Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Disney executives are now openly admitting to their “gay agenda” — their words, not mine. Another executive, in a recent staff meeting, bragged about her “pansexual child.” We’ll talk about Disney’s free fall plummet into far left wokeism. Also, a kindergarten teacher worries that the Florida bill just signed into law will prevent him from talking to his students about his love life. But why does he need to talk to them about that? And Biden signs the anti-lynching act, thanks to Republicans who provided him with this opportunity to virtue signal. Jim Carrey is speaking out against Will Smith’s violent outburst at the Oscars. Why is he almost the only guy in Hollywood saying anything about it? Plus, a Republican congressman claims that he’s been invited to drug fueled orgies by other members of congress. In our Daily Cancellation, Jon Stewart has white guilt and he wants to tell us all about it. We’ll listen, and then cancel him.
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
What is a Woman? Matt Walsh tracks down the answer in his new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Policies issued by Vantis Life not available in New York and Montana.
Prices subject to underwriting and health questions.
You know, I was never a very good student of physics in high school or of any other subject, frankly.
But one thing I know is that when an object starts falling, its velocity will increase.
The rate of its descent will only accelerate until it hits the ground.
And I've noticed a similar thing happens with wokeness.
Leftism has its own gravitational pull, which ensures that once a person or organization falls into the woke pit, it will tumble towards annihilation at ever-increasing speeds.
But also, there really is no ground in this scenario.
Leftism is more of a black hole, I guess.
You fall endlessly into the darkness until you're ripped apart and the pieces of you disintegrate and become one with the abyss.
We're watching this play out right now across our culture.
Disney is just one case study, but a rather instructive one.
Now, it's true that Disney has been liberal, probably since Walt himself died, but they've mostly sort of been orbiting around the black hole, approaching it in a somewhat controlled manner.
But then the Parental Rights Bill in Florida came along, prohibiting teachers from talking to five-year-olds about their sexuality.
Disney, facing pressure from a small cluster of LGBT extremists in their organization, had to make a choice.
They could try to remain neutral, which would keep them in orbit around the black hole of wokeness.
Or they could actively push back against the LGBT militants, which was never going to happen, but if they did, it would actually move them farther away from that black hole.
Or they could cave to the radical gay factions and come out fully in favor of teaching seven-year-olds about transgenderism and gender fluidity.
They, of course, chose the latter option, which meant diving right in to the hole.
And now they're in the midst of an ideological freefall.
This is what LGBT activists want.
They don't want you orbiting around the perimeter.
They insist that you surrender to their demands and reorganize your whole life or your whole organization or both in whatever way they require.
So investigative journalist Chris Ruffo has obtained footage that shows just how rapid this dissent has been.
According to Ruffo, Disney recently called an all-hands meeting where multiple executives and other high-ranking people in the institution talked about what Disney would do going forward to cater to the gay agenda.
And lest you think I'm exaggerating or engaging in conspiracy theories with the phrase gay agenda, you should realize that the term was actually used in the meeting.
Here's executive producer LaToya Raveneau, and here she is, listen.
It's like, I love Disney's content.
I grew up watching, you know, all of the classics.
They have been a huge, like, informative part of my life.
But at the same time, like, I worked at small studios most of my career, and I'd heard, you know, you hear whispers.
Like, I'd heard things like, oh, you know, they won't let you show this at a Disney show.
And I'm like, okay.
So I was a little, like, sus when I started.
But then my experience was Bafflingly the opposite of what I had heard.
On my little pocket of, like, you know, Proud Family, Disney TVA, the showrunners were super welcoming.
Meredith Roberts and, like, our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not at all secret gay agenda.
And so I feel like I felt like it was, I mean, maybe it was that way in the past,
but I guess something must have happened in the last, like they're turning it around, they're going hard.
Now, she says Disney is going hard on the gay agenda.
And no further comment needed.
But as bad as that is, and as disturbing as the way she phrased it, still somehow the most troubling thing in that video is that a grown woman is speaking with the language and mannerisms of a 14-year-old on TikTok.
But if you're wondering what the gay agenda might look like in practice, or sound like, Disney diversity and inclusion manager Vivian Ware appeared later in the meeting to give just one example of how this gay agenda may be put into practice.
Listen.
Last summer, we removed all of the gendered greetings in relationship to our lives fields, so we no longer say ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.
We've provided training for all of our cast members in relationship to that, so now they know it's hello everyone or hello friends.
We are in the process of changing over those recorded messages.
And so many of you are probably familiar when we brought the fireworks back to the Magic Kingdom, we no longer say ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we say dreamers of all ages.
And so I love the fact that it's opened up the creativity, the opportunity for our cast members to look at that.
We have our cast members working with merchandise, working with food and beverage, working with all of our guest-facing areas where perhaps, you know, we want to create that magical moment with our cast members, with our guests.
And we don't want to just assume because someone might be, in our interpretation, maybe presenting as female, that they may not want to be called princess.
So let's think differently about how do we really engage with our guests in a meaningful and inclusive way that makes it magical and memorable for everyone.
Yes, well, we all know that nothing upsets a little girl at Disney World more than being called princess.
I mean, they just hate that.
Good thing Disney has done away with such slurs.
Although, I should warn them that everyone, they said we're going to say everyone instead of ladies and gentlemen, well, that's not going to be an acceptable alternative because everyone implies that each individual identifies as being just a single entity.
This could be quite othering to the self-identified theys and thems in the audience, not to mention anybody with disassociative identity disorder.
Everyone is not only exclusionary and transphobic, but also ableist.
Now, at another point in the meeting, Disney production coordinator Alan March made an appearance where he assured the assembled staff that his team has created a tracker to ensure that Disney is telling a sufficient number of queer stories.
Listen.
Yeah, I've had the privilege of working with the Moon Girl team for the last two years, and they've been really open to exploring queer stories.
And part of, I'm on the production side, part of the work that I feel like I can put in is Making sure that we take place in modern-day New York, so making sure that that's an accurate reflection of New York.
So I put together a tracker of our background characters to make sure that we have the full breadth of expression.
And we got into a very similar conversation, Carrie, of like, oh, all of our gender non-conforming characters are in the background.
And so it's not just a numbers game of how many LGBTQ plus characters you have, We got...
The further, the more centered a story is on a character, the more nuanced you get to get into their story.
And especially with, like, trans characters, you can't see if someone is trans.
There's not one way to look trans.
And so kind of the only way to have these, like, canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters, is to give them stories where they can, like, be their whole selves.
So this is where you end up when you free fall into woke leftism.
You end up using phrases like canonical asexual characters.
Although that phrase is not nearly as disturbing as something uttered by Disney corporate president Carrie Burke.
Listen to this.
I'm here as a mother of two queer children, actually.
One transgender child.
Um, and one pansexual child, um, and, and also as a leader, um, and that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks, um, and open forums and through emails and phone conversations and.
Um, I feel a responsibility to speak, um, not just for myself, but for them, um, to all of us.
We, we had a, we had an open forum last week at 20th where, um, again, the home of, of really incredible groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years where, um, one of our execs stood up and said, you know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.
And I went, what?
That can't be true.
And I realized, oh, it actually is true.
Yes.
Pansexual child is what she said.
Now, please keep this in mind if your kid is watching Disney content.
He is watching content produced by people who believe in the existence of pansexual children.
Now, the word pansexual, of course, in reality means nothing at all.
It's nonsense.
But according to the left, in their fantasy world, a pansexual is somebody who, quote, is not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.
I mean, the story of Peter Pan begins to take on a whole new meaning.
And so, Miss Carrie Burke says that her child, an actual child, is not limited in his sexual choice by biological sex or gender identity.
This is how she speaks of children, her own children.
And she has two children who are both queer, quote-unquote, one pansexual, the other trans.
How in God's name do you end up with two children who allegedly identify themselves with these alternative sexual labels?
Well, it happens because you select it for them.
You hand that identity to them the way that you might buy a child a new jacket and tell them to put it on.
A child is not going to come up with the concept of pansexuality on his own any more than he's going to come up with transgenderism.
Those must be given to him.
We talk about things being assigned to children.
Well, that is assigned.
He has to be converted into it because, as I've argued many times, the real conversion therapy that happens in our world today is the kind where a child is converted into LGBT.
Now, in a normal, in a sane world, the woman in that video would be in prison right now on charges of child abuse.
Instead, she's a well-compensated executive at a billion-dollar multimedia company in charge of creating entertainment for children.
She also says later in the clip that she wants to have half of Disney's characters by the end of the year be LGBT or minorities.
Half of them.
Now, this would seem to be in conflict with the whole concept of a minority.
If the idea is simply representation, then why is there this push for over-representation?
Why the insistence on making these identities more prominent on screen than they are in real life?
Well, here's the important point.
When these people talk about representation, they don't mean that they want the characters and storylines to represent America as it currently is.
They want it to represent the kind of world and culture they wish to create.
They're not representing culture, they're making it.
They want to have a whole lot more, quote, LGBT children, which means putting a lot more of it on the screen.
They want to reshape the world, which means reshaping your child.
The only question now is whether you, as a parent, are going to let them do it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
According to the latest research, 90% of employers plan to make enhancing
the employee experience a top priority in 2022.
After all, a happy workplace is key to attracting and keeping great employees.
And if you need to add more employees to your team, there's ZipRecruiter.
Their matching technology helps you find the right people for your roles and find them fast.
And right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter uses its powerful technology to find and match the right candidates up with your job.
Then, it proactively presents all these candidates to you so you can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply for your job, which encourages them to apply faster.
You're taking a proactive approach.
You're not just waiting around.
That's what ZipRecruiter is all about.
No wonder it's the number one rated hiring site in the U.S.
based on G2 ratings.
ZipRecruiter's technology is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Find the right employees for your workplace with ZipRecruiter.
Try it for free at this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com.
That's ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Well, I told you yesterday about the What Is A Woman, the book.
Well, we have the movie coming out.
We also have the book on the way, What Is A Woman, which went on for pre-sale.
Pre-sales began yesterday.
You can go to amazon.com and order it there.
Go to whatisawoman.com.
We do own the URL for whatisawoman.com.
And you can go there and pre-order the book.
You know, I did have related to this a little bit of a, you know, a proud Husband moment yesterday when my wife, at a point when What Is A Woman was charting on Amazon at like number 22, I think.
Yeah, number 22.
And it was right underneath a book that Will Smith recently wrote, which has also been surging on the charts a little bit.
As you might expect.
And so, my wife tweeted this.
I just thought it was fantastic.
She said, let's get Matt Walsh number one again.
What is a woman is currently ranked number 22 under Will Smith.
Nobody wants to be under Will Smith, not even Jada.
And I just... When you can come up with an insult that makes even me go, wow.
Oh boy, if I have that reaction, then you know it's pretty harsh, but also very well done.
These are the kinds of things that I am proud of, you know, in my marriage, just when my wife comes up with a joke like that.
All right, I want to start with this, because we're talking about the Florida bill, and we've seen, you know, many ways this is Not notable at all, because we've seen this parade of people appearing on cable news, teachers and LGBT activists from Florida talking about how horrible the bill is, and of course, completely misrepresenting it at the same time.
But I want to show you, this is a kindergarten teacher who appeared on MSNBC to talk about the bill and the terrible consequences that it will have for his own life.
And just listen to what he has to say.
Listen.
To the Florida governor signing this into law.
Yeah, you know, it's twofold.
It really hits hard in my heart professionally and personally both.
Professionally, it truly makes me feel like I am not trusted as a professional.
I know my kindergarten standards through and through, and nowhere in our curriculum does it have anything about teaching sexual orientation or sexual identity.
So for them to say that that's happening, you know, it's kind of crazy.
But we should be able to have discussions.
And that's what we're encouraged to do in kindergarten.
And then personally, because, you know, my kids do have questions.
They want to know who my partner is in pictures outside of my classroom, and I should be able to speak to that.
So do you worry that you won't even be able to talk about your own personal home life?
I mean, I have a child in kindergarten right now.
I know exactly that my child has two teachers, one of which has a daughter at home and is single.
The other is married and has four children.
I know everything about their lives because my kid tells me.
Absolutely.
You are 100% correct.
That's what we do as educators.
We build relationships with our kids.
And in order to build relationships, you talk about your home life.
You talk about what you do on the weekends.
That's building community.
It scares me to death that I am not going to be able to have these conversations with my children because they're going to ask me what I did on the weekend.
I don't want to have to hide that my partner and I went paddle boarding this weekend.
It scares him to death that he can't tell his children, listen to the phrasing there, that he went paddleboarding over the weekend.
He's scared to death that he can't talk about his paddleboarding trip with the kindergartners.
So now it's the don't say paddleboard bill, apparently.
He wants to be able to share his life with his kids.
Now listen.
Of course, in truth, there is actually nothing in the bill whatsoever that would prevent that dude from telling his children, who are not his children, their students.
They may be kindergartners, but that's, of course, how he sees it.
Very revealing.
That's how these teachers see it.
They think it's their children, but not my children.
But there's nothing actually in the bill that would prevent him from talking about his paddleboard trip, or even saying, hey kids, I went on a paddleboarding trip with my gay partner.
I'm a gay man, I went on a paddleboarding trip.
He, according to the bill, he can still say that.
I don't think he should, but there's actually nothing in the bill at all that would stop that from happening.
It's not in there.
But it does raise the question of why do you need to share this information with the kids anyway?
Like the kids are going to ask what you did over the weekend.
Really?
Are they really going to ask you that?
I guess I was an unusually selfish child and every other kid in my class when I was in elementary school also was unusually selfish because nobody ever asked the teacher that.
We didn't sit down on a Monday and say, so Mrs. Smith, what did you do over the weekend?
Who is having that conversation?
You think kindergartners, little five-year-olds are coming in to say, have a great weekend, how'd it go?
Kids aren't asking you that.
They don't care about that.
And even if they did ask you that, it's not a whole long conversation you need to have.
Even if there was a law saying that you can't talk about your gay relationships, which again, that's not actually what the law says, but even if there was, you could still say, I went paddleboarding over the weekend.
There's nothing stopping you from saying that.
Do you need to get into specifics about your relationship?
I'm sorry, I don't believe That quote-unquote his children are asking him all about his private life?
I've never heard of such a thing?
Kids don't care about that?
But even if they do, why do you need to talk about this?
When I went to school, I didn't know anything about the private lives of any of my teachers.
I think as I've said before, I really thought for much of my younger years in school, I thought that they all like lived in the school.
I thought they were kept in a crypt or something in the basement and then just wheeled out to teach us the ABCs and then sent back into their lair or whatever.
That's what I figured.
I didn't think about their private lives at all.
I assumed they didn't have them because they were just my teachers.
They didn't sit down and talk about their marital problems or anything like that.
Why do you need to talk about it?
Well, here's the answer.
It's for these teachers, taking the LGBT stuff, putting it all the way to the side.
For a lot of these teachers now, everything is self-focused.
As we always talk about with leftism, everything comes back to the self.
The entire worldview is turned in on itself.
And it's nothing but just a, it's a, it's a fun house, you know, hall of mirrors and everything just reflects back to them.
So teaching, um, certainly for, for the mentality of a leftist, teaching is not about the kids.
It's not about relaying information on whatever subject you're teaching.
It's about you.
And so it's unthinkable that you would not be able to put yourself into it and talk about yourself.
That's the main thing they want to talk about.
You think that you're sending your kids to school to learn the ABCs and the 1, 2, 3s, but really, as far as the teachers are concerned, you're sending them to school to learn about the teachers.
And as they're talking about themselves incessantly, maybe they'll throw in a little bit of 2 plus 2 here and there.
It is unthinkable to them that maybe it's not about you.
That weirdo that we just saw.
It's not about you.
No one is sending their kid to kindergarten to learn about you.
Nobody cares about you.
The parents don't care.
It's not about you.
That's not why they're there.
This is not story time with Mr. Whoever.
All about his life.
Just keep yourself out of it.
Keep personal life out of it.
Even though there's no law stopping you from talking about your personal life, maybe there should be.
You know what?
Maybe that should be the consequence.
All of these idiots claiming that this law has been passed, stopping them from talking about their personal lives.
If I was in charge, the consequence would be, you know what?
That law doesn't exist, but now we're going to make one.
Because that apparently is the law you want to argue against, so here, I'll give you something to cry about.
How about a law for all teachers, just you're not allowed to talk about your personal lives at all.
All you're allowed to talk about is the subject and that's it.
Doesn't matter what's going on in your personal life, can't talk about it, talk about the subject.
If that's unthinkable to you, if that's some horrifying possibility, then go do something else with your life.
If you cannot separate your damned ego From your job as a teacher, then please go do something else.
We don't need you.
Alright.
Let's move on to Joe Biden yesterday signed the anti-lynching act.
And before we talk a little bit more about this anti-lynching act, let's, let's listen to Joe Biden who, you know, he's, he's, uh, had just one bad day after another politically.
And it's been his entire tenure has been a succession of bad days where it only seems somehow to get worse and worse.
And you think it couldn't possibly get worse the next day it is worse.
Um, so he was very excited to have, A crowd-pleasing moment like this, where you could get up and bravely take a stand against lynching.
And let's listen to that a little bit.
It was over a hundred years ago in 1900, North Carolina representative George Henry White, the son of a slave, the only black lawmaker in Congress at the time, who first introduced legislation to make lynching a federal crime.
Hundreds, hundreds of similar bills have failed to pass.
Over the years, several federal hate crime laws were enacted, including one I signed last year to combat COVID-19 hate crimes.
But no federal law, no federal law expressly prohibited lynching.
None.
Until today.
How brave.
First of all, I know that I'm the last guy to make fun of anybody for their pronunciations, but at the same time, he did say hundreds.
Hundreds, hundreds of laws have not passed.
He says no federal law has expressly forbid lynching.
That's technically true because of the word expressly.
But there are federal laws that do in fact prohibit lynching, even if it's not expressly.
It doesn't need to be expressly stated.
Because we do have a, we have a federal hate crime laws.
Where if you commit a violent act against someone for racist reasons, that's a federal hate crime.
It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't, whatever the violent act is.
So yeah, as it stands right now, until this lynching law came along, maybe it didn't specify every possible violent act you could commit.
If you commit a violent racist act of punching someone, if you stab them, if you shoot them, if you drown them.
Like, do we need to specify each individual thing that you might do?
No, it's racist violence is already a federal hate crime, and lynching very much falls under that umbrella.
Like, it's in that category, 100%.
So, if, prior to this law, you had gone and lynched somebody, you would be going to prison forever as a murderer, and you would also be hit with hate crime charges, provided that this was done, you know, it was racially motivated.
So that was already the case.
Already the case.
But it didn't really come up, because you might think, well, when's the last time someone, you say that somebody could be prosecuted for federal hate crimes in the past for committing a lynching, but when's the last time that happened?
Well, it's been a really long time, because it's been a really long time since anyone has lynched anybody else.
It's been decades and decades.
And the last, the most recent occasion, I think, was in the early 80s, if I remember correctly.
I looked this up in the past.
And even that was an isolated incident that was shocking because it had been decades and decades before it happened, before that.
So, in the last, like, 50 years, how many people have been lynched?
A few?
And none in the last 30 or 40?
Doesn't make it okay, obviously.
Doesn't mean that because it hasn't happened, it should be legal, but the good thing is, it wasn't.
It was already a crime on every level.
It's like, on every level of government, it was already a crime.
Now it's just a crime a second time.
And, uh, but that will make no effective difference whatsoever.
But here's, you know, I've, I've made this point about this anti-lynching bill and this totally, like, cynical.
You want to talk about cynicism, I think there could be no better example of it than this.
Making this big show of, you know, prohibiting a crime that was already prohibited and that nobody is committing anyway.
So a cynical virtue signaling ploy.
And yeah, we're used to that from the left.
We're used to that from the Democrats.
Obviously, Joe Biden is going to take any Thing like this that he can get.
Any softballs that you lob to him, he's gonna go ahead and take them.
And he'll still, you know, he'll still whiff on a lot of the softballs, but yeah, he'll appreciate it.
But why did the Republicans go along with this?
This only happened because almost every Republican in Congress, in both the House and the Senate, with the exception of three or four, went along with this.
Even though they all knew that this was totally absurd and the only reason this is being done is to give Joe Biden a chance to virtue signal.
And every Republican, almost every Republican congressman, Congress went along with this in order to give Joe Biden a chance to virtue signal.
And not only virtue signal, but cynically exploit racial tensions, actual hate crimes.
I mean, you know, treating actual lynching, which never occurs anymore, but it turns into this political pawn.
And Republicans went along with it.
And why did they go along with it?
Well, because as I've been reminded when I've complained about this, oh, well, well, if they didn't, they would have been called racist.
Oh, not that.
Oh, certainly.
I mean, yeah, well, go along with whatever the left wants.
So, uh, because otherwise they'll call you racist.
Yeah.
Even if you do go along with them, they still call you racist.
Is there any Democrat?
Have you heard a single Democrat giving props to Republicans and saying, hey, you know what?
Maybe these guys aren't as bad as I thought.
They're not actually racist.
They're against lynching too.
Look, they signed the bill or they voted for the bill.
Is any Democrat doing that?
No, you're still a racist Nazi in their minds.
It makes no difference.
Vote for the bill or don't.
You're racist either way.
So why go along with it?
You know, a better approach would be for every Republican to refuse to go along and then to explain why.
To just explain it as I've explained it.
It's not hard to do.
You know, with Republicans, there's so much of their story can be explained by their own cowardice, of course, and their own stupidity, but also their belief that we are stupid.
That most of us are stupid.
And yeah, there are plenty of stupid people out there.
But I think the American people in general are capable of understanding basic concepts.
So you could just explain, hey listen, it takes like 30 seconds to say, hey, we're not signing this bill.
This is a cynical ploy on their part.
Lynching is already illegal.
It's already a federal hate crime too.
And so that's why we're not signing.
We're not going along with this.
In fact, we find it outrageous that they're doing this in the first place.
That's so hard to say.
But of course, Republicans always always eagerly, you know, sort of digging dirt on their own graves.
All right.
We move now to the slap gate, some updates on that.
First of all, I just thought this was interesting from the Daily Star.
You know, there are people who are not giving up on this idea that the whole thing was staged.
And so the Daily Star has this, Will Smith's brutal smack of Chris Rock
at the 2022 Oscar ceremony was a choreographed Hollywood display,
one body language expert says.
Celebrity psychic and body language expert, Inbal Honigman, has explained that the incident
comes off as a back-slapping display, which saw the two men appear dignified and leisurely,
at least on the surface.
Dignified?
Dignified and leisurely?
And I only saw this because people were sharing it.
See?
See?
It's all a... This was all a stunt.
It's all a conspiracy.
I am glad that this woman is a body language expert and psychic, because those two things are truly the same.
I mean, they're both an absolute scam.
Body language expert.
Oh, you see, when he moved, he twitched his finger in a certain way, which means that he's thinking about this.
Like, shut up.
Do you, I've already addressed this, but somehow, I mean, of all, of all the dumb conspiracy theories, this one somehow annoys me the most just because it is so stupid.
And you have to have absolutely no understanding of human nature and especially of what makes a celebrity sort of tick to go to think that this was a stage play.
You think that we've talked about how Will Smith would never, as serious as these people take themselves, He would never go along with something that's going to overshadow his own Oscars win and cause career damage to him.
He would, for the sake of a stunt that some producer at the Oscars pitched to him.
So that's clear.
But Chris Rock?
You think Chris Rock is going to volunteer to be slapped in the face on television?
A moment that will live In Hollywood infamy, anytime you think of Chris Rock for the rest of your life, anytime his name comes up, forever, that is going to be front and center.
It's getting slapped in the face.
And Chris Rock agreed to that.
He agreed that, you know what, I want my whole legacy to be getting slapped in the face for the sake of this Oscars bit.
Because that's how much I care about Oscars ratings.
I'm gonna throw my whole career on the burn pile and be totally disgraced in front of the entire world so that the Oscars get better ratings.
Come on guys, just stop with that, okay?
Nobody would do that, especially not a celebrity at the Oscars.
These are not people known for self-deprecation.
Especially not self-deprecation to that extent.
Absurd.
But, you know, after all this happened, there's a—sort of the silence is deafening, because there were a lot of celebrities there who watched this all happen, and very few of them are speaking out.
The one guy we've heard is Jim Carrey.
He was on CBS yesterday.
Let's listen to a little bit of this and him reacting to the slap.
What did you think as you watched it unfold, and then what happened after?
I was sickened.
I was sickened by the standing ovation.
I felt like Hollywood is just spineless, en masse.
And it just, it really felt like, oh, this is a really clear indication that we're not the cool club anymore.
There was some question today about if anyone else had walked from the audience and done that, they would have been escorted out by security or maybe even arrested.
The police asked Chris if he wanted to file charges.
They asked Chris, do you want to file charges?
And Chris apparently said, no, he did not.
He doesn't want the hassle.
I'd have announced this morning that I was suing Will for $200 million because that video is going to be there forever.
It's going to be ubiquitous.
You know, that insult is going to last a very long time.
If you want to yell from the audience and disapprove or show a disapproval or say something on Twitter or whatever, you know, you do not have the right to walk up on stage and smack somebody in the face because they said words.
Yeah, I mean, everything you said, of course, is completely reasonable.
And by the way, as I'm listening to this, I'm thinking about the tragedy of Twitter, because Twitter kind of gives you an insight into people's mindsets and who they really are.
And that view is often quite discouraging for a lot of people.
So Jim Carrey, for example, you know, if not for Twitter, All I would know about him is the movies I've seen him in, and then like an interview like that where he comes off as a really reasonable guy.
And I would think, well, okay, he's just a reasonable, sane, you know, dignified guy, it seems like.
But then he's on Twitter all the time, especially during Trump's tenure, like ranting about Trump.
He's making all these obscene paintings of Trump and posting them, just coming off like a total fruitcake.
That if not for Twitter, we wouldn't know about that side of him at all.
There are so many people in the public light that it's like that.
If not for Twitter, this whole ugly side of them, that if not for that, we wouldn't even know it existed, and our impression of this person would be completely different.
Anyway, but what he said there, of course, right?
It shouldn't take courage to stand up and say that.
Like, yeah, you can't get up from your seat in the middle of an awards ceremony and slap a comedian in the face because he made a joke you didn't like.
But as basic as that concept is, just to show you the cowardice in Hollywood, no one else is saying it.
I think there were a few celebrities who originally tweeted about it and said that they disapproved, and a lot of them deleted it afterwards.
And when it comes to the A-listers, as far as I know, if we can call Jim Carrey an A-lister still, he's the only one who's come out and said, yeah, you know what, I am opposed to getting up at an awards ceremony and slapping a comedian because he made a joke I didn't like.
I'm opposed to that.
Count me in the anti-column for that one.
Just suffocating, overwhelming cowardice in Hollywood.
And after all the virtue signaling they did prior to this, you know, uh, we're standing for Ukraine, we're standing for the rights of, uh, for human rights and all this kind of stuff.
And, and then they watch a violent incident in their own midst and they all, they all shrink away.
They all wilt like little flowers.
Because when it's something happening, yeah, they can stand there and say, F you, Putin!
Because you're in Hollywood, and that's happening thousands of miles away, and it's real easy to say.
But when it's in your own, when it's happening right next to you, you can't say anything because you're too afraid.
All right, let's move...
We do.
I want to make sure we have time for this.
Representative Madison Cawthorn is a Republican.
He made a claim in a podcast interview that has provoked mostly mockery from both left and right, but It's a pretty notable claim that he made, so I think it's worth listening to.
Let's do that.
Kevin Spacey, and I forget who else was in it, but anyway.
Really well done show.
Very well done show.
Very well done show.
But it was so dirty, and it was about this congressman who was, Kevin Spacey, who was, I think it was minority or majority whip.
Yep.
What was it?
Yeah.
And so anyway, very, very powerful guy.
And it was just kind of like his secret life of all this corruption and power and money and perversion and it was just dirty.
How much, in your opinion, because you've been behind the veil, is this a fictitious show?
Or is this more closer to like a documentary?
Is it that bad?
So I heard a former president that we had in the 90s was asked the question about this.
And he gave an answer that I thought was so true, and he said, the only thing that's not accurate in that show is that you could never get a piece of legislation about education passed that quickly.
And everything else is good?
Aside from that, I mean, the sexual perversion that goes on in Washington, I mean, being kind of a young guy in Washington with an average age of probably 60 or 70, And I look at all these people, a lot of them that I, you know, I've looked up to through my life, always paid attention to politics, guys that, you know, then all of a sudden you get invited to, like, well, hey, we're gonna have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes, you should come.
And I'm like, what did you just ask me to come to?
And then you realize they're asking you to come to an orgy.
Or the fact that, you know, there's some of the people that are leading on the movement to try and remove, you know, addiction in our country.
And then you watch them do, you know, a key bump of cocaine right in front of you.
How old is Madison, he looks like he's 17.
How old is he actually?
But that's not really the point.
He says, first of all, he says that House of Cards was a really well done show, which that we know is an absolute false narrative.
It was a terrible show.
It was horrible.
And then he says that he's been invited to orgies in Congress.
And you try not to even, and then your mind starts, like immediately, you start thinking about who we have in Congress, and it's quite disturbing and horrifying.
And to stop yourself from vomiting, your mind has to cut it off there.
Like, who exactly is involved in these orders?
I don't want to know.
Now, he says that he's been invited To a sexual get-together, and I will admit, now I've never been in this environment before, so I don't know, but I'm skeptical that if you were going to be invited to an orgy, somebody would say to you, would you like to come to a sexual get-together?
Is that really how it would be phrased?
You might as well just say orgy at that point.
Hey, I'm going to send you an RSVP on there.
Hey, I sent you an invitation to that orgy.
I didn't get the RSVP yet.
Oh, it's my email?
Okay, I'll check.
Is that how it goes?
Is it that direct?
A sexual get-together.
Or maybe it's just, hey, we're having a get-together at my house.
What kind of get-together?
Oh, it's a sexual one.
Yeah, sexual.
A little bit of drugs too.
I don't know.
I didn't think that it would necessarily go that way or that that's how they would talk about it.
But at the same time, the fact that he phrased it this way and tied it to House of Cards is being used to dismiss the entire claim.
But there's no doubt, number one, as he says, plenty of sexual perversion in Congress.
We certainly know that.
I mean, there were members of Congress, one in particular comes to mind, who was having like threesomes with her own staff members.
So that sort of thing definitely happens.
Now, whether Katie Hill invited people by saying, would you like to come to a sexual get together at my house this evening?
You know, that's that's sort of semantics.
But there's no question that the sexual perversion is there.
These are all a bunch of degenerates.
No doubt about that.
And also, it's interesting.
I saw someone make this point on Twitter.
That the people who are laughing hysterically at the claim that members of Congress would engage in this kind of activity, these are the exact people who took as fact right away and had no skepticism about the claim that Brett Kavanaugh was the ringleader of some sort of gang of serial rapists and that he would go to rape parties.
That to them was totally credible.
They thought that was The fact that some of these claims were being filtered through Michael Avenatti, no problem to them.
And yet this claim is somehow beyond the pale.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Let's move now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
A few comments here about the cancellation yesterday.
We talked about the...
How we're pathologizing grief now.
Grief is now a medical disorder, a mental disorder, according to the pharmaceutical industry, the psychiatric industry, who coincidentally stand to make billions of dollars in profits, additional profits, by medicalizing yet another aspect of the human condition.
So some people are reacting to that.
Debbie says, my father died five years ago, my mom 12 months ago.
I cry when I think of them both.
No way I'm taking drugs to get over it.
B. Barrett says, grief is always going to be a part of us.
We don't get over it.
We learn to perform our day-to-day activity while carrying it.
Another one says, it's been over two decades and I still feel the grief.
Processing the feelings takes longer and becomes more difficult to live with when we avoid feeling it fully and sorting through all the negative emotions.
And this has got a lot of comments like that from people who've experienced real loss in their life, spouses, children, parents, that sort of thing.
And what everyone, the consensus agreement seems to be that you don't really, you never get over it.
In the sense of, you just go back to normal like the person never existed.
You wouldn't want to get over it in that way.
You just, you learn to live with it, you carry it with you.
But you're always going to be sad.
I mean, God forbid you lose a child, there's never going to be a time, even 50 years later, there's not going to be a time when it doesn't make you profoundly, deeply, devastatingly sad to think about.
And you just carry it, but you carry it with you and you continue living.
So there are ways, the problem though is that Well, there are many problems, but one of them is that we've decided the only way to help people now is through drugs.
And so if you come out against using drugs to solve a problem, then automatically what you're saying in the minds of a lot of people is that you don't want to help at all.
You don't think these people should be helped.
But no, that's not the case.
There are many ways to help someone in grief.
Now, you can't take it away, you can't take their grief away, because you can't take away the cause of the grief, which is the absence of this person that they loved.
but you can help them to live with it.
And you do that through counseling, support groups, being there for them.
I mean, just like these human interactions, like this is what is causing the pain,
is the loss of a human connection, someone that they cared about deeply.
And so if you're gonna help them through it, what they need is a human connection, not a damn drug.
How is this any different, like, you might as well just prescribe to someone in grief that they go home and drink a bottle of whiskey.
It's the same thing, and I can understand if I lost someone really close to me, I'm sure I'd be very tempted to respond to it in that way, but that's just, you're trying to numb the pain, which is a human instinct that's understandable.
That's all it is.
You put it in the form of a drug and you make a fancy pharmaceutical commercial for it.
And you have Pfizer or somebody selling it and all of a sudden it's a different concept?
No, it's not.
You know, a pill is no more a medicine for grief or despair than a bottle of alcohol is.
They both effectively do the same thing, which is to numb you to it.
But they don't solve it or make it go away.
OctarianWarCriminal says, we have officially found Matt's worst shirt.
Sweet Daddy Walsh truly has disappointed us today.
How dare you, says I would condone Will Smith slapping Matt for wearing that shirt.
And then, I guess I don't have to keep reading these comments.
A lot of people, this seemed to be another consensus agreement, is that the shirt I wore yesterday, I thought it was a nice shirt, but the shirt was very disturbing to a lot of people.
I guess because maybe it kind of blended in with my skin tone.
It was not my intention to wear a nude colored shirt, but I guess that's how it came off.
So when you first clicked on the episode, you saw me and it looked like I was just wearing no clothes at all.
But you know what?
And a lot of people are recoiling in horror at that thought.
But that, number one, is body shaming to me.
So what if I was doing the show without any clothes on?
You know, you can't complain about that without body shaming.
No, I thought it was a great shirt.
Savvy Moon says, Matt, that shirt you're wearing today is very nice.
Okay, good.
At least we got one.
Me and this one person, we agree on the shirt.
And you know what happens now.
I mean, you know what happens.
You complain about a shirt that I wore.
You say it was ugly, it's disturbing, it's giving you nightmares.
What does that mean?
It just means I'm going to wear it a lot more now.
You've done this to yourself.
Well, the left has infiltrated every facet of the entertainment industry, including sports.
Athletes kneel out of worship to the prevailing woke ideology and virtue signal, and they are doing all these things, of course, with some exceptions, like NBA star Jonathan Isaac, who, despite facing heavy criticism from the media for his views on social issues and vaccines over the past few years, stood strong while everybody else was on their knees, which is why I'm extremely excited to announce that he's decided to write a book with The Daily Wire called Why I Stand, Jonathan's book, We'll be about the rise of his basketball career, his journey into faith, and his strength to stand alone in the face of immense pressure.
The book is available for pre-order now at Amazon, so go reserve your copy today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So it's with great pleasure today that I cancel Jon Stewart.
Now, Jon Stewart actually has a show which streams on Apple TV and which generates enthusiasm and public interest about on the level with a WNBA game.
If you're like the average person, you probably didn't even know that the show existed.
The last you heard from Stewart was probably several months ago when he went viral for criticizing some aspects of the mainstream COVID narrative.
I think it was last year.
And he earned many high fives and backslaps from the right for this moment of lucidity.
Oh, that Jon Stewart.
Conservatives said he's not woke like other liberals.
He's one of the good ones, you know.
This is a familiar process.
Someone on the left says something mildly sane and then is immediately valorized by the right as a champion of truth and common sense.
He's baptized, usually against his will, as an honorary conservative, even as 99.9% of his worldview still remains firmly planted on the left end of the political spectrum.
The next step in the process is inevitable.
The newly christened conservative hero proceeds, shortly after this fleeting episode of rationality, to go back to far-left talking points.
And then he is once again demonized by the same conservatives who, two seconds before, were ready to canonize him.
Around and around we go, nothing ever changes.
On that note, here is Jon Stewart on his Apple TV show talking to his viewers about, or rather to his viewer, about the problem with white people.
Listen.
For however sincerely we want to reckon and listen, the truth is, America has always prioritized white comfort over black survival.
Black people have had to fight so hard for equality that they've been irreparably set back in the pursuit of equity.
And any real attempt to repair a ton of That damage... Reparation.
...sets off white people's they're-coming-for-our-s**t alarm, which we would know ourselves had we actually been listening.
My feeling is white people have a very, very serious problem, and they should start thinking about what they can do about it.
Take me out of it.
So what you can't see in that video because it's just out of frame is Ibram X. Kendi standing there with a gun pointed right at Jon Stewart.
At least I assume that's what's happening because the whole thing has the look, sound, and feel of one of those Taliban hostage videos.
Only it's worse than that because the Taliban, to my knowledge, doesn't usually castrate the hostage before filming the video.
Stuart, on the other hand, sits there like a docile gelding, head bowed, meekly whispering, understood, after a black woman declares that everything is the fault of white people.
Later in the episode, Stuart brought on a panel of fellow self-hating whites to talk some more about how awful white people are.
There was one man involved in the conversation, Andrew Sullivan, who had the gumption to suggest that perhaps white people are not necessarily spawns of Satan, and that maybe, in fact, there might even be some good things about America and American history and white people.
These outrageous claims were dutifully shouted down by Stewart and the other panelists.
Listen to that.
You're not living on the same f***ing planet we are.
Honestly.
I really don't think you are.
I think you are not living in the planet most Americans are, which is why this kind of extremism This anti-white extremism is losing popular support, is creating a backlash, is going to elect Republicans and undo a lot of the good you think you're doing.
This is what happens when you don't talk about it.
This is what happens when white people don't talk about it, is you have racist dog whistle tropes like this that actually perpetuate and perpetuate and perpetuate.
So I am, and I did not come on this show to sit here and argue with another white man.
That's one of the reasons that we don't even engage with white men at Race to Dinner.
So, you know, because quite honestly, if white men were going to do something about racism, you had 400 years.
You could have done it.
Oh, she's not going to engage with white men.
She went on a white man's show to sit on a panel with white men, but she doesn't want to talk to white men.
She hates white men.
She despises them.
Doesn't even think that they should be able to speak, and she feels comfortable vocalizing all of this bigotry because she expects that she'll be applauded for it, and she was.
But remember, all of our systems are racist against black people, even though the only group of people you can actually be openly racist against are white people, especially white men.
Makes total sense.
If you're brain damaged or have single-digit IQ, which is precisely the demographic that critical race theory appeals to the most.
Now, the angry portly woman there with the bad haircut says that white men should have already done something about racism.
We have 400 years, she says.
To which you might point out that it was largely white men who abolished slavery.
White men didn't invent slavery, but they did abolish it.
White men, in fact, are responsible for many of the best things about our civilization.
That's just a fact.
White men have been busy, you know, inventing modern science and building skyscrapers and fighting and dying in our wars and defeating the Nazis, creating modern medicine, inventing cars, electricity, space travel, antibiotics, writing the greatest novels and plays and poems in history.
That's what white men have been up to.
But they're not worthy of even speaking to the bitter cat lady on the Jon Stewart panel.
She turns up her nose at the whole group.
Be gone, she says.
Well, okay, maybe we'll go, but you better hope we don't take all our stuff with us on the way out the door because you're not going to be left with much if we do.
But hold on a second.
She said that white men had 400 years to do something about racism.
Why 400 years specifically?
I mean, what about everybody else on Earth?
What was everyone else doing about racism?
Who exactly was fighting against racism 400 years ago?
Well, she says 400 years ago because she's a mindless disciple of the 1619 Project, and she believes that racism was invented around that time, and that it was white people who invented it, and only white people who ever engaged in it.
In reality, of course, racism has existed in the human species everywhere on Earth, in every population, everywhere, since the dawn of civilization.
Racism is just one form of tribalism.
It's a form of tribalism that still exists in the world today, in fact, and can be found in much more virulent and violent forms in the parts of the world where white people are least present.
It's not just that there is racial and ethnic tribalism in Africa and Asia, too.
It's that there's a whole hell of a lot more of it in those regions of the world, and it comes in a far more brutal package.
Now, going back in history, I asked earlier, who exactly was fighting against racism 400 years ago?
I'm not claiming that white men were, and they weren't, but who was?
Well, the answer is nobody.
Not a soul on earth back in those days.
The idea that all people should be treated equally regardless of how they look or where they're from is an idea that simply did not exist anywhere in the world 400 years ago.
That idea had to be thought of and codified into law, and guess who thought of it?
That's right, white men.
Now granted, the white men who came up with the concept did not actually apply it consistently, because when it came down to it, they shared the flaws that were ubiquitous in almost all human beings on earth at that time.
But they certainly set the stage for racial equality under the law.
They put the framework in place.
I'd say that's a pretty significant achievement, even if it doesn't impress the panelist on Jon Stewart's show, or Jon Stewart himself.
But who really cares?
Because anyway, Jon Stewart is today cancelled.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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.
Production manager, Pavel Vodovsky.
Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey there, this is Jon Bickley, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief and co-host of Morning Wire.
On today's episode, the U.S.
warns of another major offensive by Russia as peace talks with Ukraine continue.
New data shows that alcohol-related deaths spiked under COVID.
And President Biden releases his controversial budget.
