Ep. 824 - A Generation Descends Into Mass Psychosis
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an entire generation of kids appear to be suffering from a kind of mass psychosis. This seems like a problem that deserves more attention than it’s getting. Also, megalomaniac Joe Biden brags that he has “restored the soul of our nation.” Merrick Garland is asked why he sent the FBI after parents at school board meetings, and his reason is less than sufficient. And how many undercover feds were at the January 6th riot? Were they the ones who encouraged the crowd to enter the Capital? The evidence is piling up. Plus, a 100 year old Robert E Lee statue will be melted down and turned into a new piece of art to celebrate diversity.
Daily Wire just signed ousted ESPN sportscaster who resisted Disney’s vaccine mandate for a new sports series. Take back your content from the Hollywood elites - get 25% off a Daily Wire membership with code DONOTCOMPLY: https://utm.io/udJyw
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
An entire generation of kids appear to be suffering from a kind of mass psychosis.
This seems like a problem that deserves more attention than it's getting.
Also, megalomaniac Joe Biden brags that he's restored the soul of our nation.
And Merrick Garland is asked why he sent the FBI after parents and school board meetings and his reason is less than sufficient.
And how many undercover feds were at the January 6th riots?
Were they the ones who encouraged the crowd to enter the Capitol?
The evidence is piling up.
up we'll discuss all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know just because people are loud and obnoxious it doesn't mean that they're right.
In fact, oftentimes it works the other way around.
That's certainly the case for quote-unquote pro-choicers, who are very loud, very relentless in all of their talking points, but they're also very wrong.
But sometimes, because there are so many talking points and so many arguments they throw at you, it can be hard to parse through all of it and sift through it.
And figure out what to say and when to say it.
And that's one of the reasons why I wrote the foreword to the new book from 40 Days for Life, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
Since its release, it's already been a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller.
And it's on its second printing because people are finding that this book is very helpful to them.
I know that that's how it was for me.
The book is incredibly easy to use.
It tells you what to say, what not to say, and the proven arguments that have worked for everybody, people on the fence, abortion supporters, even Planned Parenthood workers.
40 Days for Life is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in the world.
They're an authority on this and you can trust them.
And that's why you gotta go to Amazon and get What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion, or you can go directly to 40 Days for Life at 40daysforlife.com.
There's been a lot of talk about pronouns this week, first with the ACLU valiantly defending the Loudoun County School System's right to force teachers to use the preferred pronouns of students, and then with the State Department urging us all to join in celebrating International Pronouns Day.
As I said yesterday, it seems that it's finally becoming apparent to most people on the right that this pronoun issue is not the sideshow that many once thought it was.
I mean, it is, for one thing, an attack on our fundamental human liberties.
The worst kind of attack, in fact.
The problem with the pronoun policy in Loudoun County, and with similar policies that are being adopted, and will soon be adopted in other localities around the country, it's not simply that speech is being compelled, but specifically that false speech is being compelled.
I mean, you can only have freedom, real freedom, in truth.
Which is why any attack on real freedom is also an attack on truth.
These are the implications.
And I think, I hope, that that's now obvious to most people on the right.
But I also hope that anyone who was slow on the uptake, you know, those who took a while to understand the real threats that all of this seemingly bizarre and fringe stuff poses to our society, I hope they won't make the same mistake with the clips that I'm going to play for you now.
Because here we have two more contributions to society from TikTok.
Both videos feature young people, teenagers, taking the preferred pronoun concept to seemingly new extremes.
In this first one, we find out that some of these kids are actually identifying as inanimate objects.
Listen.
Hello.
I am Doll.
I am one of our object alters.
When I front, I find it very difficult to remember things that the body requires, such as how to move, how to blink, how to breathe, and how to speak.
For the purpose of filming this video, I have Meredith co-conscious with me, so that I will not mess up.
However, this is the third take, the first two, I forgot to breathe and or speak.
I hope this helps you learn.
Now, Dahl here has not invented the Dahl pronoun concept.
In fact, a handy resource is the website PronounEE.xyz, which lists and explains all of the different alternative pronouns currently in existence.
And there are a lot of them.
Pages and pages, hundreds and hundreds.
From the very first page, you can see that if you go there, it's apparently popular now to identify as an emoji.
Many of the pronouns aren't words at all, but pictures.
Other pronouns include poison, poisons, poisons, and poison self.
I assume those are Big Pharma's pronouns.
Please respect them.
Also, fey, fairy, fair, fairies, fairy self, kitty, kitties, kitty self, stars, star, star self, and slows, sloths, sloth self, and on and on.
There's also dem, demon, demons, demon self.
And if you're wondering what a self-identifying demon looks like, well, you're in luck.
Hi, my name is Jasper.
I use they at pronouns.
Hi, my name is Liana.
I use they, demon pronouns.
This video is how to use our pronouns.
So we're going to basically present three sentences.
One of them is going to have one pronoun, the other one's going to have the other pronoun, and then the last one is going to have both pronouns interchanged.
So Liana uses they, them pronouns in demon pronouns.
So the first sentence would be, Liana is my partner, they are cute, and I am theirs.
I love them very much, and I hope they love themselves too.
For the demon pronouns, it would be, Liana is my partner, Deem is cute, and I belong to Deem.
I love Deem and very much, and I hope Deem loves Deem himself too.
Then interchanging the two would be, Leona is my partner, they are cute, and I am deemed.
I love Demon very much, and I hope they love Demon's self too.
She's going to be a linguistics professor.
This is what grammar, teaching language and grammar, that's what it's going to be pretty soon.
And there is something very on the nose about this.
In fact, in the Gospels, when Jesus encountered demon-possessed people, they would sometimes go by they-them pronouns because there was more than one demon infesting the person, and so we may be able to draw some connections and analogies here.
But I'm afraid That a lot of people on the sane side of the ideological spectrum might see this sort of thing and make the same mistake they made with gender ideology more broadly, assuming that it's kind of this weird and wacky phase and it's not anything widespread or serious or worth our attention.
Why are we even paying attention?
This is just TikTok.
Who cares?
And in saner times, you know, in a culture that hadn't already sunk below the surface and into the icy depths of full-on insanity, that would probably be the right reaction.
After all, Demon Self over there is really just a goth kid trying to be edgy, right?
We had those when I was a teenager.
The only difference is that now TikTok exists, so they have this unfortunate vehicle to publicize and advertise these embarrassing phases.
Except that's not the only difference.
The other difference, and it's a big one, is that we now live in a society that validates, legitimizes, and encourages these alternative identities.
Now, when I was a kid, the adults would tell the goth kids that they were going through a phase, they need to snap out of it, or they're never going to be able to get a job or a girlfriend.
Right?
That's what the adults used to say to kids going through these kinds of phases.
Now the adults stand off on the sideline in cheerleader uniforms and pom-poms, sometimes literally cheering the kids on in their delusions.
What would otherwise be a phase, what would be something that makes them look back in a few years and cringe, now becomes an identity.
The meaningless is transformed into the meaningful.
The effect is that a generation of kids, soon to be multiple generations, have been plunged into mass psychosis.
We are not merely validating mental illness, but creating it.
What would be a phase, instead becomes the kernel of a debilitating, lifelong identity crisis.
And our culture is there with the water cans, making sure that those seeds are germinated.
There's not going to be any awakening moment for these kids, or at least there need not be.
I hope there is, but there's nothing that would cause that to happen, because we used to say, Well, wait until you get into the real world, and that'll be a wake-up call, because the real world doesn't work like this.
But there is no real world anymore, not according to the people who run our society.
There is no reality.
Everything's subjective.
Everything is malleable.
Nothing is solid.
There's no firm ground to stand on.
Mass psychosis.
A generation driven into madness before they're old enough to drive a car.
That's what we're facing.
Nothing less.
And I think we need to start treating this like the major problem that it clearly is.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Ladies and gentlemen, take a quick look in the mirror.
You see those bags under your eyes?
They are disgusting.
You are disgusting.
You can simply get rid of, you can't do anything about your whole face, but you can get rid of the bags under your eyes at least.
And you should.
With GenuCell Plant Stem Cell Therapy for Bags and Puffiness Under the Eyes.
As you know, this is something I've been sort of gabbing about with my assistant Tessa for weeks now.
We're always talking about GenuCell Serum by Chamonix.
And in fact, I came in this morning and I saw her and I said, well, you've got some bags under the eyes there.
Have you used GenuCell today?
She said, I forgot to use it today.
What I find is that women really appreciate it when you point out physical flaws and give them a method and a way to solve it.
And with its instant effects, you'll see results in as little as 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
Plus, for new, younger, and wrinkle-free skin, Chamonix will also give you the legendary GenuCell XV Wrinkle Treatment, absolutely free, just for trying GenuCell today.
Order now and save big on GenuCell.
All packages are up to 50% off.
Go to GenuCell.com, enter MAT30 for an extra $30 off today.
That's GenuCell.com.
GenuCell.com.
All right.
Well, if you're watching the show, you can see if you're not, you're missing out because things are pretty festive in here and just in time for Halloween.
And before we left, you know, I was talking to the production team and I said, I said, yeah, we can maybe put maybe put a mask on the on the alien back there, something subtle.
To acknowledge something subtle and tasteful for Halloween, and then I come back and there's just been a Halloween explosion in the studio, but it looks great.
And now I think somehow We have the most festive show on The Daily Wire.
I don't know how it worked out that way, but it did.
And also, by the way, different subject, but as you notice, I am actually physically here.
I'm not dead, much to the chagrin of many people out there I know.
I was worried about that.
I expressed my concerns after the whole mishap with the plane.
We got stranded, had to get on Allegiant, an airline that I didn't know existed, and not even a... more like a third-rate airline.
And the engines are like hamster wheels.
Actually, it was kind of fun.
We all were sitting in there.
We had our own pedals.
We had to keep pedaling the whole time to keep the engine running.
But we did make it home.
And while I was on the plane, I was in the exit row, and there's been this discussion the whole week about the mystery of the exit row.
Or maybe it was only a mystery to me.
But I ended up in the exit row again, and this time I actually did I worked up the courage to pick up the pamphlet and actually read what we're supposed to do in the exit row, and now I know that actually your responsibility is to simply open the door and get out.
That's it.
So when they say, are you ready and able to help in an emergency, what they're really saying is, you get to be the first ones out of this thing.
Just open the door and leave.
That's your responsibility.
Which is kind of nice.
But now it makes me feel less courageous when I'm sitting there and we get the speech and then they ask the question, are you ready and willing to help?
And I can say, yes, I am here.
And now I know that I'm really just volunteering to be the only one who doesn't burn to death.
I don't know why they don't upgrade.
I don't know why they don't sell it.
Well, they do sell an upgrade on the Exero because of the leg room.
I don't know why the airlines don't start selling upgrades based on, you know, who's least likely to die in an accident, depending on where you're sitting in the plane.
So, you know, if you want a 10% decreased risk of death, then you could sit here for a $45 upgrade.
All right, let's start with this from Joe Biden.
He had a town hall with Anderson Cooper.
On CNN yesterday and a few bizarre moments that we come to expect from Biden.
But we're not going to worry about any of that.
Instead, I want to play this.
Here he is talking about the vaccine mandates and what led him to finally issue them.
Listen.
As many as one in three emergency responders in some cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, right here in Baltimore, are refusing to comply with city vaccine mandates.
I'm wondering where you stand on that.
Should police officers, emergency responders be mandated to get vaccines?
And if not, should they be stay at home or let go?
Yes and yes.
By the way, By the way, I waited until July to talk about mandating, because I tried everything else possible.
The mandates are working.
All the stuff about people leaving and people, you have everyone from United Airlines to Spirit, all these airlines, we're not going to get All 96, 97% of the people have gotten the vaccine.
All the talk about all these folks who are going to leave the military if they're mandated, not true.
You got about a 90 some percent vaccination rate.
I mean, so there's the idea is that look, The two things that concern me, one, are those who just try to make this a political issue.
Freedom.
I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID.
No, I mean, come on.
Freedom.
Number one.
Number two, the second one is that, you know, the gross misinformation that's out there.
That is a truly horrifying clip.
It really is.
I know we're a little bit numb to it by now, but the two things that happened in that clip that maybe at some point in the not-too-distant past you would have been unthinkable.
You couldn't have imagined this.
Coming from a United States president in public at a town hall meeting.
Two things.
Number one, he laughs at freedom.
He has no...
Rebuttal to the freedom argument.
He says, yeah, people are talking about freedom.
I mean, come on, freedom!
And he laughs, and the crowd laughs.
That is his rebuttal to the freedom argument, is simply to shrug it off.
Freedom, who needs it?
That's a punchline.
Freedom is a punchline to Joe Biden.
And the braindead seals, clapping seals in that audience.
And then, he also has an applause line for firing police officers and first responders.
Should police officers and first responders be fired?
Yes.
Yeah, woohoo!
Yeah, get rid of them, fire them.
Man, we have come a long way down from, in many ways, but This is one of the most pronounced.
You think about right after 9-11, everyone talks about how united the country was in those early days after 9-11, and much of that was sort of an illusion as we discovered.
But another big thing, and this lasted for years, it was kind of celebrating first responders and police officers and the people that were there on the scene and many of them died and sacrificed their lives.
So we've gone from that in 20 years to a United States president talking about firing first responders and it gets applause in the audience.
And let's not overlook what he's saying about the mandates, which is, hey, I gave you a chance with your precious little freedom.
I gave you a chance to do what I wanted you to do, and you didn't do it, and I ran out of patience, and so I forced you to do it.
Things have gone very wrong in this country, not only when those sorts of policies can be put in place, but when politicians feel comfortable talking to us that way.
There have always been politicians and presidents who have supported tyrannical policies, have wanted to abridge and infringe upon our freedoms, and so on.
That's always existed.
There are always politicians like that.
There have always been presidents like that.
The difference, though, is that in times past, they would at least feel the need to Use euphemisms.
And to couch their infringement on freedom in the language of freedom.
To pull the bait and switch.
And there's plenty of baiting and switching going on, but when it comes to this, to the infringement on freedom, they're at a point now where they say, well, who needs freedom?
I gave you a chance, you didn't do what I wanted, and so I'm going to force you.
The fact that they feel comfortable talking to us that way, that means things have gone wrong with us, we the people, that we tolerate this kind of attitude, this kind of language from politicians who are supposed to be working for us.
And in that same vein, here's a tweet from Joe Biden, which he put out yesterday.
It says, I ran for president for three reasons.
To restore the soul and decency of our country, to rebuild our economy from the bottom up and the middle out, and to help unite our country.
We're on the right track, but there's still work to be done.
Now, never mind the fact that none of these things have happened.
And everything is objectively, measurably worse now than it was when Biden took off.
It's impressive.
It's actually exceeded, for many of us, our worst expectations of what Joe Biden could do to this country in the span of less than a year.
I mean, I didn't have a lot of hope.
I expected, I thought it would be bad, but what we're looking at right now in less than a year, The efficiency with which he's been able to destroy our countries, that has been impressive.
But yeah, never mind the fact that none of this has happened.
Rebuilding our economy.
The shelves at the grocery store are empty.
Gas prices way up.
I mean, people are poorer now.
Living is more expensive.
On and on.
But even aside from that, I ran for president to restore the soul and decency of our country?
So you, as one individual, as a single man, you have this spiritual ability to restore our soul and decency.
If we really want to prove that we're a decent country, elect me.
That means we're decent.
We're not electing me.
Well, that's just plain indecent.
Once again, politicians should not feel comfortable talking this way.
All right, next we have Attorney General Merrick Garland.
He testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
A number of important subjects were covered, and we're going to play a few clips for you.
But first, here's Garland explaining why he sent the FBI after parents at school boards.
Well, we already know the claimed reason is that school boards were under attack from violent parents, and there have been threats, and there have been all this kind of stuff.
And the question being posed to him is, well, did you have information?
Do you actually have intelligence suggesting That this was a widespread problem of violent parents and threats and everything.
Where did you get this from?
And here's what Merrick Garland says.
First sentence of your memo, very first sentence, you said in recent months, there's been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, threats of violence.
Yes.
When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick?
So I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time threats— Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I didn't ask you—so you read the letter, that's your source?
So, let me be clear, this is not a prosecution or an investigation— Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that said there's been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?
When the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kind of threats, when we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence, when that is in the context of threats of violence against all... The source for this, for the very first line in your mouth... The time of the gentleman has expired.
The time of the gentleman has expired, Mr. Deutsch.
Amazing.
Not really amazing at all, but again, just admitting it out loud.
So that's the theme here.
What information did he have?
No information.
All he had, and the reason why he's sending the FBI after parents and school board meetings, is because he got a letter from the school board association claiming that this was happening, and then also he read it in the newspaper.
This is the Attorney General of the United States telling us that the newspaper reports and one letter from a school board association claiming that there were all these threats was enough for him to mobilize the FBI to treat this like some sort of national security emergency.
Well, that only confirms what I've been saying all along, which is that this is all, this is, this is imaginary.
I mean, if there were actual examples of real violence at school board meetings, Merrick Garland would have mentioned those.
Would have really helped his case.
But there's been basically none.
There has been essentially no violence at school board meetings.
The one example that he knows he can't use anymore, he certainly didn't want to bring this up and give his interrogators a chance to To talk about it, but the one example was Scott Smith, Loudoun County, who wasn't even violent, but he got upset because his daughter had been raped in a Loudoun County school and they were lying to his face about it.
That's the one example of violence, which wasn't even violence.
That's out the window now.
They can't talk about that now.
And so what else is there?
Nothing.
There have been parents raising their voices.
That's what's happened.
And I will admit that that's true.
I have been one of them.
I have done it myself.
There have been a lot of us at school board meetings raising our voices and yelling a little bit.
And that's why we need the FBI to investigate.
As far as the threats, I mean, again, if he had actual information, if he had looked into this himself, if the FBI looked into it and they had found That there are actually, you know, hundreds or even dozens of examples of serious death threats against school board members, then he would have told us that.
The fact that he doesn't is, you know, that tells us what we need to know.
I mean, I said from the beginning, I don't buy it.
I'm sorry.
All these school board members say, I'm getting death threats.
I don't believe you.
There may be a few cases where it actually has happened.
That's more than possible.
It's happened to me many times.
So I certainly know that there are people out there who will send death threats.
But I'm not gonna take your word for it.
I don't take your word for it.
I don't believe you unless you prove it.
Because you have a...
There could be a very obvious ulterior motive in claiming that you are getting death threats and playing the victim.
And so that means I just can't take your word for it.
Show it.
Show us.
That wasn't the only important subject that was brought up, though.
There's also this.
Congressman Massey confronted Merrick Garland about January 6th and specifically the question about whether there were feds in the crowd Deliberately instigating the crowd to enter the Capitol building.
We know that this is something that the feds like to do.
They like to encourage people to commit crimes so that they can then prosecute those crimes.
And he played a video, which I guess we'll play this video first.
The video features some guy Um, over the course of, you know, more than a day down in DC, like in the night leading up to January 6th, the night of January 5th.
And then on January 6th, there's this one guy who is all over the place trying to convince the crowd to go into the Capitol.
And you also know, when we play this video, how does the crowd react?
They don't want to, but this one guy is saying, let's do it, even if we get arrested.
And there's a theory online.
I don't know who this guy is, but the theory is, among some people, I think a pretty credible one, is that this guy's a federal agent or an asset.
This is a video that Congressman Massey played for AmeriCorps.
Let's play the video first.
Here it is.
In fact, tomorrow, I don't even like to say it because I'll be arrested.
Well, let's not say it.
I'll say it.
We need to go in to the Capitol.
Let's go!
I'm going to put it out there.
I'm probably going to go to jail for it.
Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol!
Into the Capitol!
Peacefully!
Fed!
Fed Okay, so you see there, uh, one guy who has not been, I don't think he's been officially identified, but what we know is that he has not been, um, that guy was on camera all over the place saying, let's go to the Capitol, even if we get arrested, like acknowledging that he knows it's a crime, trying to get the crowd to do it.
He hasn't been arrested and charged with anything yet.
Some of the other people, in fact, some of the people in the crowd who were saying no and calling him a fed, they've been arrested and charged, but not him.
What does that tell you?
Well, that was the question that Congressman Massey had for Mayor Garland.
Let's listen to that.
All right, you have those images there, and they're captioned.
They were from January 5th and January 6th.
As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail,
he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every - but they need to go into the Capitol
the next day, is then the next day directing people to the Capitol.
And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything.
You said this is one of the most sweeping investigations in history.
Have you seen that video, or those frames from that video?
So, as I said at the outset, one of the norms of the Justice Department is to not comment
on impending investigations, and particularly not to comment about particular scenes or
particular individuals.
I was hoping today to give you an opportunity to put to rest the concerns that people have that there were federal agents or assets of the federal government present on January 5th and January 6th.
Can you tell us, without talking about particular incidents or particular videos, how many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6th, whether they agitated to go into the Capitol, and if any of them did?
So I'm not going to violate this norm of the rule of law.
I'm not going to comment on an investigation that's ongoing.
So that's a yes.
That's a yes.
Because if the answer was no, if there were no federal agents trying to rile the crowd up, then he would have no problem saying, no, of course that didn't happen.
What are you talking about?
There's no reason.
I'm not going to violate the rule of law.
The rule of law says you can't, if there were no federal agents in that crowd, the rule of law says you can't tell us that?
What law is that exactly?
Pretty clear what happened here.
You know, a giant setup.
And now they're arresting, you know, the guy with the buffalo hat.
Or the guy who took the podium and walked out with it.
Every time I see Merrick Garland, he is the, you know, if you were to look up the term banality of evil in the dictionary, you would see Merrick Garland.
This kind of empty, dull, you know, just straight faced, emotionless person.
Nothing immediately objectionable about them, but then you listen to what he's saying and what he's doing, and it becomes clear.
And also, by the way, Congressman Massey there, bringing up a very important point.
Getting a chance here to cross-examine the Attorney General.
Congressman Massey is... You know how I feel about politicians in general and about Republicans.
I'm not a big fan of very many of them.
I'm pretty harsh on all of them.
It takes a lot for me to be impressed by a politician, but Congressman Massey is one of the few good ones.
I don't agree with him.
He's more libertarian than I am, so I don't agree with him on every single issue, but he's a talented and skilled politician.
And a real valuable defender of the conservative cause.
And someone who's actually trying to root out corruption in D.C.
And putting his own career and reputation on the line in doing so.
He's a valuable one.
He's one we need.
And he's also one, and you might not want to hear this, but he's one... Trump, when he was in office, tried to run Massey out of town.
Trump tried to get Massie out of office.
Because, what did Congress and Massie do?
Wrong.
Well, he didn't show enough personal deference to Donald Trump as an individual, and that's why Trump hated Massie and wanted him gone.
Even though he's one of the best Republicans we have in Congress.
One of the few good ones.
Trump wanted him out.
Because Trump's flaw as a leader, his biggest flaw, and this is important to remember as we get into 2024, his biggest flaw as a leader, his fatal flaw, Is that for him, when it comes to hiring people and deciding who to elevate and who to support, the number one qualification, as far as Trump is concerned, is how they feel about him personally.
Which means that a lot of really, he tried to run a lot of really talented and valuable conservatives out of town while hiring a lot of establishment swamp snakes and rats because they flattered him.
That's a fatal leadership flaw.
I mean, you have to be able to recognize the talent and value of people, even the ones who don't personally like you that much.
You have to be able to set that aside, especially when we've got a country to save here.
Something to keep in mind.
And that is a flaw that, as far as we can tell, Ron DeSantis does not share, which is why it's DeSantis 2024 all the way, as far as I'm concerned.
All right, this is from Fox News.
Big, big update on a story that many people have been following.
The FBI on Thursday confirmed that remains recovered from a nature preserve or park in Florida on Wednesday were Florida fugitive Brian Laundries.
The comparison of dental records confirmed the 23-year-old's identity, according to FBI.
Laundrie's former fiancé, Gabby Petito, turned up dead near a Wyoming campsite the couple shared in late August.
And now, and of course as you know, there's been this manhunt that's been going on for weeks and finally they recovered remains and they belong to Brian Laundrie.
I guess we still don't know exactly what happened to him.
They're gonna do, you know, they'll do the autopsy and all that kind of stuff and they'll figure that out.
Seems, was this either he committed suicide or did something else happen to him?
Was he attacked by alligators?
I mean, who knows?
I will say though, and I haven't followed this story very closely,
but you know, the news yesterday was that the FBI, they were going to Brian Laundrie's house
to let his parents know that they had recovered the remains of their son.
And so their son is dead.
And I hear that, and I do feel a fair amount of sympathy for Brian Laundrie's family and for his parents.
What I don't quite understand Is in the media and online just the incredible amount of venom that's been directed at the parents of Brian Laundrie?
I don't quite understand that.
I'm not even the most sympathetic guy in the world.
So if you discover that I'm being more sympathetic than you about something, then you need to look at yourself in the mirror, because that shouldn't be the way it works.
So I feel sympathy for the parents.
I don't understand.
They have been turned into public enemy number one.
The media has been camped out of their house for weeks, following them everywhere.
Everyone hates them.
I don't quite get it.
Unless there's some sort of theory that they were involved somehow in the killing of Gabby Petito, well, if that was the case then that would change my... then my sympathy would go out the window.
But I don't think there's any indication of that.
I don't think that's even a theory that's on the table.
It's not their fault.
I guess there's this inclination when someone does something horrible to blame the parents and to say, well, you obviously went, something went terribly wrong in the way you raised this person.
And that could be the case, but not necessarily.
You know, we raise our kids and this is something that we, as parents, we remain very cognizant of, and it's something that keeps us up at night sometimes, is just the reality that our kids are human beings and with their own conscious Life and their own will and everything.
And they can make their own choices.
And so, what keeps you up at night is the realization that you could raise your children perfectly.
I mean, you could do everything right.
Or almost, I mean, no one can do everything right, but you could do almost everything right.
And you could love your kids and do what you think is best for them and instill in them the proper moral values And they could still go out into the world and become horrible, monstrous people and do terrible things.
That could still happen.
Because they still have free will.
And when it does, it's not fair to put that on the parents.
And now you think about the situation the parents are in.
Their child is a killer.
And now he's dead.
So they've got guilt as well as mourning, and they probably feel that they can't really mourn their son in the normal way, like they don't have the right to because of this horrible thing he did.
It's the worst thing in the world as a parent.
You would think the worst thing in the world as a parent is to lose your child, and that is the worst thing in the world.
But one degree even worse than that, Is when you sort of lose your child spiritually and you lose your child's soul because they commit some hideous evil act and then they die.
And that's just unthinkable as a parent.
It's like that is the ultimate nightmare.
I would much rather be dead than have that happen to my kids or have my kids.
I would choose death over that in a second.
It's the worst thing.
I do feel some sympathy for them.
I don't really understand why others don't, but... Okay, what else do we got here?
Here's someone else I have sympathy for, okay?
This is the sympathy show.
This is the show.
Things are going, we got the Halloween decorations, things are a little bit topsy-turvy and bizarre, and so I have sympathy for this person also.
A teacher in Riverside, California has been suspended for insensitivity to Native Americans.
And this stems from an incident in class where she was apparently trying to teach the kids a mnemonic device for trigonometry, SOHCAHTOA, which is something I'm not going to try to get in.
I could explain it to you because I'm a trigonometry expert.
I'm a bit of a mathematician myself.
I'm not going to explain because you probably wouldn't understand.
But it's a mnemonic device.
It's supposed to help with trigonometry.
And this was her method of kind of ingrained, you know, drilling that into the kids' heads.
Let's watch this.
(singing in Korean)
(speaking in Korean)
I get to go home.
And I get all of my feathers.
There we go.
Suka!
Okay, so, listen.
That's not the method I would choose if for some reason I was hired to teach trigonometry to high school kids.
I probably wouldn't do that, but in her defense, you will never forget Sohcahtoa.
Will you?
You will remember.
I don't even know what it is, but I will always remember Sohcahtoa.
And it does kind of sound like an Indian chief, doesn't it?
So this is what it's about.
It's finding Outside the box, thinking of ways to get kids to remember the material.
And so I'm going to defend her on that basis, but unfortunately she has been suspended.
And not even, it's not that she's been suspended because it's suspected that she had a mental breakdown in the middle of class.
No, it's because of insensitivity to Native Americans.
Here's the statement from the Riverside Unified School District.
It says, a recording of one of our teachers has been widely circulated on social media.
These behaviors are completely unacceptable and an offensive depiction of the vast and expansive Native American cultures and practices.
Her actions do not represent the values of our district.
The teacher has been placed on leave while the district conducts an investigation.
And this was originally, I think this video was recorded by a Native American student Who, according to the person who posted it, initially felt that this performance by the teacher was an act of violence against him.
Now, you could say that it was an act of violence against all of our eardrums in a certain way.
But of course, the idea that this is somehow offensive to Native Americans is absurd.
It was supposed to just be a silly way of getting kids to remember it, and they will.
None of those kids.
None of those kids will ever forget Sokotoa.
They might forget everything else they've learned in school.
They won't forget that.
And she's suspended for it.
I personally find it outrageous.
All right, let's read the comments.
Who's rocking polka dot and flannel shirts without shame?
Do you know their name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
Oh yeah, before we read the comments, I almost forgot about this also.
This is from a tweet from the DCist news organization that covers news in DC.
And there's a picture there of the capital of DC drowned by water.
And it says, imagine seeing the Lincoln Memorial surrounded by churning Potomac waters or only being able to access the Pentagon by boat.
This is what DC might look like if the world continues its current greenhouse gas emission levels.
And I saw this and I thought, well, that's, that's, um, wow.
That's incredible.
And that's why I decided to leave my car idling all day while I'm at work.
I mean, you're, you're telling me another benefit of global global warming is that we get to wash DC into the sea.
Drowning Washington, D.C.?
That's supposed to be a downside?
It also looks kind of fun.
I mean, imagine that.
You gotta take a little boat, a little ferry to get to the Lincoln Memorial Island there.
Looks fun.
Okay.
This is from SweetMamaG says, I would rather hitchhike with a sign that says, I'm an orphan, no one will look for me, then fly Allegiant.
Also, Michelle Fiore was my assembly woman in Vegas.
She actually would make a great governor.
She was on the front lines with the Bundy Ranch, if you remember that.
She opposed Harry Reid's ban on raw milk because his son got a tummy ache from it.
And she often holds open houses at her house for the community to have discussions about local issues.
She's extremely involved with the community in Vegas.
Um, I'll take your word for it.
I don't know.
Like I said, I don't know anything about her.
Um, it's just a bad, it's a, it's a, it's a bad ad is my point.
It's a very bad advertisement for a politician because what you're telling me about her is that she's a serious person who has achieved real things and, um, is a, is a, is a real asset for the conservative cause and, For the people of Nevada, that's what you're saying.
But I didn't, that's not what I got from the advertisement.
What I got from the advertisement is that this is a ridiculous, shallow person who has nothing to say other than the most basic and stereotypical talking points.
So, not a good ad.
This is from Feror's Dragon.
Matt's pivoting between, I'm always right, my opinion should be iron law for all men, and my podcast is a pathetic waste of time, really throws me off balance.
Well, I don't see why it can't be both.
Isn't it possible that I'm always right and my podcast is a pathetic waste of time?
I think it is.
That's what I'm going with.
That's how I thread that needle.
Sean says, as someone whose job it is to work on airplanes, I can tell you, Matt, that this actually is very common.
A lot of technology in airplanes is about as old as an N64, and turning it off and on again usually does solve most of the problems.
If something breaks, it only needs to work once for someone to sign it off as fixed.
Was this supposed to make me feel better about flying?
It probably wasn't.
You're trying to, this is what you think I need in my life, is more anxiety?
So something's broken, and then it works once, and then they say, well, let's take it up 35,000 feet, see if this holds.
Sean, you're banned from the show.
I blame you for this.
Joshua says, hey Matt, huge fan, quick question.
How would you persuade your fiancee into taking your last name for marriage if she were opposed to doing so?
Should it be a deal breaker or red flag if she doesn't?
Love the show almost as much as you love advertising your sponsors.
Well, then you must really, really love it.
And is it a deal-breaker if your fiancé doesn't want to take your last name?
Yes.
It is a deal-breaker.
It is a red flag.
It's beyond a red flag.
It's a deal-breaker, I would say.
Because the whole point, when you get married, is that now you are becoming one.
You're becoming unified.
One family.
And so, if you're planning on marrying a woman, and she's saying, I don't want to take your name, what she's saying is, I don't want to be completely unified to you.
I don't really want to be one family unit.
You know, I want to maintain this division.
I want there to be this sort of line that separates us.
A name is not a small thing.
As human beings.
And having a last name as a family, it's one of the things that ties you together, that identifies you as a family, as a family unit, not multiple little units.
Okay, as a family, you want to be one unit, a home, not like an apartment complex where you're all in the same building, but you've got different, your own little units and your own little separate lives divided by walls and everything.
So, yeah, I would say that that's a deal breaker.
Doesn't mean you can't marry her, but it should be, like, this isn't happening unless you agree that we're going to have, we're going to share a name, we're going to be one family.
I mean, I would say the same about if I was getting ready to marry somebody and they said they wanted to have different bank accounts.
And bank accounts aren't even as profoundly important as names.
But once again, that to me shows that you want to maintain divisions.
You don't really want to be unified.
You don't want to become as one.
You want to be two separate people, have your own account, your own, you know.
And so I would see that also as a deal breaker.
Claire says, Matt, how come you don't just bring your MyPillow with you when you travel?
You talk about how bad you miss it when you're away from home.
So wouldn't it just make sense to take it with you?
Well, because I'm a man and men don't travel with pillows.
That's my, let's say my wife does that.
My, this is why anytime we go somewhere in a car, we go on a, like a week vacation and, and half of the car is packed to the brim with pillows because all the kids and my wife, they got to bring their own fluffy, everything.
Men don't do that.
Even though I miss my, my pillow dearly.
But it just makes it all the sweeter when I finally get home to it.
Well, maybe you heard the news that Disney has ousted one of their talented sports reporters from ESPN named Alison Williams.
Alison is a college football and basketball reporter who had been with ESPN since 2011 until she announced her resignation yesterday.
Why?
Well, because Disney, ESPN's parent company, is forcing its employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or face termination.
And Alison chose to wait while she tries to have a child.
Sure, the CDC claims the vaccines are safe for pregnant women, but is it the CDC's choice to make or is it Alison's?
It's wrong to force Americans to choose between their livelihood and their freedom to make personal medical decisions.
We started The Daily Wire to fight the left and protect our rights, so we're excited to announce that we have signed Allison Williams to lead a very special sports series exclusively for our members.
More details to come later.
Here at The Daily Wire, leftist elites don't dictate our content.
You do.
You decide what to watch and which creators to support.
And if you want premium entertainment and sports content without the woke, then become a member at dailywire.com/subscribe and use
code DONOTCOMPLY at checkout for 25% off.
And also, The Truth is hard to come by if you're listening to the legacy media,
which is why we've taken matters into our own hands with our newest morning podcast, Morning Wire.
Not only has it been topping the Apple and Spotify charts since its release,
it's the only daily podcast that values your time and the truth.
And while we're working overtime to bring you the news and get it all the way up to number one,
we need your help as well.
So subscribe and start listening to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts and leave a five star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today I have a somewhat belated reverse cancellation.
Earlier in the week, I said that two men should not be allowed to adopt babies, just as two women shouldn't be allowed to adopt babies either.
And I don't think single people should be allowed to adopt babies, by the way.
I believe that every baby deserves and needs both a mom and a dad, and that's what the law should stipulate.
As you may recall, this all came up during the paternity leave debate.
You may also recall that when I made that statement about gay adoption, I predicted that Media Matters would try to hit me for it, and mere hours later, my prophecy was fulfilled.
The left-wing activist group pulled the clip, posted it to their site and their social media pages, and soon some LGBT news sites had picked it up as well.
Um, you know, I just sort of ignored them and the outrage fizzled out in about 12 hours.
And that's what happens with most outrage, when it's ignored.
As much as I love to intentionally antagonize my cancelers, I have to say there's something especially satisfying and also hilarious about allowing them to scream impotently into the void while you go about your day as if they don't exist.
I should probably adopt that gratifying approach more often than I do.
The problem is that I just enjoy arguing too much.
And that's why I can't let this week end without circling back, Misaki style, to say a few more things on this topic.
Now, to help frame this discussion, we'll use the hit piece published by the gay news site LGBTQ Nation.
And it says, quote, Matt Walsh, a right-wing blowhard with the conservative website The Daily Wire, has criticized Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for taking paternity leave to help his husband raise their adopted newborn twins.
Walsh said that it was absurd, a luxury, for public employees like Buttigieg to receive two months off to care for their children on the taxpayer dime because the U.S.
is deeply in debt and facing a transportation crisis.
But then he showed his true concern, gays raising kids.
Well, she said, quote, babies need their mothers, which is why two men shouldn't be allowed to adopt babies in the first place.
Repeating a decades old anti-LGBTQ line that every child deserves a mother and a father.
He continued, the outrage mob can now start a secondary campaign over that comment.
But I'll say it again, two men should not be allowed to adopt babies because babies need mothers and fathers.
Need mothers, they also need fathers, which is why two women shouldn't be allowed either.
Not only is Walsh repeating lies used by anti-LGBTQ organizations around the world, but he's also wrong.
Numerous studies have shown that same-sex couples raise children just as healthy as mixed-gender parents.
Also, he's inadvertently arguing that single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids either.
No, I'm not... I'm saying single parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids.
And there's nothing inadvertent about that.
The article goes on for a little while longer before finishing with this.
As for Walsh, he recently rented a home in Loudoun County, Virginia, just so he could speak against the county school district's pro-transgender student policies.
So it's hardly surprising to hear anti-LGBT speaking points dribbling out of his mouth.
Now, I take exception to this.
Talking points don't dribble out of my mouth.
I think a term like spewed or spouted or ejected or disgorged would be more appropriate.
And aside from that, I think there are a few more important points to be made on this topic of gay adoption.
The first is that advocates for gay adoption will always assure us that studies have vindicated their position.
You heard it again in the article I just read.
People these days, they think that any discussion can be ended Any argument can be won by quickly scanning Google for a study that allegedly supports whatever preconceived notion they have in their head.
What they don't bother doing, what nobody ever seems to do, is actually read the studies they cite.
And that's a problem because, as it turns out, literally anyone can do a study and engineer it to prove literally any proposition.
There are no laws governing how studies are conducted or what methods have to be used.
I could go out right now and conduct a study to prove that pigs can fly.
But you'd have to read the study to find out that when I say pigs can fly, what I really mean is that if you launch them from a catapult, they'll travel through the air a certain distance before splattering all over the ground.
The point is that methodology is important.
Methodology matters.
And so when you actually take the time to read the studies that are cited in support of gay adoption, What you'll find is that the methodology is almost as ludicrous and arbitrary as hurling pigs through the air with a catapult.
For one thing, most of the studies rely on self-reported data from the parents.
Okay, so the researchers ask gay parents how their kids are doing emotionally, how they're doing psychologically, and so on.
And this is obviously going to lead to some biased answers, especially because oftentimes these are not blind studies.
The participants know that the researchers are studying gay parenting, which means they have a vested interest in giving a certain answer.
Which means they're probably not going to say, oh gee, my kids are doing pretty poorly.
I think I'm really screwing them up.
Furthermore, these studies don't pull from random and representative samples of the population.
Many of the studies focus on high-income lesbian mothers who can afford IVF treatments.
The sample sizes, along with being not random, not representative, and not blind, are also very small most of the time.
And then there's perhaps the biggest problem of all.
To claim that children do not suffer any detrimental effects from being raised by same-sex parents, you would need to track a very large, socioeconomically diverse sample size for a long period of time.
As parents, we don't really know how our parenting has panned out until our kids are adults.
But gay adoption has not been legal and widespread enough for long enough to have that kind of data.
So it's the same thing you run into when LGBT activists claim that puberty blockers don't cause any long-term ill effects in kids.
Well, how could they possibly know that?
We didn't start dosing large numbers of physically healthy kids with this stuff until the last few years.
You're just assuming it won't cause long-term damage.
You believe it won't.
You want us to believe it won't.
But you don't know that because you can't know it.
This is why we must use other resources aside from academic studies to parse this question.
Resources like common sense.
Resources like the history of the human race.
Precedent.
Also biological science.
So taking all those things into account, here's what we can say.
All children have a mother and a father.
That's how nature set it up.
Now, I believe, and nearly everybody in the entire world everywhere believed until 12 seconds ago, that the mother and father roles are important, and distinct, and not expendable.
Children need both parents.
Some children will be deprived of what they need because of death or divorce, but the point is that it is a deprivation.
They can survive it.
They might even thrive in spite of it, but it will be in spite of it.
Every child should be raised by a mother and a father.
The cruel reality of life is that not every child will have that, even though they should have it.
But as a society, we should do what we can to ensure that as many children have it as possible.
As it happens, there are millions of man-woman couples waiting in line to adopt babies as we speak.
Every baby could go to a loving home and be given the gift of a mother and a father.
There's no good reason to deprive them of that gift.
The only reason is that some gay couples want to adopt and it would cause them emotional pain if they were prohibited from doing so.
My contention is that the needs of the child should come before the emotional desires of the adults in this case.
So let's flip this around.
If you're a proponent of same-sex adoption, you clearly believe that either the mother or the father role, or both, are expendable.
In taking that position, you are asserting something that is radically contrary to everything we've observed as human beings through the course of human civilization.
You are making an extreme claim.
I would even say a bigoted claim because you are ruthlessly negating the value and importance of mothers and fathers.
The burden of proof in this situation falls on you.
But of course, the only way to prove that mothers and fathers really are expendable, as you believe, is to forge ahead as though they are, and then check back in 50 years to see if you were right.
That is, in fact, the course we've chosen in our society.
We've chosen, through this issue and many others, to treat kids as lab rats.
To take them and verge off in a radically different direction.
And give them a life and an existence and a world that is totally severed from the life, existence, and world that all of the rest of us lived in.
And we're just going to do this and see if it works.
It won't.
And there's no good reason to try.
And that's the point.
And that's why I must resurrect this cancellation attempt of me and say to the cancelers that no, in fact, you are cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today and for the week.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks for listening.
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 Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Ali Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
