Ep. 917 - Will Smith Shows What Real Privilege Looks Like
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, woke virtue signaling at the Oscars is overshadowed by Will Smith’s violent cuckold rage. Also, the White House calls for regime change in Russia and then says that it is not calling for regime change in Russia. Plus, videos circulate allegedly showing the torture and murder of Russian POWs. And Cory Booker is still shocked and appalled and heartbroken that Kentaji Jackson was asked to define the word “woman.” And a lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic after giving birth to a boy instead of a girl. In our Daily Cancellation, I am forced to cancel televangelists Joel and Victoria Osteen. I’ll explain why. All of that’d more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Join Third Thursday Book Club now to be a part of tonight’s Q&A: thirdthursdaybookclub.com
We’re exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL
Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, woke virtue signaling at the Oscars is overshadowed by Will Smith's violent, cuckold rage.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the White House calls for regime change in Russia and then says that it's not calling for regime change in Russia.
Plus, videos circulate allegedly showing the torture and murder of Russian POWs.
And Cory Booker is still shocked and appalled and heartbroken that Kentonji Jackson was asked to define the word woman.
Plus, a lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic after giving birth to a boy instead of a girl, and in our daily cancellation, I'm forced to cancel televangelists Joel and Victoria Osteen.
I'll explain why all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
That's why it's never been more important to rethink how we shop and choose brands that are effective, safe, and in it for the long haul.
Our partner, Natural Heats Clean, can help.
Natural Heats Clean is dedicated to providing the most effective cleaning products for your home while reducing your costs, reducing your waste, and reducing other harmful chemicals in your home as well.
Their Safer Chemistry solutions utilize nature's powerful plant-based enzymes to clean every area of your home, from the bathroom, to your hardwood floors, to your kitchen.
Now, you might be wondering, what does this have to do with inflation?
Well, Natural Waste Clean is here to help you save big on the cleaning solutions you use every day by offering many of their top cleaning solutions as a concentrate formula.
Many of their concentrate solutions will yield 12 bottles, driving down the cost per bottle and allowing you to save big in the meantime.
And giving your budget the break that it definitely deserves.
So try them for yourself right now.
My listeners can get their hands on the Naturally It's Clean Daily Wire Essential Kit, stocked with four great products for 15% off.
Simply visit naturallyitsclean.com slash Matt and use promo code Matt to save an additional 15% off your order.
Don't delay.
A break from Bidenflation is here.
Try out these incredible cleaning products in your home today by visiting naturallyitsclean.com slash Matt for more information.
So I want to begin today with an exciting announcement.
Last week, we told you about my upcoming film, What is a Woman?, which chronicles my journey to answer the question of a generation, the question that so many people are now asking.
Along the way, I find myself tumbling down the gender ideology rabbit hole, where I discover many disturbing and horrifying things.
Yet so much of it is also hilarious, in the darkest way possible.
That film will be out in May.
Now, in much less important news, the Oscars were held last night.
It was an event that passed almost entirely without notice, if not for one incident, which we'll discuss in a moment.
Before we get there...
It's worth reflecting on the fact that award shows used to be ratings bonanzas.
I mean, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when 40 million people, 50 million people, would sit around their televisions on a Sunday night and watch a bunch of wealthy drug addicts give themselves awards for five hours.
Those days are long gone.
Soon the era of televised award shows will be officially over.
They'll no longer exist at all.
And our children will look at us with bewilderment when we explain that once upon a time we used to actually watch celebrities give speeches about how great celebrities are.
They will certainly find that confusing.
I have always found it confusing and I live through that era in history myself.
The reasons for the disintegration of the once popular award show genre are many.
One obvious factor is that the films nominated and awarded are increasingly obscure.
Last night, apparently, something called CODA won Best Picture.
Nobody has seen this movie.
Nobody.
There is a debate raging right now about whether the movie even technically exists.
Nobody knows.
If it does, nobody knows where to find it.
It seems that they just gave Best Picture to a movie that exists only as a hypothetical, like a theory.
It's an abstract concept.
And this is a reflection of the deeper problem.
Hollywood, infected with a terminal case of wokeness, is more and more insular with each passing day.
It's obsessed with itself, with its own moral superiority.
And that tremendous sense of self-righteousness has caused it to collapse in on itself.
One of the consequences of wokeness is that it obstructs a person's ability to see beyond themselves.
And this is true for anybody who subscribes to this cult or is indoctrinated by it, but the effect is amplified by a million in Hollywood because its denizens are already living lives of incomprehensible privilege.
These people are already artificial, basically, self-obsessed, overindulged, coddled.
You can see why they're all leftists.
It is a worldview made for them and also, in large part, made by them.
They're not interested in even pretending otherwise anymore.
Now, they used to pretend.
They used to at least pretend.
There's always been the indoctrination, the leftist indoctrination from Hollywood, but it used to be a lot more subtle.
They used to pretend anyway to, you know, to be trying to appeal to a larger audience, to be able to relate to a larger audience.
That is over now.
Last night, judging by the clips that I saw online anyway, because of course I didn't, like everybody else, I didn't actually watch the show, they kick things off by going political right away, wasting no time.
Just planting the flag right away.
This is what it's about.
And of course, the first item on the woke agenda was to virtue signal about the fictional don't say gay bill that leftists have invented.
Watch.
We're going to have a great night tonight.
And for you people in Florida, we're going to have a gay night.
Yeah.
What courage?
What courage?
I mean, it's hard to fathom the bravery required to stand on stage in front of a room full of gay people and say the word gay over and over again.
This is what heroism is all about.
And they kept playing the hits.
You know, later in the monologue, they threw in a bit about toxic masculinity and also Mitch McConnell.
Listen.
You know, this year we saw a frightening display of how toxic masculinity turns into cruelty towards women and children.
Damn that Mitch McConnell.
I know.
Yeah, because when you think of toxic masculinity, the first person that comes to mind is Mitch McConnell.
A little later in the night, Hispanic actor John Leguizamo took the stage to applaud Hollywood's representation and all of the beautiful Latinx faces.
Listen.
Look at all these beautiful faces out here.
All these beautiful Latinx faces.
We got great representation here tonight, people.
Oh, sorry, not Latinx, Latinx, yeah.
I always forget how to pronounce that made-up word.
I'm not exactly sure what a Latinx face looks like, seeing as how there's no such thing as a Latinx person.
Latinx, at best, sounds like the name of a Hispanic-only fan's site.
It's certainly not the name for a group of people, especially because, if this sort of thing is important to you, there are already numerous gender-neutral terms available to describe that group, terms like Hispanic or even just Latin.
But again, wokeness is insular, self-referential.
It's gibberish to anyone who is not already fully indoctrinated into it.
That's why the left has to work so hard and so desperately to indoctrinate children into the cult, because they know that adults who grew up in saner times are increasingly turned off by this sort of thing, and are rapidly tuning it out, in a literal sense, when it comes to the Oscars.
That is, people were tuned out, Until the smack heard round the world.
Now, you've no doubt already seen this clip, but let's all watch it again for entertainment's sake.
If nothing else, watch.
He is praying that Will Smith wins!
Like, please!
Lord!
Jada, I love you.
G.I.
Jane, too.
Can't wait to see it.
Alright? It's jealousy!
That was a nice one.
Okay.
I'm out here!
Uh-oh!
Richard!
Oh, wow!
Wow!
Will Smith just smacked the s*** out of me.
Keep my wife's name out your f***ing mouth!
Wow, dude!
Yes.
It was a G.I.
Jane joke.
Keep my wife's name out your f***ing mouth!
I'm going to, okay?
That was the greatest night in the history of television.
Truly the most atrocious thing Will Smith has done since the Aladdin remake.
This guy learned nothing at all after spending all that time with his auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.
On the positive side, however, Smith's physical assault of Chris Rock completely overshadowed and drowned out all of the virtue signaling that came before it.
You know, all this like LGBT stuff, they had all the Ukraine stuff, and like all that's out the window.
The celebrities in attendance wanted the story to be about them heroically chanting the word gay, wearing blue ribbons in support of Ukraine.
They didn't want this to be the story.
That's also why you shouldn't buy into any conspiracy theories that the incident was staged, okay?
It was not.
That's a more absurd idea than the incident itself was.
Now, maybe the VMA circa 1997 may have staged something like this, but not the woke Oscars of 2022.
This is entirely real.
And we should admit, the most entertaining thing that's happened at any awards show in at least 25 years.
Personally, I might actually start watching these things if the whole show was just a bunch of celebrities beating the hell out of each other on stage, like a really well-dressed version of Celebrity Deathmatch.
But as fun as it may be to watch, that was nonetheless a physical assault which was committed on national television in front of literally dozens of viewers.
Something tells me that if you or I had walked onto stage during an event of that kind, or any other kind, and committed assault against a
presenter right in front of everybody, we'd be in handcuffs within 15 seconds. Instead, Will Smith
sat back down, enjoyed the rest of the show, even won Best Actor later in
the evening, where he proceeded to cry and paint himself as the victim of the physical assault
that he just committed. Listen.
Richard Williams was a fierce defender of his family.
I'm being called on in my life to love people and to protect people and to be a river to my people.
Scientology really messes with your brain.
Just don't try it kids, even once.
Only in Hollywood can a man assault another man and then 20 minutes later give a tearful speech about the power of love.
I'm a river to my people by smacking Chris Rock.
Also, keep something else in mind.
Will Smith, and this is the most important thing about this incident to keep in mind, he has bragged publicly on multiple occasions about the fact that his wife sleeps with other men.
He has long been out of the cuckold closet, very open about the fact that his wife enjoys jumping in bed with strange men.
So any temptation you might feel to take his side, to argue that this was a husband defending his wife's honor, as I've seen a few people, a few conservatives even have said, well, this is right.
This is traditional values.
Traditional values.
He's in an open, he's a cuckold in an open marriage with this woman.
He laughed at the joke at first and then looked over at his wife scowling and said, oh, this was him doing it primarily as this was another act of emasculation by him.
And any temptation you have to defend him must be mitigated by the fact that, to Will Smith, defending his wife's honor does not include preventing other men from having sex with her.
So you dare not joke about his wife, but you can have sex with her.
Now, that's a man of principle.
As a cuckold, there's no honor left to defend.
He doesn't have any.
Neither does she.
How can he defend what doesn't exist?
But then again, they did award Best Picture to a movie that doesn't exist, so who knows anymore?
It's clear that The Smack was not an honorable man fiercely defending his wife from an extremely mild joke about her hair.
It was rather a privileged yet broken and emasculated man lashing out like a spoiled child and doing what no normal person in this country would be allowed to do and get away with it.
He did what he did for his own sake, because he could.
Later that night, he was filmed at an after-party, dancing and singing while a crowd cheered him on.
You or I would be sitting in a jail cell right now still.
He was at an Oscars party, prancing around with his golden statue.
Apparently, the trauma he suffered from Chris Rock's joke was not enough to prevent him from dancing.
You know, a golden statue can heal even the deepest wounds, I suppose.
Now, given that this was black-on-black violence, and both men involved are fairly liberal, you may be wondering whose side the woke crowd would take, because it's maybe not immediately clear how this is all going to shake out.
But then when you think about it, there's no real mystery.
One of the central tenets of leftism is that words, especially words in the form of jokes, are violence.
I mean, they hate stand-up comedians the most, and so, of course, assaulting a stand-up comedian, they love that.
The emerging consensus on the left, therefore, is that Will Smith was justified because Chris Rock's joke was a form of violence.
This was self-defense against a violent attack by a comedian.
That's the justification, anyway, as offered even by prominent politicians like Ayanna Pressley and Jamal Bowman.
But the real justification is that Will Smith is a non-white, left-wing Hollywood celebrity, and so he's allowed to do things that the rest of us peons cannot do.
That is the privilege of leftism.
An ideology that in so many ways exists in its own universe.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, the other, we've got to move on from this, but the other great thing about what happened last night is that, and I also want to make clear, we're talking about this and, you know, Will Smith's the bad guy.
He is the bad guy in this situation, but I don't really, You don't want to be too passionate in taking sides because all of these people, you have to understand, all the people in the room, they're all scumbags, all of them.
These are the worst people in the country all in one room.
So that's why I said if they all just beat the hell out of each other the entire time, then really we're all winners, I guess.
One of the good things is that now this incident has given the virtue signalers online a new current thing to care about.
So what you're going to find is that all of the people with Ukraine flags in their bio, maybe they keep their Ukraine flags there, maybe not, but they're all now going to become alopecia awareness advocates.
Because that's what this is boiling down to.
Now, Jada Smith has alopecia, that's why she's bald, so that's what made the joke so horrible.
And now, if you go online, you're seeing all these people talking about alopecia awareness.
Like for this, for example, the New York Post, "Alopecia advocate praises Will Smith's Oscars slap.
He showed strength," quote unquote.
Says, "Will Smith was just defending his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, during Sunday evening's Oscars ceremony."
But for some who shared the same medical condition, they felt protected.
X on the Beach contestant Zara Lena Jackson, who also suffers from hair loss illness and is an advocate on social media, is standing by Smith and his actions at Dolby Theatre.
She said, I think it's inappropriate to make any joke about someone with alopecia as it's a condition that highly impacts mental health for that individual and it isn't a laughing matter.
To be clear, I don't condone violence, but him defending Jada showed strength in my eyes and was very comforting to see a man stand by his woman when she has alopecia.
Well, then you are condoning violence.
I mean, that's literally what you're doing.
At least admit you're doing that.
You are condoning violence.
I don't condone violence, but I think it was strong and brave for Will Smith to smack Chris Rock in the face.
Okay, well, then you're condoning violence.
That, by definition, is what... That's what condoning violence sounds like.
When you do that.
And there's one other thing too that, because we're hearing this a lot now, from alopecia advocates, which is a category I wasn't quite sure existed.
And we're hearing that, well, if you make a joke about someone with alopecia, then you deserve to get smacked in the face.
Maybe more than that.
Maybe shot in the head too.
But at the same time, this is also coming from people, even Jada Smith herself has said, that's why she has the shaved head, you know, she's not wearing a wig or anything, which is great, which is fine.
And she's saying, because I'm proud, I'm not ashamed.
And she shouldn't be ashamed.
And so we're getting this from the alopecia advocates, that no, we're proud, we're not ashamed, there's nothing shameful.
Totally agree.
But you can't have it both ways.
You can't say, I'm proud, I'm not ashamed, but then at the same time, if you make a joke about this, you deserve to be violently assaulted.
So I want a special exception for me.
I'm proud and not ashamed, but I want a special exception where if you make a joke about me, you can be violently assaulted.
Those two things don't really work together.
All right.
So, Biden on Friday wrapped up his trip to Poland with a disastrous speech where he called for regime change in Russia, something that nobody around him seems to know that he was going to do.
And from what I could tell, he had his scripted speech, and at the very end, he decided to go off script and say this.
Listen.
For God's sake, this man cannot remain powerful.
God bless you all, and may God defend our freedom.
This man cannot be allowed to remain in power.
Sounds like you're calling for regime change.
If he's not allowed to remain, sounds like you're saying that there needs to be regime change.
Well, the White House has been trying to clean this up for the last several days.
The Daily Wire reports, quoting a White House official, the president's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.
He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia or regime change.
Right.
So that's the line, is that when Biden said this man cannot be allowed to remain in power, he meant He meant that he shouldn't be allowed to remain in power in Ukraine, although he's not in power in Ukraine, so that doesn't really make any sense.
Their way around it is to say, essentially, that Joe Biden said something he didn't actually say.
They're just going to rewrite history, which is usually something that Democrats are able to do quite easily because they have the media on their side.
Only in this case, give you an idea of how bad this gaffe was, if you can call it that.
Even the media has been calling him out.
So here's CNN, just to show you how bad this is.
Here's CNN calling Biden to the mat for this one.
Well, I think that the policy of this administration is not regime change.
Unfortunately, the message is confused, which is why President Biden, I think, kind of worked himself up in this speech, and then he made a comment that he did.
But the White House's response, though, to say what he really meant is really gaslighting the American people.
We know that he really doesn't want Putin to be in power.
And they could have just said, listen, we all recognize that Putin is evil.
What he's doing is evil.
But the policy of the United States Is in fact to get to a position of peace in Ukraine, and we're going to arm the Ukrainians to make sure they can get to a negotiated peace.
The other thing I would say too is this isn't his only gaffe.
President Biden also made the gaffe about sending the 82nd Airborne into Ukraine, which we're not doing.
And he also said that the United States would respond in kind if there was a chemical weapons attack on the part of Russia.
So this really was, it was not a good, I think, trip for the president because the three big gaffes really are at cross purposes with the overall message from this administration.
Gaslighting the American people.
That might be, I'll have to check the Guinness records, but I think that might be the first time that a Democrat has been accused of gaslighting the American people on CNN or any mainstream left-leaning outlet.
Now, we hear the term gaslighting all the time, but it's almost always used about Republicans.
That shows you how bad the screw-up was.
Meanwhile, the other thing that happened significantly, I think, over the weekend relating to Ukraine is that, and I can't play any of them here and I wouldn't play them, but all kinds of videos started going viral, allegedly showing POWs, Russian POWs in Ukraine being tortured and killed.
There's one video in particular, multiple videos, but one in particular that has gotten a lot of attention appears to show.
Russian or rather Ukrainian soldiers shooting Russian POWs in the kneecaps Where at least a couple and proceeded to die from shock and blood loss as you might expect Now this is the kind of thing Even though the media as we just saw has rare moments of almost honesty Those moments are rare.
And so this is something that the media is probably not going to chase down We're not going to hear a whole lot about But it does appear that there's human rights violations, war crimes being committed by Ukrainians on film.
I mean, they're the ones filming this stuff and posting it online.
So war crimes being committed, on top of the fact that we already know that in Ukraine there are literal, actual Nazi militias as part of the Ukrainian forces.
And they're the ones committing a lot of these war crimes.
And that's not Nazi in the way that we hear from the media, where if you say something they don't like on Twitter, then you're a Nazi.
No, no, no.
This is like actual Nazis.
Actual neo-Nazis.
As part of the Ukrainian forces.
So, what we're supposed to believe.
Talk about gaslighting.
What we're supposed to believe is that the side with actual Nazis apparently committing war crimes on camera is also the side that stands for democracy and freedom, and that we must be willing, potentially, to get into a world war and lose millions of American lives for their sake.
That's what we're supposed to believe.
I'm not buying that, I have to tell you.
I haven't bought it from the beginning.
Now, I shouldn't have to qualify this and say it, but I will for, you know, slower people out there who get confused.
There are people who are confused, and any time talking about Ukraine, if you do anything but, and this is still the case now, weeks into this thing, if you do anything but talk about how evil Putin is, then some confused people out there will think that, well, you must be supporting Putin.
No, I don't support Putin, or what he's doing, or the invasion of Ukraine.
I want it to be over.
I just want the whole thing to be over.
I want it to be over for the sake of the people involved so that there's less bloodshed and fewer people die.
Already far too many people have died.
Also, the sooner it's over, the better for America, which is my primary concern.
If this thing is over and there's a peace agreement, then that means that America's not going to potentially get sucked into it.
The longer it goes on, it just creates more and more opportunities for the United States to get sucked into this, especially given the people running the country right now, our country.
So I want it to be over.
I think it's a terrible thing.
I think the whole thing is terrible.
But as I said from the beginning, when this whole thing first started, what you have to keep in mind And there may be a few people listening right now who are an exception to this.
There may be a few people listening who, for years, have been experts on Ukraine, have been very interested in that region of the world, are familiar with the long-standing disputes between Ukraine and Russia.
Maybe a few people, maybe like two people listening right now, who fall into that category.
But putting you aside, everybody else, prior to this happening, you never thought once about Ukraine in your life.
You know nothing about the country whatsoever.
You know nothing about the disputes leading up to this moment.
You know nothing about what precipitated Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
You know nothing about any of that.
You don't know anything about the Ukrainian government that we're supposed to be assisting and that we're sending money to and everything else.
And given that you don't know anything about it, that's why some skepticism is required.
If you don't know anything about it and everything you're hearing is from the media and it's war propaganda being fed to you by people who you know you can't trust, who you know you can't trust on any other issue, do you think war will be different?
Even otherwise trustworthy and honorable people can become liars and propagandists when it comes to war.
So what about people who are already liars and propagandists?
What all this means is, again, it doesn't mean that we're supporting Russia, it just means some restraint, some skepticism.
And when you're looking at what's happening in Ukraine right now, it's just not as simple as you might want it to be.
If there are war criminals and Nazis on the quote-unquote good side, that tells you it's not quite that simple anymore.
And it certainly means I don't want a drop of American, I don't want an American to suffer so much as a paper cut in defense of Ukraine.
If there's even a paper cut that somebody suffers because of all the cash that we're handing over to Ukraine and their government, their corrupt government, I'm going to consider that a terrible tragedy, that even that much blood, that much American blood was spilled for Ukraine.
All right, let's move to this.
Cory Booker is still offended that Kentonji Jackson was asked what a woman is, as we've established, words are violence.
And so this was, in many ways, a violent attack by Marsha Blackburn on Kentonji Jackson by asking her to define what a woman is.
Cory Booker was doing the rounds on the Sunday shows, and he's still just totally scandalized by the whole thing.
Let's listen to that.
Provide a definition for the word woman.
Can I provide a definition?
The fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.
What was their reaction when you saw that moment?
I think there were a lot of moments like that that were deflating to me and disappointing to me.
But the reality is, you know, number one, she could have had 22 senators in that room as opposed to 11 who were asking questions that were a bit beyond the pale and she still would have persevered.
Questions that are beyond the pale?
What as a woman is beyond the pale?
And of course, we're not going to get from Dana Bash the follow-up of, well, can you define the word, since we're on the subject?
This is, what Cory Booker says, it's beyond the pale to ask a woman what a woman is.
How dare you?
And that's been the media's line on this.
Like, what they're not going to do, and you'll notice this, from the left, there's been, over the last week especially, There's been discussion about this question, because they can't help, they have to discuss it, they can't totally ignore it.
But what they haven't done, what I haven't seen at all, is an actual definition offered.
Because here's the thing, any one of these people, whether it's Cory Booker, anyone, the politicians, anyone in the media, any left-wing advocate with a platform, any of them could put an end to this Line of attack, which is just a basic question.
They can put an end to it by answering the question, by giving a definition.
If there's one that exists, by giving a definition that is coherent and that makes sense and that allows women to remain as a distinct and unique category while also not undermining gender ideology.
Because that's the kind of definition they would need.
Obviously, they don't want to give a definition that undermines gender ideology, because then that collapses the entire house of cards.
They also don't want to give a definition that explicitly erases women as a category.
What they don't want to come out and say is, well, there's no definition at all for the word, because women aren't anything.
They don't want to say that.
And because they don't want to say that, then that means that all they could do is come up with a definition that somehow threads that needle, and none of them have been able to do it.
Because it doesn't exist.
I mean, they could do that now.
I mean, I've got the movie, I've got a whole franchise around this question, and they could destroy all of that ahead of time by just answering the question.
I mean, how embarrassing would that be for me if before I even get the movie out, someone on the left actually comes along and says, OK, here's the answer.
And then I'm forced to go, oh, OK, well, you had an answer.
But they can't because it doesn't exist.
That's why I'm personally willing to stake my entire reputation, such as it is.
One reason I'm willing to stake my reputation is because I already have a bad reputation, but whatever remains of it, I'm willing to stake it on this, because I'm so sure that a definition that threads the needle we just talked about doesn't exist and can't exist.
But they can call my bluff anytime.
They can call Marsha Blackburn's bluff.
Related here, AOC was talking about paternity leave, and she was doing, I think it was another Instagram Live, or it might be on TikTok, I don't know.
But she has, in case you were wondering, she has also, of course, bought in entirely to the idea that, you know, we can't use the word mother.
That's the M word, and that's offensive.
And so here's her language of choice.
Listen.
And we do tend to find that for example, um, dads, because we give it to all parents, whether you are the birthing parent, adoptive parent, whatever.
Um, so dads sometimes like to take that first month and then their spouses will, um, you know, uh, take, you know, time off and then maybe they'll try to take additional time off after their spouse's leave is expired or they'll take leave while their spouse is taking leave, but it's up to you.
The birthing parent is what we're going with.
You know, birthing parent, birthing people.
There was also something I saw on Twitter a couple days ago, which was, and it's not the first time I've seen this, but the other label that you see sometimes now is bleeders.
I mean, how much more dehumanizing and degrading can you get?
And the other funny kind of erotic thing about this is that so often what you hear from the left is that, well, we don't want to define women by just their body parts, by their, you know, menstrual cycles, by any kind of physical function that way, because that's very limiting.
And that's exactly what they do.
Literally defining a bleeder, reducing women down just to that, or even birthing person.
So while they say they don't want to reduce women to their biological functions or to their body parts, that is precisely exactly what they do.
One other thing on a similar note here, this is from the New York Post.
Almost incredible.
Like it's almost hard to believe this.
And I remember I first saw claims of this online and I thought, eh, you know, really?
Did they go that far?
Apparently they did.
So an image of controversial transgender swimmer Leah Thomas that aired on the Today Show was manipulated to make her, well, I'm reading the language from the article, which says her, but it's actually him.
So I guess I'll just change that.
Was manipulated to make him appear more feminine, experts said.
Jonathan Gallegos, a former White House director of digital content for President Trump, said the edited image has definitely undergone some sort of softening and smoothing effect.
It's clear this job was not done by a professional.
This level of skin smoothing is a hallmark sign of an immature job.
Another photographer said, well, that's really bad.
So you have photographers, people who are involved in digital editing, that have said that the Today Show actually doctored an image of Leah Thomas.
In the pool to kind of smooth his features out a little bit more and make him look feminine.
So they're kind of after the fact and they also, it says, what do they do?
They removed facial lines, skin discoloration, notable red impressions on his face caused by goggles, whatever, and blurred the Adam's apple.
The show later ran the original photo, warts and all, in a clip posted to Twitter on March 18th.
So maybe the Today Show will try to defend itself, but right now they haven't said anything about this and they probably will try to just ignore it.
But if they do have to defend themselves, maybe they'll say this was a rogue editor or something that did this on their own.
I'd be very skeptical of that.
But there was a decision made in editing to try to make this guy look more feminine, look more like a woman.
And of course, even after the camera tricks and the Photoshop, he still looks like a man.
A slightly feminized man, but still a man.
And they do this even though they say that there's no reason why having a prominent Adam's apple or, you know, having any traditionally male feature at all should preclude you from being a woman.
They say that and then yet after the fact they're going to try to, you know, give a Give Leah Thomas a little bit of an assist by feminizing him in the post-edit.
I mean, it's just, as I said, almost surprising, almost, that they would go that far.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
All right, let's try one video comment.
Let's go to clip 16.
Hello Supreme Leader Walsh.
I think I may have done the impossible and come up with a definition for what is a woman from the left's perspective.
And as always, the conservatives have to do everything for them.
So I will give you my definition from a leftist perspective.
Perhaps.
who intentionally identifies with or attempts to physically embody or emulate
or fulfill the social and behavioral roles generally and historically
attributed in the sign to adult human females.
Perhaps it works for their perception of what a woman is supposed to be.
I would like you to debunk my assessment.
Sweet baby gang for life.
It is funny that I have to say that the best attempts at coming up with a
definition from a leftist perspective have all been from conservatives.
So that was... I'll give you this.
That's as good as it's gonna get.
And it's good because it's a whole lot of words.
So you've learned from listening to the left the way the game is played.
And so you have a whole bunch of words, which are all trying to obscure the fact that there's actually nothing being said here at all.
So a whole bunch of words, and it makes it sound really complicated.
And then in the middle of it, you forget what's even being talked about.
And then at the end, they say, oh, see, I proved my point.
And you say, well, OK, I guess you did.
I lost track.
Remember I talked about we announced this film.
This is this is the The method of the leftist when it comes to everything but especially the gender issue is just to get you lost out in the weeds and so you have You have executed That strategy I think very well But what you just said really boils down to I mean if I were to strip away all the complicated language and the wordiness of it What you're saying is that a woman?
Is a female or not a female?
That's really what you're saying.
A woman is a female or not a female.
Which is another way of saying that a woman isn't anything at all.
You know, that is the actual definition.
You could get rid of all that and just say that the leftist definition of woman is that there's no such thing.
You know, it's kind of a...
It's a question based on a false premise, they might say.
The premise being that women exist in the first place.
I mean, that's not a definition, but that is the answer.
That's kind of the answer that you gave.
If you were to go deeper than that, we would say that there are also some just logical problems there, because what you're saying is that, so you've got females who are women, according to that definition, I assume, right?
And then people who associate with the things that are historically associated with females, and they're also women.
And so you have these two people who are distinct from one another in ways that are immutable.
And yet they're exactly the same, according to that definition.
So a person who is something, that is, is a female, According to that definition, is the same as someone who is not a female, but perceives themselves to be one.
So it's just, it doesn't make any sense.
It's logically incoherent.
But it takes more than a couple of words, I guess, to address.
So that makes it, you know, not bad, as far as these things go.
Okay, Justin says, well, okay, reading now from the comments, and by the way, I did go We put up over the weekend another one of our Am I the A-Hole YouTube videos where I go to the Am I the A-Hole forum on Reddit and respond to some of the quandaries.
People, you know, have situations in their lives where something happens and they're not sure if they're the A-Hole in the way they responded or if the other person is.
So they post these moral dilemmas on Reddit and they get a lot of bad answers.
And so every once in a while I'll go and answer some of them myself and put it on YouTube.
So I'm reading some of the comments also from that video as well as the last episode.
Kaiser says, I'm glad to see someone finally spreading awareness about the discrimination that we free-range tarantula owners face.
Yeah, because one of the questions on the MIA whole thing was someone talking about people bringing their dogs to your house.
And I made the point that, of course, bringing a wild animal to somebody's house as a guest is completely inappropriate.
And we only would allow that with a dog.
We don't make that exception for any other animal.
If I worked, if I was invited as a guest to your home, And I had any pet but a dog and I said, can I bring this pet with me?
You look at me like I was crazy.
If I owned a tarantula and I said, I want to bring my tarantula with me.
He's free range.
He just wanders around.
I'm going to bring him into the living room with me.
You look at me like I'm insane.
This is my house.
It's not a zoo.
It's not some kind of nature center.
No different for dogs.
Dean says, Matt must be joking, right, that he is walking around his house in shoes.
That's something I will never understand, walking around with your nasty shoes in your house.
No, I don't walk around my house in my shoes.
But my point is that if I'm inviting a stranger into my house, I'm not going to require you to take your shoes off.
Because number one, that means that my first act as the host to you, as the guest, is to tell you to remove items of clothing, which is weird.
And second, it means that now you're displaying your disgusting feet all over the place.
My feet are one thing.
It's my house.
I can do that.
I don't want to see your feet.
Why Peffel says I'll finally be getting a DW subscription just so I can watch what is a woman.
Many such cases.
And now's the chance.
You can get 25% off if you go get a subscription right now with code, whatisawoman.
CoolPapaJMagic says, this whole movement against low self-esteem is not a good thing.
Low self-esteem is there to tell you that something is going wrong and you're not getting the results you want.
So it's time to fix it.
Ignoring that mental state instead of using it as a motivator to start to solve your problems will only make you miserable.
I totally agree.
And that actually segues nicely into what we talk about in the daily cancellation, which we'll get to now.
Joel Osteen is, of course, the motivational speaker and self-help guru who calls himself the pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, which is co-pastored by his wife, Victoria.
Lakewood's website invites you not to a solemn and sacred celebration of Christ, but to the Lakewood Church experience with Joel Osteen.
Much like an Osteen sermon, the homepage does not mention Jesus anywhere.
Instead, it promises that at Lakewood, we believe your best days are still out in front of you.
Whether you're joining us in person or online, we invite you to experience our services and be a part of the Lakewood family.
The Bible says that you are planted in the house of the Lord.
You will flourish.
Get ready to step into a new level of your destiny.
So it's all about you, your success, your prosperity, your destiny.
All the religion stuff, if it has any place at all, only exists to facilitate and ensure that your earthly wealth and happiness come to fruition.
This is the essence of the heretical prosperity gospel as preached by Osteen, another private jet-flying televangelist.
To my knowledge, there's no evidence that Osteen's prosperity gospel has actually helped any of his congregants be prosperous.
Certainly not in a spiritual sense, but also not even in a material sense either.
Prosperity gospel leads to poverty in every sense of the word, and in all worst senses of the word.
It's a different story for the people on stage peddling this stuff, though.
For Osteen and his wife, the whole enterprise has been enormously profitable.
Jesus instructed his apostles, the first pastors, to give up everything and follow him.
Osteen calls himself a pastor and yet has decided that everything does not include his opulent 17,000 square foot estate, or his other mansions, or his private jet, or his many cars, or his 50 million dollar net worth.
Now, there's nothing wrong in and of itself with being financially successful, but when you're profiting to such an obscene degree off of your title as pastor and displaying that wealth in the most ostentatious way imaginable, it certainly becomes a significant problem.
A problem profoundly accentuated by the fact that the gospel he preaches, and which has made him so rich, has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ.
It is a worldly gospel, one focused on material gain.
A gospel that promises that faithful Christians will be rewarded with earthly success and prosperity, which, of course, would mean that all the many Christians in the world who live in abject poverty and in misery, I guess, just aren't holy or faithful enough to earn God's blessings.
Osteen flies over them in his private jet, looking down and yelling, have you guys tried praying?
Yet somehow, as bad as Joel is, his wife, the quote-unquote co-pastor, who considers herself qualified to be a pastor based simply on the fact that her husband is, Manages to be the worst of the two.
Now, Victoria, just to set the stage here, famously preached a few years ago that Christians should live for their own sake, not for God.
Yes, that is explicitly what she said.
Let's remember this.
I just want to encourage everyone of us to realize when we obey God, we're not doing it for God.
I mean, that's one way to look at it.
We're doing it for ourselves.
Because God takes pleasure when we're happy.
That's the thing that gives Him the greatest joy this morning.
So I want you to know this morning, just do good for your own self.
Do good because God wants you to be happy.
When you come to church, when you worship Him, you're not doing it for God, really.
You're doing it for yourself.
Because that's what makes God happy, amen?
No, not amen.
Do good for your own self.
Don't worship God for God, worship him for you.
Because in the end, it's all about you, Victoria says.
And by you, she means me, Victoria.
Really, it's all about the Osteens in the end, specifically because they know that this message, though it may be spiritually toxic, is nonetheless the most popular and appealing and ear-tickling message they can give.
There's a lot more money to be made in a live-for-yourself message than in a live-for-God message.
Now, it finally takes us to this past weekend when Victoria, the woman who likes to play pastor in her spare time, tweeted this.
Quote, the scripture says, let the redeemed of the Lord say so.
If you're going to go to the next level, you have to say so.
If you're going to accomplish a dream, overcome an obstacle, or break an addiction, you have to start declaring it.
Now, I'm not exactly sure what she means by next level.
Is she giving video game tips now?
She might as well claim that scripture gives advice on how to succeed in Mario Kart because her actual claim is just as absurd and just as anachronistic.
She says that scripture preaches self-actualization and self-affirmation, calling on believers to believe in themselves and actualize their own success by saying it out loud.
The problem is that nobody back in biblical times was superficial or stupid enough to buy into or even conceive any of this self-help psychobabble.
That line in scripture is not about chasing your dreams or getting a big promotion at work.
In fact, nowhere in scripture are we told that we can make good things happen for ourselves just by declaring it.
The line that she references is from the Psalms and in context it says,
"Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, his loving devotion endures forever. Let the redeemed
of the Lord say so, whom he has redeemed from the hand of the enemy and gathered from the lambs from
east and west, from north and south." So, what are we, the redeemed of the Lord, saying in this verse?
Are we saying that we ourselves are special and worthy and can achieve anything we set our minds to?
No, the Psalm calls us to say, to declare, that the Lord is good.
Not that we are.
Osteen, like so many heretics, has skimmed the Bible for one line, removed it from its context, infused it with a modern, shallow meaning, and morphed it into a self-help mantra.
The kind of thing you say while you're staring in the mirror rather than staring at the cross.
It's not only heretical, but sacrilegious.
Truly, I would rather that she take a Bible and burn it on stage than take it and turn it into an out-of-context self-help bumper sticker.
But this was somehow not the worst thing she put out into the world that day.
Earlier in the morning on Saturday, she posted this.
Maybe you've made some wrong decisions, but you've made a whole lot of right decisions, too.
You're better off than you were in the past, and your future is getting brighter and brighter.
See yourself as successful, because what you set your focus on will become reality.
Now this is what we might call false optimism.
She breezily declares that you, you as in everyone, all people, whoever you are, you are better off today than you were in the past and your future is bright.
She also says that the best way to become successful is to see yourself as successful now, whether that's the case or not.
Let's take the first part of that prattling nonsense first.
You're better off today than you were in the past.
Your future is bright.
Okay, well, that certainly is not true for everybody in the world.
It's probably not even true for most people.
Life does not universally follow an upward trajectory wherein each moment is better than the last, and by simply existing until this point, it's guaranteed that you've improved over time and that you will only improve more in the future.
That's not reality, sad to say.
That's not life.
That's the version of reality that you hear from self-help swindlers like Victoria Osteen.
Because she knows that you're more likely to listen to her and give her money if she makes you feel good about yourself.
But it's a deluded, fragile good feeling.
It's not real.
It's not grounded in anything true.
It won't lead you to true happiness or contentment because it's a lie.
It's a marketing gimmick.
A sales pitch.
See, it's hard to know what to say to someone who is really suffering.
Somebody who's fallen on hard times.
Say, for example, a man whose marriage has collapsed.
He's lost his family, lost his job, his health is deteriorating.
That's not some kind of far-fetched hypothetical.
These are the kinds of things millions of people deal with every day.
But it's difficult to come up with a message for somebody suffering like that.
Somebody who's encountered real hardships.
So the Osteen strategy for dealing with such difficulties is simply to pretend that the difficulties don't exist.
They look at this man who has lost everything and say, chin up buddy, you're better off today than yesterday.
He had everything yesterday, nothing today.
How is he better off?
In what way?
Well, and how does it help him to say that to him?
Well, in no way is he better off, but the thin gruel offered by the Osteens isn't substantial enough to nourish someone dealing with real troubles in life.
They have only bumper stickers, that's all, nothing else.
And so they wave their magic wand and say abracadabra and pretend that everything in the world is good, everyone's doing well, and everybody lives in a 20-bedroom castle just like they do.
As for the see-yourself-as-successful bit, that's just terrible career advice, for one thing.
You're not going to achieve success in the future by lying to yourself that you're already successful when you're not.
And you're not going to be successful just because you exist.
Like, you exist and you have a job.
Well, I'm successful.
No, you're not.
That's baseline.
That's bare minimum.
Unless success to you is bare minimum.
But if you hunger for more in life, then that's not success.
And why would you work for a thing that you already have?
Success is not achieved through self-delusion.
You're not going to obtain something by telling yourself you already have it when you don't.
Success is not something that you can speak into existence by repeating a mantra.
It's something you have to work for.
Work hard every day, step by step.
It also requires that you humble yourself.
You must admit that you are not as successful right now as you want to be.
If you aren't willing to do that, you'll never achieve what you may have otherwise been capable of achieving.
Ironically, the Osteens themselves certainly did not achieve their fantastic financial success by taking the advice Victoria offers.
They did it by selling their souls, which is not something that you have to do or should do if you want to be successful.
That was simply their strategy.
And in the end, I'd say it's why they're both today cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Joe Biden promises food shortages, the White House tries to muffle Biden's war drums, and Will Smith punches Chris Rock at the Oscars.
