Cap G. Big J was chillin' with Cap G, and Big J was Cap G.
You know, call me crazy, but I think kids are capable of understanding a phrase like, in the beginning.
In fact, I think since day uno would sound as weird to them and as confusing to them as it does to us olds.
I don't know.
Psalm 119.11 originally, and by originally I mean in English, of course, if I was reading the actual original translation of any of these verses, I'd be reading in Hebrew or Greek.
But anyway, it says, I have hidden your heart in my, I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.
Gen-Z-ified, it becomes, I got your holy scripts padlocked in my chest-thumper.
Yes, chest-thumper, which sounds like what perhaps a man raised in a cave by bears might call a heart.
I'm pretty sure that kids just call it a heart, though, you know?
Ephesians 6, 17 is, take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.
And now for Gen Z, it's take that noggin guard of Savvy's and that big ol' knife of Cap G's words.
Yes, noggin guard.
Because you know kids with their slang, like noggin.
Noggin guard sounds at best like what maybe the Fonz might have called a helmet in an episode of Happy Days.
Maybe.
One more just for good measure.
Psalm 34 4 says, I sought the Lord and he answered me.
He delivered me from all my fears.
But to connect with the youth of today, it is now, I Marco Polo'd Cap G and he didn't leave me on read and snatched up all my scaries.
I have no idea what any of that means.
Okay, so you get the idea.
And as I said, Lifeway has already retreated from this.
They said it was supposed to be playful and a parody even.
Now, you can decide if it makes sense to include parody versions of Bible verses in your devotional.
And again, I feel no need to pile on, but an important lesson can be found here because even if you want to claim parody or playful or whatever, even so, this would seem to perfectly encapsulate everything Christians do wrong when trying to connect with the youth.
A real learning opportunity here.
One of the biggest mistakes, and most common mistakes, is talking down to them, to younger people.
When you assume that kids can't understand the most basic words and concepts, or that they need it repeated to them in language more appropriate for cavemen, all you're doing is insulting the people you're trying to reach.
You're also making a false assumption.
Kids, though they, as we discussed at the top of the show, are not fully developed psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually, they still have an enormous capacity to learn and grow.
That's all they do, actually.
Absorb things.
They're like sponges.
And any parent knows this.
So, what do you want them to absorb, is the question.
Banal stupidity?
Or beauty and depth and meaning?
We often deprive our children of beauty and depth and meaning, substituting it for banal stupidity on the assumption that they can't handle anything deeper than that, or they'll be bored by it.
And all that does is train them to reject the very thing we want them to embrace.
Feed stupidity to kids, and they become stupid.
Simple equation there.
Another mistake is trying to mimic what kids can already get out in the world.
See, the thing is, if kids want irreverence and slang and vulgarity and so on, they can get that anywhere.
And they'll get a much more authentic version of it anywhere else.
When you try to give it to them in a church or religious setting, it comes off as inauthentic.
And by the way, kids have a very finely tuned radar for authenticity.
Even my seven-year-olds have an impressively sophisticated ability to know when someone is being inauthentic with them.
Which is why kids laugh and roll their eyes when the youth counselor turns the hat around backwards, starts using slang, and so on.
Yet the church keeps employing these tactics, no matter how often they fail.
So, look.
It's the same thing I have to remember with my own kids.
If I want my kids to be a certain way, to have a certain characteristic, I have to demonstrate it.
I can't expect to see from them what I have not demonstrated.
For example, when I look at my kids and I'm disappointed at their lack of patience, that's when I have to, you know, have this really painful moment of self-reflection where I go, oh right, I'm not patient enough.
They don't show patience because they haven't been provided with an adequate and consistent demonstration.
It's the same thing here.
You want kids to be reverent, to appreciate beauty, to understand difficult concepts?
Then they need it demonstrated.
Like it says in Proverbs, train up a child in the way he should go, and when he's old he will not depart from it.
And I don't think we need a Gen Z version of that for the kids either.
And we'll leave it there for the week.
Hope you guys have a great weekend.
Enjoy yourselves.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show,
Michael Noll Show, and the Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
