Ep. 561 - Netflix Gets Into The Child Sexual Exploitation Business
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Netflix has officially released the “Cuties” movie about twerking 11-year-olds. Many defenders of the film in the media said that the outrage against the film was off base and that its detractors were taking things out of context. Well, now the full movie is publicly available. And it turns out, it’s even worse than we thought. Also Five Headlines including another shocking scandal that is sure to bring down Donald Trump. At least that’s what they tell me on CNN. And in our Daily Cancellation, I am sad to report that I must cancel my wife yet again.
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 Wall Show, Netflix has officially released the Cuties movie about twerking 11-year-olds.
Many defenders of the film in the media said that the outrage against the film was off-base and that its detractors were taking things out of context.
Well, now the full movie is publicly available, and it turns out it's even worse than we thought.
Also, five headlines, including another shocking scandal that is sure to bring down Donald Trump.
At least that's what they tell me on CNN.
But what's the truth behind that?
We'll get into it.
And in our daily cancellation, I am sad to report that I must cancel my wife yet again.
Hate to do it, but I think this is our seventh cancellation.
All of that on the way.
But first, you know, and this will become even more apparent in the topic we're about to jump into here, but it's really hard these days to find companies that support your values.
So, you know, we have two challenges as consumers.
Find companies that have great products and services, and then two, Find companies that check off that box, but also share our values.
Well, I'm happy to report that Charity Mobile checks both boxes, which is why I'm a Charity Mobile customer.
You should be too.
Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company.
What does that mean?
Well, it means 5% off your monthly plan price goes to pro-life, pro-family charities of your choice.
New activations and eligible accounts get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping.
So there are a lot of perks as well as, you know, supporting this cause that's so important.
There's no contracts, no termination fees, and no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
The other great thing, you've got live customer service based in the USA.
And you also have the ability to block use of cellular data, picture messages, text messages on any and all or all of your accounts, all of the lines on your account.
So you get that additional security as well.
Listen, you can help build a culture of life in America while supporting a pro-life company.
This is the ultimate sort of win-win.
You get something you need, good service, awesome product, a company that's great to do business with,
and at the same time, you're supporting the pro-life cause, which is the most central,
the most foundational cause of all.
Call Charity Mobile at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with us online at charitymobile.com.
Okay.
Here's a company that does not share our values.
Several weeks ago, Netflix began promoting a new film from French director Maimouna Dankore, probably mispronouncing that, but the movie's called Cuties, and the poster featuring scantily clad children posing suggestively caused well-deserved outrage when it first appeared.
The Sundance Film Festival, which honored the film with a directing award, provided a synopsis that didn't do much to quell the anger either.
According to Sundance, Cuties tells the story of an 11-year-old girl named Amy who, quote, through an ignited awareness of her burgeoning femininity, propels the group to enthusiastically embrace an increasingly sensual dance routine, sparking the girls' hope to twerk their way to stardom at a local dance contest.
It's perhaps worth mentioning here that Sundance was co-founded by a man who is now in prison for child sexual abuse.
I don't know, I just wanted to throw that in there.
The film's official description from Netflix was only slightly less grotesque-sounding, and they said Amy Eleven becomes fascinated with a twerking dance crew.
Hoping to join them, she starts to explore her femininity, defying her family's traditions.
Now, after the backlash, Netflix apologized, not for the film itself, but simply for the inappropriate artwork, they said.
The streaming service also changed the synopsis, getting rid of any mention of twerking, and instead calling it a free-spirited dance crew.
Netflix did not bother to explain why they used that quote-unquote inappropriate artwork in the first place to promote the film.
You know, if it doesn't actually reflect the content, and if they're not trying to attract an audience of pedophiles who wish to see pubescent girls gyrate on stage, then what was the thought process behind the way it was originally marketed?
We were never told.
The website Bustle said that the poster was simply botched.
Now I can understand botching a poster with a typo or some other error due to carelessness, but how do you botch something by accidentally turning it into softcore child porn?
That's my question.
Many other media outlets rushed to the defense of the twerking children movie.
An article by Anna Menta on The Decider scolded the film's detractors, baselessly linking the criticism to the QAnon conspiracy theory, and said that we all owe the director an apology.
Richard Broder at the New Yorker called the movie extraordinary and blasted the scurrilous campaign launched by right-wingers to criticize the movie.
The Rolling Stones' David Feer gave Cuties a positive review, saying that the outrage is all the product of a major misleading marketing mistake.
The Independent joined the chorus of defenders declaring, quote, Cuties on Netflix is too moving a film to be marred by one bad taste poster.
Many outlets such as NPR claim that the film actually criticizes and exposes the sexualization of children.
Actress Tessa Thompson said that she was gutted by the, quote, beautiful film and that the, quote, current discourse misses the fact that the movie comments on the hyper-sexualization of pre-adolescent girls.
Overall, The outrage certainly did not deter the media from hailing Cuties as an artistic triumph, as you can tell.
In fact, as we speak, it sits at 90% fresh on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes,
with critics saying other things like, it's refreshingly frank about class, religion,
and burgeoning sexuality in ways that mainstream American movies would never dare.
And also, quote, cuties certainly deserves to be seen.
For a while, the film's valiant defenders in the media in Hollywood had the advantage
of being the only people to have actually seen it.
The rest of us could but make assumptions based on the, it would seem, rather significant fact that it's a movie about 11-year-olds twerking, which Netflix had decided to market with a picture of said 11-year-olds barely clothed and striking sexual poses.
But you can't judge a movie by its child porn cover, we were told.
And then yesterday the film was finally released.
It turns out, unsurprisingly, you can.
As fuller clips from the film now circulate online, I won't play any of them here because honestly I'd worry about the FBI breaking down my door if I did.
It's clear that those of us who criticized the movie actually understated our case.
It is, if anything, way worse than we assumed and feared.
Some examples.
One scene features the 11-year-old girls gyrating and slapping each other on the butt as the camera zooms in for close-ups.
Another shows Amy in her underwear furiously thrusting her body as she lays on the floor.
Again, camera gives close-ups.
In another, the girls dance provocatively for two grown men, one of whom looks on with obvious and creepy satisfaction.
In still another, Amy pulls down her pants and takes a picture of her crotch and posts it online.
In the penultimate scene, which was featured on the original poster before Netflix changed it, that scene is significantly more disturbing than the already disturbing image led on.
The scene drags on for several minutes, the dancing is highly, highly sexualized, and the camera, as always, zooms in for crotch shots and other close-ups.
This is not a commentary on child sexual exploitation.
It is child exploitation, clear as day, in all its sadism.
And remember, the characters and the actors who play them are 11 years old.
With these horrific scenes now publicly available, it seems almost pointless to engage with the plainly absurd notion that the filmmakers had 11-year-old children writhe around and gyrate on stage while barely clothed as some kind of protest against the sexualization of children.
It would be like a slasher film featuring several scenes of various screaming victims being disemboweled Claiming in its defense that it only meant to comment on the problem of graphic violence in film.
Indeed, that actually is the defense often offered for slasher flicks, and it's as weak in that case as it is here.
The guy who made Texas Chainsaw Massacre may have told himself that he had higher intentions, but the fact remains that most people who watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre just want to see, well, a chainsaw massacre.
I suppose when it comes down to it, no filmmaker wants to come out and admit that they produced gratuitous garbage for a lowest common denominator audience, but many filmmakers do produce that sort of material for that sort of audience, whether they admit it or not.
And Cuties belongs on that ghastly heap for sure, hopefully buried underneath it somewhere deep where it cannot be seen.
Despite the pretensions of Anna Menta at the Decider and many others in media, the normalization of pedophilia is not a right-wing fairy tale or a QAnon conspiracy theory.
It is real.
It is happening.
Here's Exhibit A. Or, you know, not even Exhibit A. I mean, this is a long line of exhibits.
It's right in front of us for us to see.
Yes, do you have the normalization of pedophilia in a culture where a movie like this not just exists, okay?
It's not just that some pervert, some creep made this movie and it's out there in the hinterland somewhere, out on the fringes, and no one's seen it.
This is being promoted and supplied to us, to the American audience, by a billion dollar streaming platform.
And major media publications have come out in its defense, strenuously, to defend it.
You wouldn't have that in a culture that didn't normalize pedophilia and child sexual exploitation.
I mean, this is a country where children are sent to the library to be read stories by drag queens.
This is a country where, you know, Planned Parenthood goes into middle schools and high schools to hand out birth control.
This is a country where we've got, you know, quote-unquote sex ed in elementary schools, telling kids about masturbation and other things.
So yes, this is a real plan among the powers that be in our culture to sexualize children.
There is no doubt about it.
And this right here from Netflix.
I mean, if this is not reason, if this does not convince us all to cancel our Netflix subscriptions, if we still have them, Then I don't know what will.
There have to be real penalties for something like this.
We can't just complain about it and say how horrible this is and then go about our merry way while still paying Netflix our subscription fee.
We cannot do that.
If there was ever a reason for a boycott, this is it right here.
So let's all do that today.
Let's cancel our Netflix subscriptions.
That's the least we can do.
That's step one.
Let's get to our five headlines.
You know, if we want to be responsible and smart, then we need to protect our online
There's just no reason to be going... We all spend so much time online, probably more time than we want to admit.
I know that's the case for me.
But if you're not protecting yourself, then it just... There's no excuse for that whatsoever.
That's why you need ExpressVPN.
Did you know that your internet service provider, like Comcast or Verizon, knows every single website you visit?
And what's worse is they can sell this information to ad companies and tech giants who will use your data to target you.
And look, this is your data.
There's no reason why you have to expose yourself to that.
ExpressVPN puts a stop to this.
It creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet so that your online activity can't be seen by anyone.
I use ExpressVPN on all my devices.
It works on everything.
Phones, laptops, routers.
So everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can still be protected even if they don't have ExpressVPN.
The best part is using ExpressVPN is as easy as, you know, closing the bathroom door to give yourself privacy.
You just fire up the app, click one button, And you're protected.
It really is that simple.
ExpressVPN is the world's number one rated VPN by CNET, Wired, The Verge, countless others.
They're all in, there's a consensus that ExpressVPN is the way to go.
So if you're like me and you believe your online activity is your business, secure yourself by visiting expressvpn.com slash Walsh today.
Use my exclusive link, that's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com slash Walsh and you can get an extra three months for free That's ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
Okay.
Let me pull up our news headlines if I can find them.
Here they are.
Okay, of course, you know, the big news, I'm told, supposedly, is President Donald Trump telling Bob Woodward in March that he wants to play down the coronavirus.
This is all going to appear in Woodward's forthcoming book, Rage, about the Trump administration.
I wonder if it's going to have a positive or negative spin.
I don't know.
It's hard to tell.
You can never tell.
Who knows?
Impossible to predict.
This conversation between Trump and Woodward is on tape.
You've probably heard the tape by now, but if not, here it is again.
It goes through air, Bob.
That's always tougher than the touch.
You know, the touch, you don't have to touch things, right?
But the air, you just breathe the air.
That's how it's passed.
And so that's a very tricky one.
That's a very delicate one.
It's also more deadly than your, you know, even your strenuous flus.
You know, people don't realize we lose 25,000, 30,000 people a year here.
Who would ever think that, right?
I know.
It's pretty amazing.
And then I say, well, is that the same thing?
This is more deadly.
This is 5% versus 1% and less than 1%.
So this is deadly stuff.
Give me a moment of talking to somebody, going through this with Fauci or somebody who kind of It caused a pivot in your mind because it's clear just from what's on the public record that you went through a pivot on this to, oh my God, the gravity is almost inexplicable and unexplainable.
Well, I think, Bob, really, to be honest with you, I wanted to I wanted to always play it down.
I still like playing it down.
Yes, sir.
Because I don't want to create a panic.
Okay, there you go.
And he also said, Trump said at other times early in February, that the virus is deadly stuff and worse than the flu.
And the claim from Trump's critics is that these private statements contradict what he said publicly and show that he lied to the public.
There's a lot more in these interviews.
He did 18 interviews with Woodward.
18.
Many of them apparently recorded.
18 interviews.
Here's what I'll say about this.
First of all, he did say in those comments, just played, that he was playing it down, quote unquote, in order to prevent the public from panicking.
Now, I don't think preventing a panic is a good reason for a public official to lie.
If you're going to accept that excuse from the government for lying, then you can't ever criticize the government for lying, because that's always the excuse for lying from the government.
But, on the other hand, I don't think that Trump actually was lying, necessarily.
I think that what you heard there was more a reflection of Trump's limited vocabulary than anything else.
He said, play it down, but in the context, it seemed like he really meant to say something like, allay fears, or something like that.
That probably would have caught his meaning a little bit better, I think.
And besides, his public comments were also all over the place.
So if his private comments were all over the place and his public comments were all over the place,
there are a lot of criticisms you can make towards him about that,
but I don't think you can accuse him of deception or conspiracy or a cover-up or something like that.
It sounds like the guy was sort of flailing, which is certainly the impression he gave publicly as well as privately.
So I think all in all, this is not a huge scandal.
It's not the huge scandal the left wants it to be.
It doesn't reflect well on Trump either, but it's not a breathtaking scandal, which is of course what they are hoping for.
Now, that said, my real issue here is that Trump decided to do 18 recorded interviews with a guy who was writing an expose about him, which would come out before the election.
That is inexcusably stupid.
And it shows what I've always said, which is that Trump is not media savvy at all.
He gets credit for that.
He's a master at media manipulation.
No, he just does and says stuff randomly, and the media is so incompetent that it often works out in Trump's favor.
But a media-savvy president would not do recorded interviews 18 times with a guy who is clearly against you and wants to write a hit piece on you.
If Trump actually thought there was any chance that Bob Woodward would write a positive book about him, then that's the dumbest thing of all.
There is just no scenario where that works in your favor.
The best you can hope for.
I know that the people defending Trump are saying, oh, this isn't going to hurt him.
That's the best you can hope for.
You sit down for 18 recorded interviews with Bob Woodward.
Best possible outcome is that it's neutral.
It doesn't hurt you.
In which case, it was a waste of time.
Worst outcome is that it does hurt you.
There is no universe at all in which it helps you.
In which prattling to Bob Woodward 18 times with recordings somehow works in your favor.
It just, it's not going to.
So, there's no reason to do it.
Why did Trump do it then?
Well, because Trump is incapable of saying no to someone who wants to give him attention.
It really is that simple, and that's one of his great weaknesses, I think.
Okay, number two.
From the Daily Wire, it says, Attorney General William Barr announced Wednesday that Operation Legend, a Department of Justice program designed to supplement major city police departments with federal agents and resources amid an unprecedented national crime wave, has cut the Chicago murder rate roughly in half.
Since launch, it has reversed a surge of violence that was leaving dozens killed.
It says, looking for the actual numbers here about Chicago, the results of those actions speak for themselves.
Over the past five weeks of Operation Legend in Chicago, murders dropped by 50% over the previous five weeks.
August ultimately saw a 45% decrease in murders compared to July and a 35% decrease compared to June.
So if I'm interpreting the data here correctly, it would seem that the takeaway is that enforcing the law helps reduce crime.
Yes, when you allow criminals to commit crime without consequence, you get more crime.
When you impose a consequence, you get less crime.
There would seem to be a cause and effect relationship here, possibly.
And this is why I've been saying for a long time that all of this talk about criminal justice reform, is focused on reforming in exactly the wrong way.
There is not a crisis in our country of innocent people being sent to jail or criminals being given sentences that are too harsh.
That's not... Now, that kind of thing does happen on occasion, but that's not the systemic issue.
The systemic issue is that violent, dangerous people are filtered quickly through the system and then sent back out onto the streets.
That's the systemic problem.
The systemic issue is that many people Many of the people out in the street committing crime are known to the system to be criminals and to be dangerous, and yet they're allowed to remain free.
Great example of this, okay, just from this week as well in New York, a guy named Daniel Biggs, you can see the video here, he rode his bike past a six-year-old woman, punched her in the head, And knocked her to the ground and just kept on riding.
Now, fortunately, a bunch of firefighters saw this happen and were able to chase him down and apprehend him, which is good.
But Biggs is 53 years old, apparently.
Has 18 prior arrests for robbery, assault, and other crimes.
Now he's out randomly assaulting women who were just walking down the street.
This is a man with nothing to offer society.
Just violence and crime.
That's all he's got to offer.
That's all he's got to give.
There is just no reason to have him out on the street.
There's no reforming somebody like this.
Someone who's been a scumbag their entire life and now at the age of 53 is still out randomly assaulting people just for fun.
There's no reforming.
There's no real hope that one day this will be a productive member of society.
This is someone who you throw into a cage and you keep them there forever.
Okay, you say to that person, you're done.
You've had your chance.
You've had many chances.
You clearly don't want to behave like a human being.
You're not interested in that.
So, this is what you get.
We're going to throw you in a cage.
But what happened to Biggs though?
Well, he was charged a few days later and released on bail.
They released him.
18 arrests.
He's doing that.
They release him out on bail.
What do you think?
Is Biggs gonna show up diligently for his court appearance?
Is he gonna wear a nice suit, come to the court on the day that's assigned and, you know, face his, the consequences like a man?
No, of course not.
So, this is the way it works.
Guys like this filter through the system.
And they end up back on the street, commit more crimes.
The system is way, way, way too lenient.
Not too harsh.
And that's where the reform should be focused, so it's good that, at least on the federal level, we're starting to see some of that.
Okay.
A man named Safwan Chowdhury posted video yesterday that he says shows him and his family being kicked off a WestJet flight.
In fact, the whole flight was cancelled, as a matter of fact, because his 19-month-old child was not wearing a mask.
You can't see or hear much in the video, but I'll play it for you anyway.
Here it is.
Bulls***! Bulls***! Bulls***!
Listen to me.
We have all seen it.
This isn't going to get finished with you stuck to this chair.
You need to unload off the plane.
You goofy f***ing cunt.
Beat it!
Excuse me, what is your, what is your... Everyone has seen it.
No, no, your partner, everyone has seen it.
You know, you're a partner and everyone has to be there.
Where were you riding a bicycle at this f***ing time?
Look at these guys.
Move!
Don't be ignorant.
How do you know that you are here?
I've got witnesses.
who's been to the last GEO child on URS several times.
How do you know that you are here?
You've been wearing the mask.
I've got witnesses.
Do we all have DNA?
Let's go do all the work and do the brain.
She's on a GEO.
Look at your own ID.
Now WestJet, in defense of itself, says that, no, the problem was not the 19-month-old.
It was the three-year-old daughter was not wearing a mask.
So they cancelled the flight because of that.
Choudary disputes that claim, and so there's a he-said-he-said thing going on.
Here's how it shakes out, as far as I can tell.
Number one, expecting a baby, a 19-month-old, to wear a mask is madness and dangerous.
Babies can suffocate very easily.
You don't put any kind of fabric or anything around the face of a baby.
Period.
Any business that requires that should be sued.
Any parent who complies with that is stupid and gutless beyond words.
Absolutely you don't put a mask on a baby, you lunatics.
But what if it was just the three-year-old that was the issue?
Well, guess what?
Still stupid.
Just as stupid.
Many three-year-olds aren't gonna cooperate with having a mask on and shouldn't be required to.
And it doesn't seem very healthy to me to have a three-year-old who's panicking because they don't understand why they have to have this thing on their face restricting their breathing and now they're, you know, they're trying to breathe hard, they're panicking, they're screaming, they got the mask on.
No, I have a three-year-old myself.
He's not going to wear a mask for any long period of time.
He'll put one on for like 45 seconds, mainly just because he sees everyone else doing it.
But then it's going to come off, and I'm not going to force him to wear it.
I've said many times that as far as I'm concerned, if a business wants me to wear a mask, I will respect their property rights and comply with that, even though I don't like it.
But no, you're not going to force me to put a mask on my three-year-old.
It's just not going to happen.
But here's the thing that really gets to me about this.
Going back to that video, okay?
You heard the child crying, obviously scared, confused.
So, when you think about that, requiring little kids to put masks on, or you know, the latest now, they're gonna be canceling trick-or-treat.
I think Chicago said they're probably gonna cancel it.
Even though you're outside, the kids are already wearing masks and costumes, so there's no reason to do it, but they're gonna do it anyway.
Or any of the other millions of examples of the ways that kids have been affected by this.
What gets me is that none of this is about protecting the kids themselves.
This is not some sort of misguided but well-meaning attempt to protect children.
I personally have a lot of sympathy for misguided but well-meaning attempts to protect children.
I sympathize with that.
Because I get it.
I understand, as a father, I understand how sometimes you can go a little overboard in your zealousness to protect children.
I can certainly be guilty of that sometimes.
I mean, you should see the way that I cut up food for my three-year-old as if he's an infant.
Cut it up into these little tiny microscopic bits because I'm terrified that it'll choke.
And it's way overboard.
My wife makes fun of me, but I can't help it.
It's my greatest fear as a kid, choking.
So I go way overboard sometimes too to protect them in certain areas.
But that's not what this is about with the coronavirus.
No, this is about selfish and scared adults trying to protect themselves from the kids.
Insisting that a baby wear a mask, and I'm counting a three-year-old as a baby in this context, insisting that a baby wear a mask, no matter how scared and confused and terrified he is, or how unhealthy it is for him, in order so that you can be protected from him, is the height of cowardice and selfishness.
Even leaving aside the fact that the kid's not going to spread coronavirus to you.
This has been established many times over.
Kids are very unlikely to contract it and spread it.
But even aside from that, we're doing all of this to kids to protect ourselves.
Because we're afraid.
These aren't things we're doing for them.
It's things we're forcing them to do for us.
Which is exactly backwards.
Number four, I canceled gender reveal parties on the show earlier this week.
You may remember The Daily Show with Trevor Noah is behind the times.
They came in and canceled them too.
But frankly, I thought my cancellation was way better than this.
Watch.
But guys, this has to stop, right?
Or at least if you insist on a gender reveal, you should do something that helps the situation.
The water's pink!
It's a girl!
And aside from all the damage it can cause, celebrating a baby's genitalia is starting to feel very outdated.
Like, given everything we're learning about gender, gender-reveal parties should only happen when the child is old enough to know their actual gender and to pitch in some cash for the fire damage.
And honestly, I don't even know why we need gender-reveal parties.
You know what we do need, though?
Race-reveal parties.
Trevor Noah really has the charisma and comedic chops of, like, a pillowcase filled with wet sand.
I've never heard the guy tell a funny joke, have you?
If anyone is aware of a funny Trevor Noah moment from any point in his career, pre-Daily Show or during the Daily Show, let me know because I've never seen it and I've looked.
The thing is, there was a time long ago when The Daily Show might have done that exact same segment with the same lines and everything, and it would have been funny because the bit at the end about choosing gender would have been satirical.
It would have been a joke.
Ten years ago, that bit would have been satire, and today it is something that is delivered in earnestness and sincerity.
By the way, Trevor, You say everything we've learned about gender is... What is that exactly?
What have we learned?
What exactly have we learned scientifically proving that gender can be chosen rather than it being something you're born with?
I'd really like to know.
You said we've learned.
Okay, we've learned a lot.
Everything we've learned.
Give me like one thing we've learned that justifies what you just said.
Well, he can't.
He can't.
They never can.
All right, we're gonna get to our daily cancellation in just a second.
Before we do, You know, how much do you think your personal information is worth to cybercriminals?
Researchers have compiled an overview of the average price of stolen personal data for sale on the dark web.
While online banking logins cost an average of $35, the range of documents and account details needed to commit identity theft cost $1,285.
So the bulk of stolen information comes from large-scale data breaches.
And what that means is that you have to protect yourself when you're online.
And that's why you need LifeLock, like I have.
LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number being for sale on the dark web.
These are the kinds of things that you're, you know, you probably aren't going to the dark web, however you access that to find out if your information is on sale.
You need LifeLock for that.
You can do things like check your bank account and check your credit card balance and you should be doing that, but you need LifeLock for everything else.
If they detect your information has potentially been compromised, well, they're going to send you an alert.
And if you do have a problem, they also have identity theft restoration specialists who are going to be there, and they're going to be able to help you as well.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can find out if your information is on sale on the dark web.
Get your free dark web scan at lifelock.com slash scan.
Pick the plan that's right for you and save up to 25% off your first year with promo code Walsh.
That's a free scan at lifelock.com slash scan.
And 25% off if you use promo code WALSH.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, I'm afraid that I must cancel, once again, my wife for the seventh time, I believe.
No husband wants to cancel his wife seven times.
This is not what I wanted for us, for our marriage, for our family.
But I have been left with no choice.
And I present you now all of the damning evidence that will be needed to convict my wife in cancellation court.
Here it is, right there.
This monstrosity, this psychotic assortment of stains and splotches is allegedly a painting, a piece of artwork that my wife went out and bought, presumably either from a crack-addicted hobo or a 10-month-old child, or some combination of the two.
She brought it home years ago, and for years I've tried to explain to her that this looks like a Kmart brand Jackson Pollock, and it brings shame to our family name.
But she claims, here's what she claims.
That no, this is not in fact a canvas filled with random dribblings, but is actually a painting of a sailboat.
Two sailboats, she claims.
I ask you, do you see the sailboats?
Where are the sailboats?
Show me the sailboats in that picture.
You can't.
And so we have waged a years-long Cold War over this thing.
It has changed locations in the house multiple times.
At first it was in our living room.
So that, you know, any guest who came in could see it, and we could announce to all of our guests that we are apparently schizophrenic serial killers.
And then she moved it to our room, right above our bed.
Every night I fell asleep with it watching me.
It invaded my dreams, feasted on my soul as I slept.
And more recently, it changes rooms randomly.
I never know if it's going to be there when I come around the corner.
And she does this to torment me.
Now, you might be saying to yourself, well, Matt, you're the man of the house.
Why don't you take the thing down and just throw it away?
Why don't you take it down, drive it out to the sea and throw it in?
Let it drift away.
Let some lonely deep sea fisherman out in the Atlantic find it there floating and assume that it's a bad omen, which would cause him to drown himself on purpose.
Yes, I've thought about that.
Believe me, I would.
I would do that.
But I haven't told you the most sinister part of my wife's scheme.
She claims that the painting reminds her of the eulogy the priest gave at her grandmother's funeral.
He spoke of the afterlife and made an analogy to ships sailing over the horizon.
It's a beautiful eulogy.
And so she says this painting is meaningful to her.
So she has emotionally blackmailed me.
But this is a one-way street, I assure you.
If I were to go out and buy, like, a plastic singing trophy fish and hang it in the living room, and then say that it reminds me of my deceased grandmother, who was an eccentric taxidermist, my wife would very sweetly say, okay, honey, well, let me help you find something that we can put here to remember your grandmother by.
Just not this.
As she takes the fish down and escorts it respectfully to the garbage can.
So the thing is, I like sailboats, okay?
Sailboats are fun.
Yes, let's have a painting of sailboats.
You want a painting of sailboats in the living room?
Great, let's get a painting of sailboats.
Let's have a painting of a sailboat in every room.
Let's go live in a sailboat.
I don't care.
This is not an attack on sailboats.
My problem is precisely that those are not sailboats.
This is a Rorschach test.
And if you say that it looks like a sailboat, what that tells us is that you don't have any idea what a sailboat is.
This is, when it comes down to it really, modern abstract art, isn't it?
It is nonsense, in other words.
It is an assault on beauty and objective truth.
It does violence to the very foundations of human civilization.
It erodes the societal fabric.
I've tried to explain all of this.
It contradicts our deepest held principles as people.
It... Well, what it really means is that my wife, by buying and defending this painting, has revealed herself to be a total lib.
And libs are cancelled on this show, in perpetuity.
And so sadly today is my wife.
Very difficult moment for all of us, but a man reaches a point where he must cancel his wife on his podcast.
I believe it was Socrates who first said that.
We're going to leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
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 Knoll 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.
Hey, everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show, another bombshell in the mainstream media's air war against democracy.
This time, Bob Woodward reveals an amazing story about Donald Trump that Donald Trump announced himself about six months ago.
