Ep. 688 - How Our Culture Turns Kids Into Murderous Psychopaths
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, two teens girls in DC carjack and murder a man and it’s all caught on video. This is part of a far reaching culture trend, and it connects to the fatherless home epidemic and pop culture garbage produced by the likes of Lil Nas X and others. It’s time we look honestly at this problem. Plus, Five Headlines including Biden’s plan to require “vaccine passports,” and Dr. Fauci says that children should still wear masks when they play with each other. Also, a Tik Tok teacher speaks out against the racism of light colored Band-Aids. And in our Daily Cancellation, we will deal with what I consider to be the worst — yet most common — marriage advice.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, two teen girls in DC carjack and murder a man, and it's all caught on video.
This is part of a far-reaching cultural trend.
It's time we look honestly at the problem, or it's going to get a lot worse.
Plus, five headlines, including Biden's plan to require vaccine passports.
And Dr. Fauci says that children should still wear masks when they're, even when they're with each other, when they're playing with each other, they still have to wear masks, he says.
Also, a TikTok teacher speaks out against the racism of light-colored Band-Aids.
In our Daily Cancellation, we will deal with what I consider to be the worst, yet most common, marriage advice.
All of that and much more today on The Matt Wall Show.
He was killed this past Tuesday while delivering food for Uber Eats.
Two black teenage girls, ages 13 and 15, Attacked Anwar with a taser while carjacking him as he tried desperately to reclaim his property, which he needed.
He needed his car to do his job and provide for his family.
The girl sped away with Anwar partially hanging out of the vehicle.
They flipped the car in the escape attempt a few blocks down, sending Anwar careening several feet away.
And he died.
Cell phone video shows the victim splayed out on the ground, mangled and bleeding, while national guardsmen, who, of course, are in the city, as you've heard, pull the murderers out of the wreck.
And the primary concern for both of those girls is that their phones may have been damaged.
They're running around screaming about their phones while this man is dead.
Nobody at the scene, on the video anyway, to include the guardsmen, show any apparent concern for the dead man on the sidewalk.
This crime is part of a growing trend in D.C.
Over the weekend, two 13-year-old boys were arrested for multiple armed carjackings in the city.
A few days before that, and a few days after Anwar's death, a different pair of teenage boys, 13 and 14 this time, were also arrested and charged for an armed carjacking.
For those keeping track at home, that makes, what, six kids, all under the age of 16, arrested for violent carjackings in the same city in the same week.
The mayor of D.C., fortunately, has the situation under control.
On Sunday, she tweeted out a PSA video recommending strategies, quote, to reduce the risk of your vehicle becoming a target with an accompanying protect your auto hashtag.
Now, this, of course, is no different than a mayor responding to a string of rapes in the city by putting out a video recommending that women wear longer skirts.
Now, feminists are quick to remind us that rape is the result not of provocative fashion choices by the victims, but of evil actions by the rapist himself.
In the case of Anwar's death, the tragedy was caused not by his failure to protect his auto, which he tried to protect it, but by the behavior of two teenage girls who have managed to become murderous psychopaths before either of them is old enough to, you know, buy a ticket to a Rated R movie.
The question we're afraid to ask, but must ask, is how do kids turn into this?
How do they turn into monsters like this?
Take a couple steps further back, widen the lens, and it's clear that the trend extends beyond a carjacking epidemic in D.C.
You know, you could draw a line that connects this incident To, for example, the equally tragic case of E. Lee in Milwaukee.
A few months ago, Ms.
Lee, an Asian woman, was lounging alone in a local park when a group of black teens happened across her.
And they decided to physically and sexually assault her, apparently just for fun, before dragging her to a nearby pond and leaving her for dead.
One of the teens charged in her murder, Kamara Lewis, age 17, explained that he didn't really care if she lived or died because, quote, because, quote, he didn't know her personally.
Now, a few weeks ago in Rochester, two black teens aged 14 and 16 broke into 53-year-old Stephen Ammenheiser's house, doused him in some kind of lighter fluid, might have been gasoline, and set him on fire.
He died a few days later in the hospital, disfigured and in agony, with burns over 70% of his body.
Within a few days of that crime, a white middle-aged girl in a Virginia suburb was gunned down by a black teen.
Lucia Bremer, 13 years old, was walking through the neighborhood with a friend at 4.30 in the afternoon, in the suburbs, when she was approached by the gunman and fatally shot.
No motive has yet been given.
We're told by the family, by the way, that Lucia was supposed to help with the neighborhood Easter egg hunt this weekend.
The racial dynamics of these crimes make them politically inconvenient for the media, which is why you haven't heard very much about them.
Indeed, the crimes defy all of the usual talking points and standard explanations.
There isn't even a potential gun control angle on any of them, except the last.
One victim was burned to death, another tortured, raped, and beaten, another killed by teen girls wielding a taser in a stolen car.
These crimes cannot be pinned on racism, at least not the brand of racism that the media prefers to talk about, and they can't be used to push the kind of policies the left favors.
So our strategy then, as a culture, is to look away.
Pretend it's not happening.
I really think the image of the crowd stepping around Anwar's broken body and not even looking at him is a tragic metaphor.
Because this is the strategy that our whole society has adopted to these kinds of things.
Still, these kinds of things are happening, and frequently.
Young kids, often not yet at an age where they could obtain a learner's permit, are committing unthinkable acts of brutality against totally innocent people who pose no threat to them.
Now, whenever there's a mass shooting of random victims in a school or some other public place, we generally will turn our attention to it and we'll engage in serious conversation and debate about what can be done to stop the bloodshed.
But these smaller-scale acts of casual sadism are much more common and widespread.
They happen literally every day in our cities.
Many more people are killed.
Many more communities are terrorized.
You know, during Trump's administration, his critics were fond of responding to whatever he did or tweeted by saying, this isn't normal.
This isn't normal.
Well, I wish the same could be said of a 13 year old murdering a man for his car.
I wish I could say this isn't normal, but it is.
It's normal.
The murder rate in most major cities attest to that.
It is normal, but it shouldn't be.
Now, it's not difficult to identify some of the factors that have made these kinds of things normal.
It can be assumed, without even checking, we can assume right now, and I'm willing to say right now, my guess, without looking, is that most or all of the kids involved in the crimes that I just listed have been raised in homes without fathers.
We know that right off the bat.
This is the case for the majority of black children, especially in the city.
And it's increasingly the case for children of all races as unwed parenthood becomes more and more common.
Compounding the problem, many kids spend their days marinating in the nihilistic filth produced by half-literate sociopaths like Cardi B. The rapper Lil Nas X made waves this past week when he released a music video which shows him sliding down to hell on a stripper pole and giving a lap dance to Satan.
The video was accompanied by the release of his new, quote, Satan Shoes, which feature a pentagram and actual human blood in the shoe.
Lil Nas X, who cultivated a large fan base of children with his first hit, Old Country Road, or rather Old Town Road, I think it was called, which itself was vapid, brain-numbing garbage, and I said as much, if you may remember, on this show when that song was popular.
But he had a lot of children fans because of that dumb, awful song.
And now he's trying desperately to shock us with a shtick that really wasn't even all that shocking when Marilyn Manson did it 25 years ago.
Now the only difference is that Marilyn Manson never pretended to be an artist for kids.
This guy, this dirtbag did.
So he had a whole lot of kids subscribing to his YouTube channel, And then, without warning, he drops the video of him giving a lap dance to Satan.
Bunch of nine-year-olds watched that this weekend without their parents knowing.
Still, the content itself only fails to shock us because we're so accustomed to living in a culture where putrid, toxic sludge is pumped out of Hollywood and the music industry and directly into our children's minds.
This is the situation that many millions of kids find themselves in.
They have no moral guidance at home.
They consume a media diet of non-stop perversity and degeneracy.
They live lives that are 90% online, conditioned to see other humans as disembodied avatars on a screen.
There's no beauty in their lives.
No truth, no goodness, no joy, no love.
That's another prediction I can make about all those kids we talked about earlier.
How can we be surprised?
When they only, when they turn into killers and criminals, what else would they become?
What else would you expect?
It's only going to get worse from here.
Unless we set about to make massive, massive cultural changes.
But to do that would require us to confront the problem, honestly, from the start.
That's the first step.
And we don't have the courage to take it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, it's so great to have a company out there that is on our side in the culture.
A company that has morals, because there are so few of them, and when you find one, you gotta hold on to it for dear life, and certainly support a company like that.
And it's easy to do with Charity Mobile, because Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company.
5% of your monthly plan price goes to pro-life, pro-family charities of your choice.
And this is really important, because the right to life is the key that unlocks all other rights.
The foundational right.
If you don't have the right to life, you don't have the right to anything else.
Now through April 16th, new activations get a free cell phone after instant credit, plus free activation, free shipping, and a free ProLife keychain.
That's why I said it's easy to support this company, because not only is it a great cause, but it's a great service on top of it.
So it's a win-win-win situation.
No contracts, no termination fees, no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
Well, that means you've got nothing to lose when you support this company.
When you try them out, you're not going to lose anything.
They're not going to hook you into a contract or anything like that.
You try out the service and you're going to love it.
Trust me.
And all the while, you're helping to build a culture of life in America while supporting a pro-life phone company.
So throw out whatever your company is now.
Throw them out and go with Charity Mobile.
You won't regret it.
Call Charity Mobile at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
Call today and get a free trial of Call Charity Mobile at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
Call today and get a free trial of Call Charity Mobile at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
This past weekend on Friday, we were at a distillery in Midtown, which is a great place.
I'm not a big cocktail guy, but they got good cocktails cocktails there.
So quick recommendation if you're ever in Nashville.
Anyway, we're sitting there waiting for our table and the woman comes up.
She's a fan.
And she says to me, you know, I love your podcast.
And she says, I know you hate people, but I just wanted to tell you that I love your podcast.
And everyone else at the table thought that was hilarious, and they started laughing hysterically.
And then I responded, you know, and I said, I said, no, I don't hate people, I just really dislike them.
Which, of course, at that point, my wife, and she always does this, because she's like my translator, is why I need her in social situations, because she, of course, stepped in and said, he's joking, he's joking, which is what she always says when I do that kind of thing in public.
But I thought about and I realized that that's probably 85% of the time when someone approaches me in public, they begin with, with that.
That's almost always, I didn't laugh because that's what I expect.
That was, that's like the opening line for almost everyone.
I know you hate me or hate people.
I know you don't like people, but, and then they, cause like they have to open with an apology for talking to me and then they continue.
And I thought maybe I'm coming off a little too harsh.
If everyone feels the need to say that.
And I had a moment of self-reflection.
And then I said, no, probably not, it's fine, and continued about my day.
And it is kind of nice, though, because mostly what people will do if I see them in public is they'll just kind of give the head nod, which I kind of prefer.
Even if I know you or don't know you, that's my move anyway, even for people that I know.
If I see them, just a quick head nod, like acknowledgment, and then we all, we just keep moving.
All right.
Number one, from the Daily Wire, the Biden administration is reportedly working on developing coronavirus vaccine passports that would allow Americans to prove that they've been vaccinated since some businesses have indicated that they will require proof of vaccination for people to enter the businesses.
Washington Post reported, quote, The administration's initiative has been driven largely by arms of the Department of Health and Human Services, including an office devoted to health information technology.
The White House this month took on a bigger role coordinating government agencies involved in the work.
The report said that a digital version of Vaccine Passport would be available through smartphone apps and could display a scannable code similar to an airline boarding pass.
Well, no big deal there.
You just, you need the equivalent of a boarding pass That's where we're heading as a society.
You need the equivalent of a boarding pass to walk into a restaurant, really go into a store.
The vaccine passports are expected to face significant hurdles, quote-unquote, surrounding data privacy and making sure that the passports cannot be counterfeited.
Well, I would hope that they would face hurdles beyond those.
The Post added, quote, one of the most significant hurdles facing federal officials, the sheer number of passport initiatives underway, with the Biden administration this month identifying at least 17.
Those initiatives, such as a World Health Organization-led global effort and a digital pass devised by IBM that's being tested in New York State, are rapidly moving forward, even as the White House deliberates about how best to track the shots and avoid the perception of government mandates, of a government mandate to be vaccinated.
And that's, I said that months ago, I believe I did.
Or if I didn't say it, I thought it and should have said it.
That people are worried about a mandate.
People have been worried that the government's going to say, you have to get this shot.
If you don't get it, you're going to be fined or have to go to jail or something.
No, they're not going to mandate it.
They're going to do an end run around the mandate by simply making it so that You can't do anything, you can't live your life unless you get the vaccine.
But then that always allows them, because there are a lot of civil liberty problems with a national, federal vaccine mandate.
So they're going to get around that by making it so that you can't do anything, and then they can always say, what do you mean there's not a mandate?
We're not forcing you to get the vaccine.
Sure, you can't leave your house or do anything if you don't get it, but you're still free not to get it.
That's all they can get around it.
But the real irony here is that we get this news right on the heels of renewed panic over voter ID laws.
We had the law that passed in Georgia, which for the most part, really basic, minimal level, kind of putting a few Systems in place to make sure that people who are voting are, you know, legitimate residents of the state and so on.
Really basic stuff.
But even that, we're told, is to require someone to do something really simple like have a photo ID when they go vote.
Simply to prove that they are who they say they are and that they are a resident of the state in which they are voting.
We're told that that is racist somehow.
And it is a burden, an undue burden.
To have to produce an ID.
I mean, think about how often you vote.
At most, once every two years.
We're talking presidential elections, once every four years.
So it is a cruel, undue burden to tell someone that, look, if you want to vote in 2024 in the presidential election, you've got four years to figure out how to get some kind of photo ID.
Lysit, anything, just some kind of photo ID.
You have four years to do it.
That's a problem.
But requiring a vaccine passport every day to potentially do anything, to participate in society, forget about participating in the quote democratic process, to participate in society generally, that's fine.
There's no problem there.
Of course, yet another double standard of many.
OK, number two.
I have to play this from CNN.
Our friend Brian Stelter.
Speaking of irony, there are so many levels of irony here that I think it's worth playing.
And here it is.
Let's watch.
You may have noticed something about the former president.
I don't know what it is.
Either it's an unwillingness or an inability to leave the spotlight.
But it's been on full display this week.
Actually, five times.
President Trump making appearances on Fox News, Newsmax, and on a Fox Personalities podcast.
Here it is.
We just wanted to summarize it all in one soundbite.
So here it is.
Here's a summary of what Trump said about the Biden administration.
They're destroying our country.
They're destroying our country, Lisa.
They're destroying our country, Lisa.
Right?
It's like he was singing a song, but really off-key.
He's saying the same thing on every show, and he was back on Fox last night visiting with Janine Pirro.
Now, let's contrast Trump with the last one-term president, the last guy who was defeated after a single term.
That is, George H.W.
Bush.
You want to see what Bush was doing after losing re-election?
This is what he was doing.
Oh, looks great, doesn't it?
Looks so relaxing.
Bush told his successor, Bill Clinton, quote, you're not going to have any trouble from me.
And he kept his word.
Now, Trump is the anti-Bush, of course, but to borrow a phishing metaphor here, is the media taking his bait?
Does this feel like 2015 all over again, with outrageous statements stoking days of news coverage?
Is the media, am I taking his bait right now?
Am I currently doing the thing that I'm criticizing?
What do you think, guys?
Yeah, I'd say so.
So we got two things there.
Number one, yet again, this thing the media does now where they are romanticizing, first it was George W. Bush and now George H.W.
Bush, romanticizing the Bushes.
I mean, for years we were told that these are war criminals and scumbags and horrible people, but now, remember the Bushes?
Those were good people.
You know, why can we get a Republican like that again?
Like the people I accused of war crimes.
But also, what's funny is that those, whatever it was, four or five media hits that Donald Trump apparently did?
I didn't even know about any of those until I watched that clip from Brian Stelter.
I might have heard of one of them.
And I'm in conservative media.
So, Stelter saying that Trump can't get off the stage, well, you're putting him on the stage.
Donald Trump doing an interview on Fox News, that's not really being—that's one thing.
He was accessing the conservative audience.
No big surprise there.
But you're the one putting him on the larger stage by giving his message access to an audience that wouldn't hear it on Fox.
So no, it's not that Stelter and CNN, it's not that they're worried that Trump won't get off the stage, it's that they desperately need him to be on the stage.
And they're gonna drag him onto the stage if he does step off of it.
Because they need him.
He's the only thing they know how to talk about.
They've been conditioned that way for the past five years.
That's all they've got.
And yeah, they've kind of moved on to... On CNN, it seems like 80% of their programming now is complaining about Tucker Carlson.
So, they've replaced Trump a little bit with someone else.
But they still, they can't quit Trump.
They just can't quit him.
They need him.
Brian Stelter, most of all.
All right, number three, Dr. Fauci was on Face the Nation.
And the question to him was about specifically kids and masking and what we should be requiring our kids to do.
Here's what Dr. Fauci said.
So if parents are vaccinated, they still do need to be concerned about their unvaccinated children playing together in groups.
Is that right?
Yeah, the children can clearly wind up getting infected.
When we talk about what you can do when you're vaccinated, you can certainly have members of a family, if the adults are vaccinated, and you're in the home with your child, you don't need to wear a mask and you can have physical contact.
When the children go out into the community, you want them to continue to wear masks when they're interacting with groups from multiple households.
Oh, that's good.
Well, don't complain.
He did give you permission to have physical interaction with your own child.
So he said that.
If your kid's at home... If the kid's at home, Fauci will allow you to have interaction with them, and they don't even have to wear masks.
That's very generous of Fauci, isn't it?
That he's giving you that permission in your own home?
People are still listening to this guy.
People are still hanging even a year into this.
When he's changed his mind on a million things.
Says a different thing every day.
People are still hanging on to his every word.
Letting him guide their day-to-day life.
He was never qualified for that to begin with.
Even if he was the greatest guy in the world, and the most honest guy in the world, which I don't believe he is.
But he's an immunologist.
That's where he, if he has any expertise, that's where it would be.
In terms of advice on how to live your life generally, balancing all these different things, balancing the risk of a virus versus the risk of locking a kid in their home for a year, taking away the friends, education, everything, he has nothing to say on that whatsoever.
He's not an expert on that, never was.
There's absolutely no reason to listen to him on that.
The only thing he can allegedly tell us is what sort of activity is more likely to spread virus and what sort of activity isn't.
But how do you balance that in the grand scheme?
He was never an expert on that.
Should have never pretended to be.
He should have been clear about that from the beginning.
If he was really an honest guy, he would have been.
He would have said, listen, this is what I do.
I can tell you about the virus, but in terms of how you live your life and what you do with your kids and whether they go to school and all that stuff.
Whether they see their friends, what they wear when they see their friends, I can't tell you about that.
Those are decisions you have to make on your own.
An honest and humble man, that's what such a man would have said.
But of course, he's not that kind of man.
If you need to take your kid into a store or something, or you need to get on a plane, Like, you really need to and you have to get them on the plane, too, because you've got to go somewhere.
And you put your kid in the mask because you have to.
Like, I get that part of it.
If it's absolutely necessary.
Now, the plane part, like, they're going to kick you off the plane.
Two and over.
So, if you have a two and a half year old, they're going to tell you that the two and a half year old has to be in a mask.
So for me, we're not getting on a plane until that madness stops.
And if it never stops, we're never getting on a plane as a family again.
Because I'm not doing that.
We have a kid who's almost two.
She's not gonna be in a mask.
But if you have to be in a certain situation, and the rule is that you gotta put the kid in a mask, then I understand that you gotta do what you gotta do.
But if you're still choosing, in a voluntary situation, to put your kid in a mask, I don't know what to say to you.
Like you're getting together for a playdate or something at a playground, And you've got your little four and five-year-olds in masks.
No one is forcing you to, but you do it.
And I've seen this kind of thing at playgrounds.
You're a lunatic, is what you are.
And you're harming your child.
You're doing psychological damage to your child because of your own fear and paranoia.
To make yourself feel better.
This is not for your kid.
Be clear about that.
You're doing this for you, and you're hurting your kid.
Knock it off.
You maniac.
All right, number four, here's an article from Fox5NY about a new survey on internet usage.
None of this is terribly shocking, but I still think we should look at these numbers.
We see these surveys, they come out every once in a while, just so we can see how bad it is.
So, the survey says, researchers found 31% of respondents in the survey admit to constant internet use.
Another constant as in basically never stopping throughout the day.
Almost every waking moment they're online.
Another 48% said they log in several times a day and just 6% said they limit their online activity to about once
a day.
Since 2015, near constant internet usage among people ages 30 to 49 has risen
by 14 points, and for people between 50 and 64, it's grown from 12% to 22%.
Researchers have noticed the percentages of near constant users between 18 and 29 years old has remained 48% since 2019.
And people older than 65 are stagnant at 8%.
Well, that's half.
18 to 29.
And again, constant is exactly what it sounds like all the time.
When I read these surveys, I can't really judge because I'm very close to the constant category.
Though I always have the excuse that it is actually my job.
And I do get paid for it.
But even so... This is the kind of thing we talked about at the beginning.
This is absolutely one of the factors when we talk about what's turning kids into violent sociopaths.
Why is this happening?
This is one of them.
Yeah, it's lack of parental guidance at home.
It's the pop culture.
All these are factors that go into it.
And a big part of that is when you got kids, and this is how a lot of kids are raised now, and it's going to get worse if they don't have parental guidance.
They don't have a dad in the home.
They don't have a mom that's very present.
Maybe the mom's on drugs or something, which is often the case.
Like no guidance at all.
And so all they have is their phone.
They've got the Internet.
And that's what they do all day.
And think about that from it can be hard for us, those of us who at least had a little bit of a childhood before the Internet took over.
For me, there's a very distinct moment.
I think it was about, maybe about the age of like 13, 14.
When the internet, it seemed, looking back on it, it seems almost like an all-at-once thing.
Or before that, the internet existed, and I can remember being nine years old, and I had a friend down the street who had the internet.
I think it had AOL 1.0, and I didn't really understand what it was exactly, and I used it once, and I wasn't that interested.
And then a few years later, it took over, and everybody had the internet.
So people in my generation, we had a childhood where this kind of stuff basically didn't exist, or it certainly wasn't ubiquitous.
But kids now don't have that.
They never had a childhood without it.
So what do you think is gonna happen to a kid?
Every second of the day, this is what they're doing.
Of course it's gonna have a desensitizing effect.
When you're conditioned to interact with people like, in this way, not really interacting with them as human beings, but as images on a screen, it all plays a part.
And it all contributes to it.
And that's why I say massive cultural changes.
Part of that, part of that massive change is a move away from this.
Trying to raise kids in a way that allows them to have an authentic human childhood.
That involves things like going outside, running around the woods, going out and playing dodgeball or something.
It's all part of it.
Number five.
This has become the standard, the traditional time, I guess, for me to play crazy TikTok videos.
And I know I know you people like it.
Don't don't claim that you don't.
This is for your own good.
And here's today's installment.
Let's take a look.
White privilege.
Think about it.
Whose flesh tone is this?
I have brown Band-Aids in my classroom.
I had to special order them.
They're twice as much as these, and they're hard to find, and they're frequently out of stock.
But when I hand a brown child a white Band-Aid, I am literally adding insult to injury, and I refuse to do that in my classroom.
She's a hero.
Speaking out against the scourge of light-colored Band-Aids.
Now, if we really have to engage in this conversation, which I guess we don't, but I'm choosing to, I'm choosing to waste my own time, and yours.
You're welcome.
The first thing is that there is, of course, a logical explanation for why there would be more Band-Aids in that color than in the darker colors.
Because that skin color is more common, and so there are going to be more of them out there in the marketplace.
It really makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
But also, in my experience with... First of all, kids love Band-Aids.
I don't quite understand it.
Even though I was a kid once and I can remember having a band-aid fixation myself, I still can't figure out quite what it is.
Kids love band-aids.
They're always trying to invent reasons why they need a band-aid.
When you're a parent, you constantly have kids coming up to you, I got a cut, where's your cut?
Let me see.
And they show you, it's on their finger and you look at it.
Nope, I see nothing there.
They insist that there's a cut, so you put the Band-Aid on, and magically it makes everything better.
But kids love Band-Aid, and what they prefer, in my experience, are Band-Aids that don't match their skin color.
They want bright colored Band-Aids, they want a Batman Band-Aid, they want a Scooby-Doo Band-Aid.
What message does she think is sent when you give a kid a Scooby-Doo Band-Aid?
Are you making them feel... How does she think that works?
I don't know.
But you know, you know, you know, you're getting desperate.
You know, the white privilege narrative is falling apart when you have to look to the colors of band-aids to prove your point when you're reduced to that.
I think that tells you that white privilege, really not much of a problem in this country.
Let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from Kyle Stewart.
He says, birds are not neat pets.
They're filthy.
It's almost like owning ferrets.
People can tell that you own ferrets just by jogging past your house.
The smell is unmistakable.
Yeah, that is true.
That's just birds.
If someone had recommended last week, I guess, a bird as a pet, if I don't like cats and dogs.
But yeah, birds seem like they smell even worse, and they're noisier, like we covered, and on top of it, they're even more useless than a cat or a dog.
Like, a bird's not gonna do anything for you at all.
A cat could at least kill a mouse, maybe.
A dog could bring you the slippers, maybe.
He's gonna chew them up and slobber on them too, but he can try.
What's a bird gonna do for you?
Let's see, AV reacting to the video of the woman screaming at people who don't wear masks and claiming that workers in hospitals are exhausted.
AV says, that lady is nuts.
I work in hospitals.
We aren't exhausted, maybe tired, but that's because we work 10 to 12 hour shifts to begin with.
If anything, we have less people to take care of.
I've, I've, I've heard that a lot all along for the past year.
I've, I've heard that from many hospital workers.
Rachel says, Matt, I think you're wrong about the age limit policy.
Even at 90 years old, Thomas Sowell arguably has one of the sharpest, soundest minds I've ever heard.
Instead, we need to have campaigns that can't hide candidates in a basement.
And the media can't run cover to achieve their agenda policies.
Yeah, I got a lot of comments, and we talked about an age limit for the presidency, and I think it should be 75 to run.
You know, that's the oldest you could be, and I think that's pretty generic, because that gives you 40 years, right?
35 to 75.
You have 40 years to run for president.
Don't do it in that time.
Then go retire and sit on your porch with a rocking chair, in the rocking chair with your grandkids.
Sounds like a great plan.
Much better way, by the way, to spend your final years than as president.
And a much more respectable way, too, in my view.
And I got a lot of these kinds of messages and comments from people, you know, saying, well, no, we don't need an age limit because here's this random older person who's doing really well at the age of 90.
Whether it's a prominent person or, you know, oftentimes I'll hear, oh, my grandmother.
You say that, but you don't know my grandmother.
She was sharp as a tag until she died at 93.
I get it.
But first of all, even if you're saying that a 90-year-old Is sharp as a tack?
What you mean is for a 90 year old, but there's still the reality of being 90 and you're going to have a lot of physical decline, a lot, and even mental decline.
Your mind is not going to be as sharp and spry and aware and able to process things as it was at 50.
It's just a simple fact that there's no way around it.
We are mortal creatures.
You can't get around it.
So that's what you mean, that's the qualifier.
You mean all of that 490, he's doing pretty good, which is great.
But still.
And also, these are the exceptions.
Right, but when you're setting a general rule or policy, you can't do it based on the exceptions.
Again, 35 is the lower limit, right?
And there are some 31-year-olds out there who maybe would make fine presidents.
Not a lot of them, but they probably exist.
You'd probably find a 31-year-old who would make a good president, but they're the exception.
And so we have the limit at 35, and no one complains about that.
So an 82-year-old who could handle being president, handle it physically and mentally, and not lose their mind in the process or die in the process, they are a rare exception.
And when you're making policies, you can't make a policy based on rare exceptions.
And finally, Nicholas says, hey, Matt, talking about my idea for competency test for voting, says, hey, Matt, say your competency test is put into effect.
If a 12-year-old aces the test, would you allow that child to vote?
That wouldn't be ideal to me, but that is a deal that I would make.
That's a compromise that I would be willing.
If we could talk about this, and if we came to that compromise, I would be fine with that.
It's not my ideal.
Because I think that there should be, on top of a competency test for voting, there should be other requirements too.
And another requirement is I think we should actually raise the voting age, probably to 25, and then put other requirements in place as well.
But if we could only do one thing, then I'd say fine.
You know what?
Let's have the really basic competency test for voting, and all that's going to establish is that you have, like, even a third-grader's level of knowledge when it comes to civics and government and all of that, and politics.
And I'd be fine with that.
So let's just say anyone who could pass that test can vote.
And so if you're 56 and you can't pass it, you don't vote.
If you're 7 and you can pass it, then you can vote.
I would take that deal.
Now a quick word from Rock Auto.
You know, it's springtime, the weather's getting nice.
Well, it wasn't so nice in Nashville here this past weekend.
We got like 50 feet of rain, I think was the last check.
But normally, weather's nice.
And what that means is that you want to get out of the house and, you know,
just be doing anything other than sitting or standing around an auto parts store.
Why waste your time doing that?
RockAuto.com makes it a lot easier when you have access to RockAuto.com at your desk, in your pocket.
You go to RockAuto.com, find everything you're looking for.
RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts or even twice as much for a worse selection?
You might not even find the same parts that you can find on RockAuto.com.
RockAuto.com is a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The RockAuto.com catalog is really easy to navigate and you can very quickly find everything you're looking for.
And again, it's going to be the cheapest.
It's going to be the best price you're going to find anywhere.
So go to RockAuto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck and write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us box?
So they know that we sent you.
You know, as you've probably heard, Candace joined The Daily Wire a few weeks ago with the premiere of her new talk show, Candace.
You may have heard us mention that a time or two.
The show streams Friday at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, and offers a stimulating perspective on politics, culture, and America at large.
Candice hosts a series of guests on the show each week, making for lively panel discussions and insightful interviews.
Featured guests have included Jocko Willink, Brandon Tatum, John Rich, just to name a few.
And, you know, I think probably the headline here is that I'm going to be a guest on Candice.
Pretty soon.
So, you know, that should be in this copy.
I don't know why it isn't.
Candice is the first Daily Wire show to appear in front of a live audience.
But don't worry, if you can't attend the show in person, tweet your questions to at the Candice show for a chance to have Candice answer your question at the end of the night and make sure to become a Daily Wire member.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code Candice to get 25% off.
That's code Candice for 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For the Daily Cancellation, we're going to step away from matters of politics and ideology so that I can put my relationship expert hat on.
I have to actually mind putting a hat on so you understand.
I'm not really a relationship expert, but then I don't think it's really possible for anyone to be that kind of expert, so I have as much claim to the title as anybody else.
So today, I want to deal with and cancel, of course, what I believe is perhaps the worst marriage advice you will ever hear.
And precisely what makes it the worst is that you will hear it, and you have heard it, a million times already.
It's very commonly believed and commonly said, even by people whose own personal experience contradicts the advice they're dispensing.
The advice I refer to is this.
Never go to bed angry.
Never go to bed angry.
Like I said, you've heard it a million times, right?
What breaks it up right now is a new study, Making the Rounds Online, which purports to lend scientific credibility to this awful piece of faux wisdom.
Here's the article from Psychology Today.
It says, "When people resolve interpersonal arguments before winding down their day and going to bed,
it can break the vicious cycle of festering negative emotions
perpetuating chronic stress."
Along this line, new research from Oregon State University suggests that the daily habit of resolving an argument before day's end can curb the emotional toll of everyday stress triggered by interpersonal conflicts in ways that might have lifelong benefits.
Over time, the OSU researchers speculate that getting in the habit of resolving arguments by day's end may reduce chronic stress and promote living a longer, healthier life.
Everyone experiences stress in their daily lives.
You aren't going to stop stressful things from happening, the senior author of the study noted, but the extent to which you can tie them off, bring them to an end, and resolve them is definitely going to pay dividends in terms of your well-being.
Resolving your arguments is quite important for maintaining well-being in daily life.
In other words, don't go to bed angry.
And this is not the first study that has claimed to confirm this age-old advice.
Another one was done in 2016, and there, according to The Guardian, The lead researcher also concludes, quote, we would suggest to first resolve arguments before going to bed.
Don't sleep on your anger.
This is all fantastically wrong.
In fact, the best thing you can do with your anger in a marriage is sleep on it.
This is the practical reality most of the time, no matter what the studies say.
Now, it's true that if you can simply snap your fingers and make yourself not angry and your spouse not angry before putting your head on the pillow, that would be ideal.
And if you can snap your fingers and forgive, and snap your fingers and make your spouse forgive, again, that would be best.
But experience suggests that you can't always curtail your emotions with a snap of your fingers, and you certainly can't curtail your spouse's emotions by snapping your fingers.
Trust me, I've tried.
Hey, stop being angry.
Snap out of it.
Often this will have the opposite of the effect that you intend.
I have found.
What this means is that when you're actually in this situation, you're in the thick of it, you're in an argument with your spouse, the clock is ticked past 9pm, you're both angry, you're both frustrated, you have two choices.
Assuming the snapping fingers trick didn't work.
You can either Keep hammering it out until the wee hours of the morning, going around and around in circles, refusing to go to sleep or allow your spouse to sleep until you feel that the issue has been resolved.
Or you can simply go to bed and let your emotions settle and see how you feel in the morning.
If you choose the latter course, what will almost certainly happen is that when you wake up in the morning, you will realize that you were overreacting and you'll be grateful that you went to bed rather than saying all of the things you wanted to say in the moment.
If you choose the former course, that is, you decide to take all this bad advice and stay awake until you reach resolution, what will almost certainly happen is that the fight will escalate into the night, as you both get more tired and more annoyed, until finally it ends, not so much on a resolution, but just on a note of sheer exhaustion.
Then you'll still have to go to bed, like you could have done four hours ago, and you wake up in the morning way more tired, perhaps still annoyed because you're tired, and rather than thanking God that you didn't say all that you wanted to say, instead wishing to God that you hadn't said all that you did say.
I don't care what the study results say or what Facebook meme cliches say, this is how it works in real life.
See, in a marriage, there are, like, fight levels, almost like a video game, okay?
Level one is the standard, brief, snippy little exchange that you might have with each other over some extremely unimportant thing.
Maybe you're looking for the lost TV remote, and you're both accusing the other of being the last one to have it, even though it was always one of the kids that lost it.
Maybe someone left the milk out on the counter.
Maybe, and this is a totally random example, maybe your wife keeps putting the pancake syrup in the fridge when it clearly belongs in the pantry, and you exchange words over that.
Like I said, random example.
The thing about a level one is that it's stupid.
And all you have to do in order to resolve it is realize how stupid it is and move on.
Or better yet, laugh at yourselves.
That's the best way to end an argument, really, is by laughing.
And it can be done.
All you have to realize is how dumb this is.
But then the fights work their way up, right?
In gradations.
Until you get to level six, which is a fight where one or both of you are threatening divorce.
Now it is possible, and very much advised, to try to go your whole marriage without ever having a level six.
I mean, we've made it ten years and counting without a level six.
So that's what I would advise there.
Somewhere in between level one and level six, around levels three and four, that's where you start making statements that begin with phrases like, you always, and oh yeah, well you remember that time three Christmases ago when you, this is when you're dredging up old offenses, you're reopening old wounds, Taking one offense the other has committed and claiming that it's a chronic problem.
They always do it.
Giving specific examples of other times when they've done it, showing that you've been holding a silent grudge all this time.
This is the danger zone.
It's where you go from irritated to deeply angry.
It's where the shouting starts.
So here's my point.
The longer you drag an argument out, especially at night, especially when you're tired after a long day of work or a long day dealing with the kids, The more likely it is that you will work your way up through these levels.
So don't worry about resolving your level 2 dispute at 1030.
The best resolution is simply to stop talking and go to bed.
Trying to resolve it only means that you'll be at a level 3 before you know it, and who knows where it goes from there.
I'm not saying that you should avoid confrontation at all costs in a marriage.
I'm not saying that, you know, there's never a time when you really need to hash something out.
But the idea, the very popular idea, that every conflict, every argument, must reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion before either of you can go to bed is lunacy.
It's a recipe for sleep deprivation and lots of arguments that get a hell of a lot more emotional and intense than they ever needed to be.
I mean, if you want a level one milk-on-the-counter dispute to have a chance at becoming a level six, I'm-moving-out-and-taking-the-kids-with-me situation, then the best way to make that happen is to keep the argument going well into the night.
Angry and tired is a brutal combination.
It's a recipe that can cook up all kinds of dishes that you'll regret eating in the morning.
Trust me.
One other note.
You'll often hear that, uh, that, uh, don't go to bed angry is biblical.
Supposedly, this horrifically misguided, stupid advice can be found in scripture.
Thankfully, that's not really the case.
The verse that people usually cite is Ephesians 4, 26.
And I've even heard, you know, pastors use this in sermons and, and, and with this exact advice.
And, um, and what, but what that verse says is in your anger, do not sin.
Do not let the sun go down on your anger.
Now, if you want to take that in the most literal possible way, then you must take it to mean that you should resolve every argument not before bed, but resolve it before sundown.
And this might be a real problem, because if one or both of you was at work, you might not see each other until 30 minutes before sundown, so you better get to arguing right away before the witching hour.
Maybe you could do it over dinner in front of the kids.
That's always a good idea.
Or you can interpret that verse to be a warning against sinful, wrathful anger, and an admonition that we should not stew in that kind of anger, no matter if it's dark outside or not.
Because the other part of that verse is like, well, if I'm angry at 8 a.m., that means I've got all day to be angry, and I'm good to go as long as it's before sundown.
And, you know, you don't stew in the anger.
That's the point.
That's true.
But by no means does it entail that you have to finish every argument before bedtime.
In fact, in the Psalms, we're told that when we're angry, we should, quote, reflect in our hearts while on our beds and be silent.
There you go.
Reflect and be silent is a much, much better thing to do when you're angry in a marriage.
There's really no downside.
Because you can always say what you wanted to say at another time if you still feel that it needs to be said.
You can always live to fight another day, but you can't always take back the things you do say.
You can't always undo what you said when you were angry and tired and insisting that you both stay awake.
So, for all of those reasons, this piece of marriage advice is most definitely cancelled.
And frankly, if you follow the advice too much, your marriage might be cancelled too, eventually.
So, we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, 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 Knowles Show, 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 director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
A Democrat operative tries to stop Ted Cruz from exposing the crisis at the border.
