Ep. 825 - Media Shocked To Discover That Children Need Fathers
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media is shocked to discover that Dads matter. Apparently children need male role models in their life. Maybe the nuclear family isn’t a patriarchal conspiracy after all. Also, the latest on the bizarre and tragic Alec Baldwin story. And, the Treasury Secretary now wants to levy taxes on “unrealized capital gains.” If you don’t know why that’s an insane and tyrannical idea, I’ll explain. Plus, the White House unveils its National Gender Strategy, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. And in our Daily Cancellation, I once again find myself at the center of controversy and outrage, this time because I dared suggest that women should take their husband's last name. Shocking stuff.
Daily Wire just signed ousted ESPN sportscaster Allison Williams 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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media is shocked to discover that dads matter.
Apparently, children need male role models in their life.
Maybe the nuclear family isn't a patriarchal conspiracy after all.
Also, the latest on the bizarre and tragic Alec Baldwin story, and the Treasury Secretary now wants to levy taxes on unrealized capital gains.
And if you don't know why that's insane and tyrannical, I'll explain.
Plus, the White House unveils its national gender strategy, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
In our daily cancellation, I once again find myself at the center of controversy and outrage, this time because I dare to suggest that women should take their husbands' last names.
shocking stuff, all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
So we begin the week with something positive for a change.
This only happens about once a year on this show, so soak it in while you can.
CBS News aired a report on Friday about some unique measures being taken at a high school in Louisiana to stop the violence and chaos that had been plaguing The campus, Southwood High School in Shreveport, began the year in September with multiple major brawls and fights and everything between students.
And over the course of just three days, over 20 kids were arrested for assault and other charges.
And that's when, as the CBS report tells us, the dads of the community decided to do something about it.
Let's listen.
Nobody here has a degree in school counseling.
No.
No majors in criminal justice.
No, no.
Your qualifications are?
We're dads.
We decided the best people who can take care of our kids are who?
Us.
So Michael Lafitte started Dads on Duty.
We're out doing what we do for our babies.
A group of about 40 Southwood dads who now hang out at the school in shifts.
Today, any negative energy that enters the building has to run a gauntlet of good parenting.
I immediately felt a form of safety.
We stopped fighting, people started going to class.
How could that be?
You ever heard of a look?
A look?
Dads have the power to do that?
Yes.
Not many people know it, but yes.
Let's go, let's go.
But it's not just the firm stares and stern warnings.
Let's make it to class, my son.
It's also the dad jokes.
They just make funny jokes like, oh, hey, your suit is untied, but it's really not untied.
They hate it.
They're so embarrassed by it.
And it's that perfect mix of tough love and gentle ribbing that dads do so well that has helped transform this school.
The school has really just been, like, happy and you can feel it.
Which is why the dads plan to keep coming to Southwood indefinitely.
Because not everybody has the father figure at home.
Or a male period in their life.
So just to be here makes a big difference.
Do you think you stumbled onto something here?
Absolutely.
Have you stumbled onto something, he asks.
Yes, they've stumbled onto something called fatherhood.
See, I watch something like this and I want to celebrate it.
I do celebrate it.
Dads getting involved, taking charge of their children and their communities.
It's a beautiful sight to behold.
And yet I'm frustrated at the same time that so many in our culture, especially those who control the narrative, can't connect the dots or refuse to connect them.
I mean, the media will tell us heartwarming stories like this, and they'll rightfully applaud the men who've stepped up.
Then they'll write the whole thing off as a gimmick, an aberration, or at best as something isolated.
Sure, lots of problems can be fixed when dads get involved, but only at school, and only when they're wearing matching t-shirts, and only when they give themselves a clever name like Dads on Duty.
Then they'll go back to supporting organizations like BLM, which has the explicit goal of destroying the nuclear family.
And they'll go back to pretending that men and women are interchangeable and identical.
And they'll go back to celebrating single motherhood as the pinnacle of parenting excellence.
And they'll go back to calling you racist if you suggest that many of the problems in the black community stem from the scarcity of fathers in the home.
See, this dads-on-duty thing is then relegated to a cute little human interest story, a nice two-minute video that can go viral on Twitter.
The broader societal implications are ignored.
Because they, the media, they're not going to stop to ask, you know, why this school experienced a seemingly miraculous change simply by the physical presence of firm and attentive men on school grounds.
This cognitive dissonance goes beyond the media.
They're the ones driving it purposefully, but there are a lot of normal people in our society who struggle with this same disconnect.
I couldn't help but notice lots of the accounts with BLM in their bio were sharing this video, apparently not realizing that the content of the video directly contradicts and flies in the face of the stated goals of the organization they pledge allegiance to.
But if we're able to somehow lift our heads above this swirl of contradictions, we'll see that the Dads in Shreveport are not some anomalous case, nor are they living in a cultural vacuum.
This is true universally.
Children need fathers, preferably their own fathers, and if they can't have their own fathers, either because he's dead, or worse, he has chosen to abandon them, then they need male leadership somewhere else.
A child who grows up with no male leadership at all, a child who is raised only by women, this is a lot of kids, will be severely disabled psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually.
That's not because the female influence is bad for a child, but because the female influence is only one half of the complete picture.
It's one half of the recipe.
A child can survive physically on half, but he'll be deeply malnourished.
So, what is it that dads bring to the table?
Why can't they be so easily replaced?
Why do they leave an enormous hole behind when they abandon their posts?
Well, we see it in the clip that was just played.
For one thing, dads are a more imposing and formidable presence, and they exude that aura naturally.
Kids are almost always better behaved when dad is around.
It's not because they don't respect mom, but because they see mom as a gentler and more empathetic presence.
It's crucial that they have such a presence in their lives, but there's a flip side to every coin, especially in parenting.
And the flip side in this case is that they think they can get away with more.
They think they can be a little bit looser.
They can push more boundaries with mom.
Unless dad is there.
But a good dad is not just stern.
He's not solely an authority figure.
Dads can be playful and irreverent in a unique sort of way.
Again, moms have that role as well, but it manifests in different ways.
And then, of course, there's the most important dad contribution, or one of the most important contributions.
For a boy specifically, dad is around to show him how to be a man.
95% of this job has to be done through demonstration, not lecturing.
As a boy grows older, he might forget almost everything his dad ever told him, but he won't forget the example that was set, for better or worse.
The boys at that school in Shreveport, most of them, have probably never had a man around to show them how men are supposed to conduct themselves.
Millions of boys are being raised in this way, on a sort of island, and it becomes very much a Lord of the Flies situation, which becomes all the more pronounced in urban schools, because these are boys who are walking a path to manhood with no man walking in front of them, no footsteps to follow, no guidance of any kind.
The result then is chaos, violence, despair.
Almost every bad thing we see in society, drug abuse, suicide, you know, crime, violent crime, all of it stems back largely to this issue.
And we really have no right to expect any other result when we remove male leadership from society.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
All right, so Halloween's coming up, of course.
My kids have already started their 12 days of Halloween.
Really, it's like two weeks.
Every holiday is like this.
Now, I don't know if it's like this in other families, and I'm always pointing this out to my wife, that somehow these days, kids, at least my kids, celebrate each holiday like a dozen times.
So my kids had a trunk or treat.
thing over the weekend when that's just where you go to a parking lot and everyone's lined up in their cars and they hand the candy out.
And they'll have another one this week.
And then they have like a Halloween party with their friends, I think.
And then they got actual Halloween.
Every holiday is like this.
It's celebrated in phases, kind of like stages of celebration.
When I was a kid, the holiday was one day and that was it.
And my parents sent me out on Halloween alone.
With a pillowcase, and I wandered the streets until about 3 a.m., and then I came back with nine pounds of candy, and half of it was poisoned, and so they'd have to throw it out.
There was a lot of poisoning of candy back when I was a kid.
That's not really a thing that we worry about anymore, but back then, it was a big deal.
That's how I remember it, anyway.
My memory might be slightly skewed.
And also, holidays were... So they were simpler, and they were more intense.
But they were more humble, also.
Like, one year, Um, and I remember this distinctly.
I wanted to be a knight in shining armor for Halloween.
A positive, you know, positive Halloween costume.
But my parents didn't want to go out and buy one of those costumes.
And so my mom took a cereal box and covered it in aluminum foil and put it on my head.
And that was my, and then I had a little plastic sword and that was my knight in shining armor costume.
And then every single house I went to, they thought I was an astronaut.
And so I had this conversation a million times.
Oh, look at you, cute little astronaut.
And I'd have to say, what?
I have a sword.
Do you think I'm an astronaut with a sword?
And then I realized that would actually be a cooler costume, to be a sword-wielding astronaut.
Anyway, that was Halloween back in the day.
It's not the same for kids anymore.
So, we'll start with this shocking, bizarre, terrible news that you've no doubt heard many times over the weekend from the set of a new Alec Baldwin movie.
The cinematographer and director were both shot by Alec Baldwin.
The cinematographer is now dead.
Because Baldwin fired a prop gun, quote-unquote, that apparently had a live round in the chamber.
So here's the latest on the story from TMZ.
It says, the gun that claimed the life of Helena Hutchins might have been more than just an on-set prop.
It was also being fired recreationally, even when cameras weren't rolling.
Multiple sources directly connected to the Rust production, which was the name of the Western they were filming, Rust.
Which, obviously, now we'll never see the light of day.
They tell TMZ the same gun Alec Baldwin accidentally fired, hitting the DPN director, was being used by crew members off-set for target practice.
We're told this off-the-clock shooting, which was allegedly happening away from the movie lot, was being done with real bullets, which is how some who worked on the film believed a live round found its way on the chambers that day.
So here's the thing about this.
Originally, when I heard this story, You know, I thought there's no way you could blame Baldwin for this, or hold him criminally liable in any way, because he obviously didn't know the gun was loaded, and he was acting out a scene in a movie, or apparently now they were practicing a certain shot they were going to do in the film, where he's pointing the gun directly at the camera, so as the audience, you're getting the perspective of the person who's, you know, about to be shot.
And, you know, I thought he was probably fired Or held or used hundreds of prop guns in dozens of movies over 20 or 30 years of acting.
And I assume never once did any of them have actual bullets in them.
So you can't blame him for what was clearly a horrific accident.
And I thought that.
But then I learned, number one, that he was the executive producer on the film also, not just the actor, which means his responsibility is increased.
But the other important thing that I learned is that apparently, from what I've read since then, They usually don't, and maybe this is a dumb assumption that I had.
I always assume that they use fake guns on the sets of movies, that these are not real guns, they're basically like toy guns.
But apparently not.
They use real guns, this is what they do.
This is what I've been told anyway.
Most of the guns they use in these kinds of movies are real, but they're loaded with blanks.
And that changes things for me, I think, because, ignorantly, I'd assume that they were all fake guns.
Like, very realistic toy guns.
And that a lot of the sound and everything is added in post-production.
I don't know why they don't do that.
I think probably now they will.
But if that's the case, and it's a real gun, then the rules of gun safety apply.
And one of the main rules of gun safety is that you have to assume every gun is loaded.
Which means, once the gun is handed to you, even if you've got a prop guy on set, or whoever, who tells you that it's a cold gun, which is apparently what they said as they handed it to him, it's a cold gun, there's no bullets in it, you still have to check it yourself, which he didn't do.
And so, that goes back to his own responsibility.
Now, there are other complicating factors here, like, we talk about the standard rules of gun safety, and there's been a lot of this commentary on social media about, well, rules of gun safety, Yeah, but we also have to acknowledge that many of the standard rules of gun safety are violated on a film set.
I mean, you're doing a lot of things on a film set with a gun that you would never do at a gun range, like pointing it at somebody else, for example.
I mean, standard rules, again, standard gun safety rules, you never point your gun, even if it's not loaded, you never point a gun at anything that you don't intend to destroy.
On a film set, they do that all the time in the course of making the movie.
So, not all of the normal rules apply, but this is one, if they're using real guns, that has to.
You gotta check it.
He didn't check it.
And, um... I mean, it's... Obviously, there's no malice involved here.
No one's accusing him of doing it on purpose.
But then it becomes, it seems to me, not a legal expert, but it becomes very similar to having one too many drinks, getting behind the wheel of a car, and you kill someone.
And you're gonna go to jail for that.
Um...
I think that's what Alec Baldwin is facing here.
I don't see how you get away from it.
If he knew, if he knew that it was a real gun, even if he thought that it was cold or whatever, if he knew it was a real gun, didn't check it, pulled the trigger, that's it.
All right.
Let's move to this.
Treasury Secretary Danny DeVito has a new plan, along with wanting to monitor all bank accounts with $600 in transactions, which is Almost all bank accounts, probably like 90% of bank accounts.
Now she also wants to tax, quote, unrealized capital gains, i.e.
net worth.
Let's listen to her make this case.
I think what's under consideration is a proposal that Senator Wyden and the Senate Finance Committee have been looking at that would impose a tax on unrealized capital gains on Liquid assets held by extremely wealthy individuals, billionaires.
I wouldn't call that a wealth tax, but it would help get at capital gains, which are an extraordinarily large part of the incomes of the wealthiest individuals.
and right now escape taxation until they're realized, and often they're unrealized,
and at death benefit from so-called step-up of basis.
So it's not a wealth tax, but a tax on unrealized capital gains
of exceptionally wealthy individuals.
This is truly the Penguin's most dastardly plot yet.
And it's not a wealth tax.
Well, what the hell is it?
Secretary DeVito, what is it if it's not a wealth tax?
This is literally the definition of a wealth tax.
We're taxing someone's net worth, their overall wealth, not their income.
So what that means is, for example, your home, okay, that would count here.
As you haven't sold it, but it's part of your net worth.
And when we talk about someone's net worth, if you own a home, the equity in the home, that all factors in.
And so you would get taxed on that.
And you would get taxed on other investments, even if you haven't sold.
You would still get taxed.
Which means going back to the house, for example, and this would apply to all.
I mean, stock market, everything.
Where you're getting taxed on investments that you have not actually sold.
So think about the phrase, unrealized capital gains.
So these are gains that you have not realized, that haven't happened, don't exist.
It's not money that you actually have.
When we talk about... I think people have this notion in their head when we talk about someone's net worth.
And we say, I mean, let's talk about the billionaires for a second.
We say that Mark Zuckerberg's net worth is a hundred gazillion dollars or whatever it is.
And I think most people don't understand the first thing about basic economics.
They imagine a Scrooge McDuck vault in his house where he's got all of that, the hundred gazillion dollars, it's all in gold coins in a vault and he just dives in and swims through it.
But that's not the case.
We're not talking about how much cash he has on hand or what he has in his checking account.
We're talking about the value of everything that he owns or has a stake in.
Home, business, investments.
They want to tax all of that.
They want to tax your real estate investment, which could be the home you live in.
And that would mean for a lot of people, if this trickles down, the tax, to non-billionaires, That would mean you have to sell your home to pay that tax.
And when you sell your home, you're already getting taxed.
That is a taxable event in and of itself.
So then there's more taxes that you're paying.
It's total madness, this plan.
And the scope by the government The expanse of government power and oversight that would be needed to enforce something like this is unthinkable.
I mean, it's difficult to wrap your mind around it.
To tax people based on their net worth.
And if you think that this will, what they're telling us right now is that this will only be the billionaires.
Keep in mind, The monitoring of transactions of $600 or more, they say that that is also focused on the uber wealthy and the billionaires.
They want to, you know, they want to smoke out all the billionaires that are hiding transactions, and so they're starting at 600 bucks, rather than 60,000 bucks, or something more realistic if they're targeting billionaires.
So, while they say that they want to go after the billionaires, When it comes to the bank account monitoring, there's gonna be a whole lot, I mean, tens of millions of middle-class people swept up in that, and not by accident.
And I can guarantee you with this, it'll be the same damn thing.
Even if it starts with, okay, we're only targeting this little sliver of one-half of one-half of 1% of people, those are the only ones affected by this, it will expand from there.
How do I know that?
Because it always does.
And I mean always.
You look at the entire history of taxation in the United States of America.
Or we could even start with the institution of the income tax itself.
And you could start there.
And you will see that every single time a tax is proposed, including the income tax itself, it is always very, very limited.
It's only this one little small percentage of people that are going to be affected by this.
And even then, the effect will be minimal.
It starts there, and then it increases and increases and increases.
And the net, which is originally supposed to be this very small net to catch a small number of fish, Has this habit of growing and growing and growing until all the fish in the sea are caught up in it.
That's the way it always works.
Always.
100% of the time.
And it'll be this way with this as well.
Because when you give the government power, I mean, I don't know how many times we have to say it.
When you give the government power, it will never give that power back.
Ever.
And it will always expand that power.
So if, in principle, we say that this is the kind of thing the government can do and should do, which is to keep track of our net worth and to tax us on things we haven't even sold yet, you know, to tax you on the sale price of something you haven't sold, if we say, in principle, it's the kind of thing that the government can do, then it's the kind of thing they can do, and they're going to keep on doing it.
I mean, I use phrases like total madness to describe this, but it's actually not.
This is not madness at all.
This is a very considered plan with, for them, a definite endpoint that they won't tell us.
Totally disastrous.
And I know why tyrants in the government would want to do something like this.
But I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, which side of the aisle you're on, you are simply a brain-dead clown.
I mean, you have to be the biggest moron on Earth to go along with something like this, because it will affect you too.
Unless you live your whole life and never own anything.
Okay, if you live your whole life never owning anything, never investing in anything, You know, always living in homes other people own, never having any permanent, no permanence at all, no ownership.
If you live your life that way, then you wouldn't be affected by this.
And that is, in fact, how the government would like us to live.
All right, what else we got here?
So, the White House has just announced a national gender strategy.
And this was a big announcement, and Kamala Harris made the announcement over the weekend.
And I'm looking right now at WhiteHouse.gov, it's their fact sheet on the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality.
And it says, let's see here, the strategy identifies 10 interconnected priorities.
One, economic security.
Two, gender-based violence.
Three, health.
Four, education.
Five, justice and immigration.
Six, human rights and equality under the law.
Seven, security and humanitarian relief.
Eight, climate change.
Nine, science and technology.
And ten, democracy.
It says these priorities are inherently linked and must be tackled in concert.
And of course, it also adopts an intersectional approach that considers the barriers and challenges faced by those who experience intersecting and compounding forms of discrimination and bias related to gender, race, and other factors, including sexual orientation, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada.
So this is their gender strategy to combat, you know, gender-related discrimination and to institute gender equity and equality.
And we're looking at all these areas that have nothing to do with gender whatsoever.
Climate change?
What in the world does that have to do with gender?
Climate change.
We all live on the same planet.
And whether there's man-caused climate change or not, and to what degree it's happening, and whether we're barreling towards an apocalypse in 10 years or 12 years or 15 years or wherever they move the goalposts to, you would think that we're all equally as affected by it.
You know, if half of the country is going to be underwater in the next 10 years, I think whether you're a man or a woman... I mean, I don't think that that has anything to do with stopping you from drowning.
Are men more likely to... Are we better at floating?
Are we more floatable?
I don't know.
So of course none of these have anything to do or you know nine of the ten have nothing to do with gender whatsoever but this also goes back and you know I have to point it out because I simply have to that they have a whole plan for helping women and making sure that women aren't just killed by climate change forget about the men and they have this plan and yet They don't know what a woman is, and that's a problem.
Before you can institute a plan like this, you would think, number one, you should have to define your terms, but of course they can't do that.
All right, next, Attorney General Merrick Garland continues to prove himself to be a shill and an ideologue and wholly unfit for the job.
Thank God the Republicans prevented this nutcase from getting on the Supreme Court, by the way.
It's one of the only real accomplishments, and it was an accomplishment, one of the only real accomplishments of the Republican Party in the last 20 years has been keeping this guy off the Supreme Court.
But unfortunately, they couldn't stop him from getting in the Department of Justice, at the top of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General.
So here's the latest from Merrick Garland.
Along with our partners at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, We are also announcing our first settlement under the initiative and our second redlining settlement in the last two months.
Redlining contributed to the large racial wealth gap that exists in this country.
The practice made it extremely difficult for people of color to accumulate wealth through the purchase, refinancing, or repair of their homes.
That discrepancy in wealth is clearly reflected in current homeownership rates.
Today, a white family is 30% more likely to own a home than a black family.
This present-day gap in homeownership rates is larger than it was in 1960.
Well, and they want black families to own more homes so that they can tax them into bankruptcy like the rest of us, which is what their plan is.
But this raises the question of why is the attorney general talking about home ownership and racial discrepancies in home ownership?
And this relates to another clip that may not at first seem to be related, but I'm going to play this for you and then we'll tie it all together.
Here's Obama.
Stomping for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia.
And they are, they're floundering and they're desperate and they're panicked in the McAuliffe campaign.
And that's why they're bringing, I mean, they're bringing in everyone they can.
Almost none of them actually live in Virginia.
Bringing them all in to stump for Terry McAuliffe.
But here's Obama dismissing concerns on the right, especially about school boards, as just a bunch of phony culture war stuff.
We don't have time to be wasting on these phony, trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media pedals to juice their ratings, and the fact that he's willing to go along with it instead of talking about serious problems that actually affect serious people?
That's a shame.
That's not what this election's about.
That's not what you need, Virginia.
Instead of forcing our communities to cut back at a time when we're just starting to recover, we should be doing more to support people who are educating our kids and keeping our neighborhoods safe.
You want to support people who are keeping the neighborhood safe?
You mean police officers?
But of course, this coward, you know, he's obfuscating a little bit.
He's not going to be direct in what he's saying.
But it's very clear, especially at the end there, Now what he's saying is that the parents showing up at school board meetings are participating in a phony right-wing culture war.
This is all phony.
It's trumped-up outrage.
So parents who go to school board meetings because they're concerned about, they're getting involved in their children's education, and they're concerned about what their kids are being taught, that's phony outrage.
And especially, In Loudoun County, where parents are upset because a girl was raped in a bathroom, and the Loudoun County School Board covered it up.
According to Barack Obama, that's phony outrage.
To worry about girls getting raped in school, Barack Obama says, is phony outrage.
It's phony culture war stuff.
And this coming from someone on the left.
And it is always absurd, anytime anybody on the left, especially Obama of all people, accuses anyone else of participating in a phony culture war, phony outrages, that's all they do.
That is all they do every single day, is invent new battlegrounds for the culture war.
That's it.
I mean, that is really it.
The Attorney General, it's exactly what he was doing.
Talking about, you know, finding... Here's another battleground for the culture war.
Racial discrepancies in homeownership.
This is their version of leadership.
Pete Buttigieg, Transportation Secretary.
We're in the middle of a supply chain crisis.
He's still on paternity leave, but he took time to do an interview a couple days ago, and he said that now he's really focused on raising awareness about paternity leave.
Another culture war issue.
He's a transportation secretary.
Why is he talking about... Forget about the fact that he went on paternity leave and is still on paternity leave for two months and counting.
Why is he talking about that on cable news?
Well, because this is all they do.
As far as they're concerned, this is their entire job.
Phony outrages, culture war issues, On every level.
I mean, we played that clip of a teacher in, I forget where, Riverside, I think, in California.
A trigonometry teacher doing the Sokotoa dance with the Indian feather headdress.
She was, you know, kind of having a mental breakdown in the middle of school, and now she's been suspended.
And I did defend her on the basis that, like, this is a mnemonic device, and she's trying to get the kids to remember Sokotoa.
And as I said, I remember it a few days later.
Those kids will never forget that.
She imprinted it in their minds, and so she was successful in that way.
But she was suspended.
You can make an argument for suspending her, because it was a little bit of a psychotic break that she appeared to have in the middle of the class.
Left-wing activists showed up at the school and held a rally.
And, you know, I was looking at some of the pictures of them.
They got the fist raised.
You know, they've got their poster board signs.
They're marching outside the school about this?
Because of some weird, awkward video of a trigonometry teacher?
You're chanting Soka Toa?
This is what we're rallying?
You're rallying over this.
You made signs about this.
Not because it's insensitive to Native Americans.
Even that.
Even that, where everyone agrees that it's bizarre and like, fine, you suspend her, no one cares.
I think I'm the only person in the country who actually defended her.
And for me, it's a very mild defense.
Even that becomes...
A battleground for the culture.
Even that's an opportunity for phony outrage.
Because this is all they do.
What else we got here?
I guess I should mention this headline.
Big deal.
It says the CDC is very carefully monitoring the Delta Plus variant.
So that's a thing now.
And it's terrible, honestly.
You know, I'm pretty shaken by the Delta Plus.
Because the last thing we need right now in the world is another streaming service.
We've got enough of those.
Delta Plus.
Actually, Delta Plus sounds more like an upgrade you pay for on the plane to get free Wi-Fi and more legroom or something.
I'll tell you what Delta Plus doesn't sound like.
It doesn't sound like anything you need to worry about.
One other thing I wanted to mention, speaking of phony outrageous, going back to the Dave Chappelle story very briefly, I just want you to get ready for this because the cave is coming.
Here's from the New York Post, it says, Dave Chappelle said he's willing to sit down with Netflix employees who organized a company walkout earlier this week in protest of controversial jokes that he made in his comedy special.
In the show, blah, blah, blah, we already know about that.
But now his team is saying that they want to sit down and they want to have a conversation with the protesters.
And they're complaining that the protesters don't want to sit down and have a conversation.
And Yahoo has this.
It says that Dave stands by his art, a spokesperson for Chappelle tells Yahoo Entertainment.
Both sides of the street are talking and Dave is listening.
At some point when everyone is open, I'm sure our communities will come together.
As Dave said in his special, no more jokes about transgenders until we can all laugh together.
I bring this up only, again, so that you can prepare yourself if you had latched on to Dave Chappelle as some sort of champion, some sort of warrior against cancel culture.
Get ready for the fact that he will cave.
He already has, really, with this response, saying, okay, no more jokes like that.
Let's sit down and talk.
That's already, I think, kind of a cave.
And the reason why I think the cave is inevitable is that he's getting little support from the people that he likes and whose respect and admiration he desires, like his fellow comedians, other celebrities.
Have there been any major comedians who've come out in defense of Dave Chappelle?
Maybe there have been a couple, but even guys like Bill Burr, Jerry Seinfeld, who have spoken out against cancel culture in the past, have they said anything?
Maybe they have.
But he's getting very little support from that crowd.
Meanwhile, he's getting a lot of support from people he doesn't like.
Okay, like us.
He doesn't really like us as conservatives.
And if you want to know how he really feels about us, then go back to one of his other recent specials, what he said about Candace Owens.
That's how he feels about conservatives.
Especially female conservatives.
And also, the actual comedy special itself, I think, tells you where this is headed.
Because I hadn't watched it until this past weekend, and I finally said, okay, I'll sit down and watch some of it.
And I watched most of it.
But I didn't finish it, because honestly, first of all, it wasn't that good.
There weren't many jokes.
It's not really a stand-up special.
It's more of a TED Talk.
There just aren't that many jokes.
And many of the jokes that he does tell that are pretty good have already been told a bunch of times on Twitter.
And I know because I told some of them.
Like his bit about DaBaby.
You heard that bit on this show, like, a month ago.
Not saying he plagiarized it, more that just these are jokes that have been out there and, you know, the stuff he said about Caitlyn Jenner winning Woman of the Year.
It's like, yeah, that's absurd, but we've all... That observation has been made many times.
But more importantly, the whole thing to me, and what kind of surprised me about it, what I wasn't expecting based on the reaction, is that the whole thing seems like a kind of a mea culpa.
It's very defensive, him kind of explaining himself, and he really wanted the audience to know that he's not a bad guy, he's not a bigot.
That's a lot of it, was him defending himself against claims of bigotry.
He spent a lot of time trying to convince people of that.
So it was not the in-your-face, bold, kind of politically incorrect spectacle that it's been made out to be.
Not at all.
Not even close.
So, get ready for that.
All right.
And now, get ready for our reading the comments section.
Who's rocking polka dot and flannel shirts without shame?
Do you know their name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
Jonathan Swank says, these pronouns are not even pronouns anymore.
These people are just egomaniacal attention seekers at this point.
Well, I only take exception with your at this point qualification there.
That's what it's always been.
That's what gender ideology, gender theory has always been about.
But it's been about narcissism.
Big Boy says, I can't believe I'm here wishing physical bullying was still around.
Yeah, I think that you do find evidence of that, that there are a lot of people who never got punched in the nose because we took this zero tolerance policy towards any form of violence at all.
And if there's even a fight, you know, everyone gets suspended no matter who was responsible for it and who started it.
And we do see some of the fruits of that.
There is an advantage.
To getting punched in the nose at a certain age.
And you learn some lessons from that, and a lot of kids have never had that experience.
Joy says, I wonder what the advertisers think of Matt's advertising skills.
I wonder if they ever watch these clips and just squirm when he says, those eye bags are disgusting, get this product.
Unlike the normal advertising commercials, his actually bring me to tears and make me feel the need to buy the product if I ever want to leave the house again.
Well, thank you.
I break you down psychologically, try to embarrass and humiliate you and shame you into buying the product, and that is one strategy that I think really works.
CoolPapaJMagic says, over the last couple of months, Matt seems much more willing to share his personal life and feelings with us.
What changed?
Well, I started drinking heavily before each show, so I think that probably is what did it.
Female KC Royals fan says, Matt, if you want the dog to like you, you should get him a MyPillow brand dog bed.
No, I'm not gonna do that.
Me and the dog are not on speaking terms right now because he ate our remote.
And so... Actually, my wife and kids were out of town for the night, and I was looking forward to, you know, just relaxing, and I went downstairs for a minute, I came back up, and the dog had eaten the remote.
And so...
That meant that if I wanted to turn the TV on, I had to get up and physically turn it on.
It was a whole big deal.
This is what I get for trying to befriend this dog.
Derek says, surely Matt must now realize there's no going back from the decision to decorate for Halloween.
I'm fully expecting a festive office for every holiday now.
Yeah, I understand.
I understand what sort of toothpaste I've squeezed out of the tube here, and that's the way it's going to go.
It's fine.
Fat Daddy says, my name is Legion, for we are many.
My pronouns are Liege, Legions, Legion self.
Well done.
Don Smith says, Matt needs to talk about people who are faking mental illnesses more, like multiple personality syndrome and Tourette's.
It's truly disgusting stuff and it's very hilarious at the same time.
I don't think it's intentional faking in most cases, just as I don't think the enormous spike in gender dysphoria is, in most cases, intentional faking.
I think the human mind is incredibly susceptible to suggestion, and we all know that.
That's where You know, that's the stock and trade of hypnotists.
It's through suggestion.
So if you think about it, you can actually manifest physical symptoms of an illness in your body by convincing yourself that you have that illness.
Your mind can create physical symptoms.
I know that I can.
So you have one set of symptoms, let's say, then you look it up on WebMD and it says that, well, if you have those symptoms along with a stomach ache, That means that your illness is the Black Plague and you'll be dead in 36 hours.
And then what happens?
You say, oh no, you know what?
Actually, my stomach does kind of hurt.
So if our minds can create physical sensations through the power of suggestion, how much more can our mind manifest deluded mental states through the power of suggestion?
And that explains a great percentage of the gender dysphoria and everything that we see in the culture today.
Finally, from FLK, Matt, you've given a lot of commentary about planes, but you've yet to discuss the issue of airplane bathrooms.
Why are they designed so that only a child can fit comfortably in them?
I don't know.
I mean, I don't think they're designed for children at all.
I mean, you ever try to take a child?
You ever had this experience?
You try to take a child to a bathroom on a plane, and now there's two of you inside this little box?
And if it's a boy that you're taking to the bathroom, well, he's standing while he's doing his business.
And he already has issues with AIM because he's, you know, a small child.
And that's on solid ground.
And now you're in a plane and it's shaking up and down.
And it's really just a recipe for disaster.
I can remember taking my son, it's probably TMI, but I remember taking my son to a bathroom on a plane when he was about four or five years old.
And I don't want to get too graphic, but it was It was like a sprinkler system in there.
And I'm going to him, stop, get it in the toilet, in the toilet.
And he's going, I can't, daddy, I can't.
And it just got everywhere and I had to clean it up.
And there's a backlog of people waiting to get into the restroom.
It was very difficult.
Parenting in a bathroom is a whole other subject.
I could write a memoir about that, but I won't get into it right now.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, speak of the devil, I once again get to tell you about one of my favorite sponsors, Genucel.
And the reason why I love Genucel so much is that I am tired of walking around and seeing all of these people with these hideous, disgusting bags under their eyes that I think is a personal affront to me.
I'm the one that has to look at you.
And maybe you need to look at yourself in the mirror and see what you look like and that's why you need GenuCell Plant Stem Cell Therapy for bags and puffiness under the eyes.
Rosa from New Jersey wrote somewhere to someone, I felt the bags under my eyes firm up and the skin was glowing.
Your product helped me to reduce puffiness very fast and in a couple weeks I stopped using concealer because of the improvement.
Actually, I've gone a week without applying heavy makeup.
I would recommend it to anyone.
I've noticed a great difference.
And look, with its instant effects, you'll see results in as little as 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
You will see, within 12 hours, that women and children stop running and screaming in terror at the sight of your hideous face.
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.
So order now and save big on GenuCell.
All packages are up to 50% off.
Go to GenuCell.com, enter Matt30 for an extra $30 off today.
That's GenuCell.com, GenuCell.com.
And if you want to wake up to the facts rather than the legacy media's neatly spun lies, then I highly recommend 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, you need to know we need your help to keep the facts trending towards number one.
So subscribe and start listening now to Morning Wire on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts and start a and rather leave a five star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now once more I find myself on the defensive side of the ball in this cancellation, though as always the objective is to make a play, get the turnover, put the offense on defense.
That's why I'm playing in the dime right now, six DBs on the field.
Free safety, back deep, ready to grab the pick.
Kind of losing track of the point I was trying to make with this analogy.
Anyway, the point is this weekend I was again the subject of outrage, and this is embarrassing for me as someone who's normally quite meek and gentle and non-confrontational, prefers to shrink away from the spotlight.
I also consider myself to be a people pleaser.
And I have other deluded ideas about my own personality, but we won't continue down that path right now.
What upset the Internet this time is a discussion that began on this podcast on Friday.
I read a comment from a listener during the Reading the Comments segment of the show, where he asked whether his fiancé's refusal to take his name upon marriage should be considered a red flag.
And I said that not only is it a red flag, but it's a deal-breaker.
As a man, I would not marry a woman who didn't want to share my name.
I would recommend that other men draw the same line.
Now, I repeated this point on Twitter later that afternoon.
Everything that followed is therefore really the fault of the listener who brought this subject up.
I hope you're happy, sir.
Look at what you've done.
This is on you.
So over the course of the next three days, a familiar chain of events followed.
Thousands of people very upset that I would suggest that women ought to take their husband's name.
The fact that I would call this issue a deal-breaker was all the more abhorrent to the outraged masses.
They've let me know that I'm a sexist, a misogynist, a bad husband, a tyrant, a bigot, a barbarian.
One guy said that my opinion on the subject is evidence that I might be murderous and actually a physical danger to my family.
Just because I want to share my name with them.
Others went a different direction, saying that my perspective proves that I'm a sexually repressed virgin, a fact that will no doubt come as a great shock to the mother of my four children.
But rather than give a general overview, I think it'd be helpful in this case to read a few of these specific responses.
And this, I think, is a good representative sample.
I'm choosing only from the blue check squad, verified accounts, media people, authors, academics, and so on.
So here are a few of them.
Here's what they were saying.
Bethany says, I really don't hold much importance to my surname, a random name my granddad chose in a pub after moving to England.
My mom has a different surname now too, but I definitely would keep my name just to spite angry men.
Steph says, this is so toxic.
Women do not belong to men.
Therefore, it is a requirement for us to be branded with your surname.
It's a woman's choice.
It's rare to hear of men taking women's surnames.
So if you won't do the same for us, keep quiet.
LOL.
Rachel says, would consider it a deal breaker if any boyfriend expected me to take his name.
Women have their own identities.
Any man who expects a woman to give hers up for him without discussion clearly doesn't fully grasp that.
Heather says, damn, how do I break it to my fiance that after 11 years we're going to have to end things because I'm not planning to change my name?
Is that something I do over text or?
And Amy says, I'm Amy Alcon.
I've always been Amy Alcon.
And even if I weren't an author, et cetera, marriages may come and go.
I'm me for a lifetime.
And my name reflects that.
Of course, the really funny thing about all this, and most of the rest of the responses from feminists on the subject, is that they all seek to prove that they're strong and independent women by refusing to take their husbands' names and instead keeping their fathers' names, quite literally participating in the patriarchy while pretending to dismantle it.
The other thing, almost as funny, is that each response only underscores rather than undermines the original point I was trying to make.
Bethany says that she would refuse to take her husband's name purely out of spite Now, fortunately for her, this probably won't ever come up.
I mean, she can actually force her cats to take whatever name she wants to give them.
But still, she confesses to being driven by spite.
Steph and Rachel see the unity of sharing a name as branding.
They would consider it a deal-breaker in the other direction if their future husband dared to request that they have a shared family name.
Heather says that she's getting married to her boyfriend after 11 years and doesn't plan to take his name.
11 years!
This is someone whose commitment issues are probably terminal at this point.
Doubly so for Amy Alcon, who says, again, marriages may come and go.
So you see in these answers, not just that cat ownership tends to make women very bitter, but also evidence of two other things.
One, that the trend to move away from sharing the husband's name is driven primarily by an ideologically-fueled hatred of our cultural traditions, and two, that it's a symptom of a society that fears commitment.
So let's talk about both of these in reverse order, starting with two.
Marriage, if it's anything worth doing, is the bonding of two people into one marital unit.
It is a union.
It is a decision to share your life, and even in many ways, to share your identity with somebody else.
It's not that you lose your identity when you get married, but rather that your identity is changed, and it's bonded to this other person, fulfilled by them, and by the love you share.
If this all sounds like a bunch of hocus-pocus to you, that's fine, but please don't ever get married.
I mean, why would you?
If you don't believe in what I'm saying, then you don't believe in marriage.
And the worst thing you could do when you don't believe in marriage is get married.
If you do believe in marriage, then the very first thing you should do, the very first thing you should want to do, is come together under the same name.
Is this a symbolic move?
Yes, but marriage is symbolic.
It's real, but it's also symbolic.
Your name is real and also symbolic.
You know what?
So we know what sharing a name symbolizes.
It symbolizes unity, commitment, togetherness, a shared life.
What then does not sharing a name symbolize?
You can't say it symbolizes nothing.
It's going to symbolize something.
The decision to keep your own name is a symbolic gesture in its own right.
What is it symbolizing?
It symbolizes separation, detachment, disunion.
Names are important.
Everyone recognizes that at some level.
The left recognizes it, which is why they make such a big deal out of demanding that people respect the new name of a trans person after they, quote, transition.
To call somebody by their old name, their dead name as it's called, is an egregious offense.
Why?
Because names matter.
The symbolism in a name is profound.
John Proctor in The Crucible would rather be marched to the gallows than sign his name on a false confession.
He was willing to give the false confession.
He was willing to have the whole town told that he gave it.
But he couldn't sign his name on the paper.
He chose death rather than that.
Why?
Because it's his name.
It's the name that his sons will carry down to their children and through the ages.
He couldn't stand to sully it.
In our diluted yet materialistic and utilitarian age, we don't understand things like dignity and symbolism.
We pretend not to even understand why the symbolism of a shared marital name is so crucial.
Yet the people on that side admit to the truth when they say something like marriages come and go.
They see marriage as temporal and fleeting, while names are deep and rich and permanent.
But marriage is supposed to be deep and rich and permanent also, which is why it should be formed under a shared name.
But then, why share the man's name and not the woman's?
A big part of the answer for me is that I believe the man is supposed to be the head of the family.
That may be unfashionable to say, but I care about fashionable opinions about as much as I care about the outrage from childless cat ladies.
But putting that aside, here's another reason.
Because it's a significant and enduring cultural tradition.
As already established, we live in a utilitarian age.
And also a stupid and shallow age.
So we tend to look at tradition as totally unimportant, superfluous, or worse.
We think that it's noble to break traditions just for the sake of breaking them.
We hate traditions.
We feel oppressed by them.
Because traditions come from our ancestors, and we think that our ancestors should have no say in how we live our lives, even though we live in the civilization they gave us.
I reject that attitude.
I despise it, actually.
I think that if you're going to dismantle a tradition, You better have a good reason.
And the reason shouldn't be indifference, or spite, or half-baked notions of female empowerment.
You know, GK Chesterton said that there are many fences in the world that are worth tearing down, but you damn well better understand why the fence was erected before you demolish it.
Tearing down fences on a whim because they obstruct the path you wanted to walk is foolish and arrogant and a good way to get your face eaten by a rottweiler.
A similar thing can be said about our cultural fences, our traditions, which these days we dismantle with no notion as to why, no coherent reason, and the result is that we lose the sturdy and beautiful things our ancestors gave us, and we replace those things with nothing at all.
Sharing the husband's name is, among other things, a meaningful tradition dating back centuries.
There are those who want to discard this tradition like they discarded so many others, which speaks not only to their ignorance and their contempt for their own history and the voice of their ancestors, but also for their disregard.
It speaks to their disregard for the whole institution of marriage.
That's why I said what I said, and I stand by it.
And why I say now, to those who are upset about it, that you are, once again, I'm terribly afraid to say, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
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 Knoll Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall 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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Barack Obama tells Americans they are wasting time on breakout rage, while the Democratic Party pursues a radical equity agenda.
Plus, the Biden administration economic program goes extreme.
