Ep. 995 - The Eco Friendly City Of The Future Is A Dystopian Hellscape
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a vision for an eco-friendly city of the future that resembles a human termite colony. The Powers That Be want us all crammed together, eating bugs, and hopped up on drugs. We’ll talk about that today. Also, Joe Biden prepares to declare monkeypox a public health emergency. But is it? Or is it an emergency only for people who engage in certain types of behavior? Plus a shocking poll from 1997 reveals just how far we’ve fallen with race relations. And in our Daily Cancellation, a reality show is under fire for not featuring enough ugly people. Are ugly people the new marginalized minority and favored victim group? I certainly hope so.
Become a DailyWire+ member today to access my documentary “What Is A Woman”, movies, shows, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Epic Will is partnering with the DW to protect our staff and their families. Get 10% OFF Your Will! Use Code ‘WALSH’ at EpicWill.com
PragerU Kids offers what’s no longer being taught or celebrated in schools – American values and history. Visit PragerUKids.com today!
Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and Enter WALSH in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the mat, we'll show a vision for an eco-friendly city of the future that resembles a human termite colony.
The powers that be want us all crammed together, eating bugs, and hopped up on drugs.
We'll talk about that today.
Also, Joe Biden prepares to declare monkeypox a public health emergency.
But is it?
Or is it an emergency only for people who engage in certain specific types of behavior?
Plus, a shocking poll from 1997 reveals just how far we've fallen with race relations in recent times.
And in our daily cancellation, a reality show is under fire for not featuring enough ugly people.
Are ugly people the new marginalized minority and favored victim group?
I certainly hope so.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wells Show.
[MUSIC]
You've heard me talk a lot on this show about how important it is to get your kids away from the garbage that they're
teaching in our public school systems, Marxism, Socialism, Critical Race Theory, and the Trans Agenda.
Now, there are a lot of ways you can protect your kids from these not-so-secret leftist attacks.
You can homeschool, you can get them involved in a religious community, you can give them the right books to read, like my best-selling children's book, Johnny the Walrus.
These things are all great, and you should do them, but what if you couldn't?
No one likes to talk about it, but we all will eventually die.
It's just how life works, and the end result is always the same.
Some of us, however, may die sooner than others, and we need to be prepared for that possibility, because if we're not prepared, if we haven't taken the necessary steps to shield our kids from aggressive attacks and indoctrination attempts coming from the left, then we've left them completely unarmed and unprotected.
That's why you should take five minutes to sit down tonight and write a will that will ensure your kids
will be raised the way you would have intended in the event that something does happen to you.
Lucky for you, my sponsors over at Epic Will make it really easy to do.
Epic Will is an online platform that costs less than your next trip to Target.
They can set you up with a will in as little as five minutes
starting at just $119 plus.
You can save 10% when you go to epicwill.com and use offer code Walsh.
Again, go to epicwill.com and use my code Walsh today.
The architects of the new world order are always searching for ever more efficient ways
of containing and controlling and dehumanizing us, stripping our lives of beauty, destroying our freedom
and treating us like cattle to be herded and used.
As we know, the goal is to have us all living in pods, stacked up on top of each other, eating bugs, owning nothing, and having no privacy.
They seek even to lay claim to our inner lives, our consciences.
The complete human existence, they believe, is one spent sitting in your rented prison bunk, eating your ration of grasshoppers for the day, numbed by psychotropic drugs while wearing your virtual reality headset to attend an endless string of corporate diversity seminars.
Millions of people are already living a life that comes very close to this utopian ideal, but our overlords know that there are still advances yet to be made, new and innovative ways of eating our souls and making our lives even drearier and uglier.
Enter the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, with a concept that has been ominously dubbed the landscraper.
The Guardian reports, "The promotional material is striking.
Two mirror-encased skyscrapers stretching more than 100 miles across a swath of desert and
mountain terrain providing a future home for 9 million people. Is it the ultimate in high-density
living or a grandiose science fiction fantasy?"
In short, economists, architects, and analysts are not quite sure.
So extravagant is Saudi Arabia's plan to create an urban utopia that even those working on the project, known as The Line, do not yet know if its scale and scope can ever be realized.
Skeptics and supporters alike were this week given more insight into the extraordinary
ambition of the development, the centerpiece of the futuristic Neom site near the Gulf
of Aqaba, when the kingdom's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, outlined central aspects
of what he intends to be one of the most ambitious urban developments built in modern times.
Now the concept will cost about a trillion dollars to build, and the hope is that this
idea can be exported to many other countries, including our own, to make cities more efficient
and eco-friendly, you know, to save the planet and to finally bring into being a real-life
sci-fi dystopia.
There have been a lot of different visions for how this can be done.
Many different people in different countries have had ideas like what the cities of the future will look like in order to save the planet.
And this is what this one's all about.
Here's a promotional video explaining it a little bit more.
Watch.
For too long, humanity has existed within dysfunctional and polluted cities that ignore nature.
Now, a revolution in civilization is taking place.
Imagine a traditional city and consolidating its footprint, designing to protect and enhance nature.
The Line will be home to 9 million residents and will be built with a footprint of just 34 square kilometers.
And we are designing it to provide a healthier, more sustainable quality of life.
The Line's communities are organized in three dimensions.
Residents have access to all their daily needs within 5-minute walk neighborhoods.
And the line's infrastructure makes it possible to travel end-to-end in 20 minutes with no need for cars, resulting in zero carbon emissions.
By leveraging AI technology, services are autonomous, saving you time and effort.
Designed by world-leading architects, the line is 500 meters tall, 200 meters wide, 170 kilometers long and housed within an elegant mirror glass facade.
Intelligent solutions create efficiency and year-round temperate microclimate with natural ventilation.
Energy and water supplies are 100% renewable.
The line is designed as a series of unique communities, offering a wealth of amenities, providing equitable views and immediate access to the surrounding nature.
Oh, well, I mean, as long as you'll have equitable views, because that's the kind of view we all want, isn't it?
You hike up to the top of a mountain, look out at God's creation, and say, wow, the view up here is so equitable!
That's a very normal and human reaction, right?
Anyway, the plan, as you see, is to build a narrow, 100-mile-long mirrored prison in which you can live and work and never leave and then die.
As others have pointed out, it looks very much Like a sleek and modern border wall of sorts, actually.
So how quickly we went from, no, don't build the wall, to build the wall and live inside it.
And speaking of living inside walls, this plan appears to have been inspired partly from sci-fi dystopian films that the architects have mistakenly taken as how-to guides, but then also partly from the living quarters of household pests.
What they've come up with is an exciting opportunity for anyone who's ever dreamed of living in a termite colony.
It may seem like, you know, you'd have a rather dismal existence inside this thing, surrounded on all sides all the time by glass and steel, totally cut off from nature, but at least you'll have the entertainment of watching birds constantly smash into the enormous mirrored exterior walls.
Same for any other species of animals whose migration pattern happens to intersect with the Human filing cabinet that they're building.
Now, it may seem pointless to complain about this.
It's in Saudi Arabia.
It's not here.
Actually, it's not even in Saudi Arabia.
It's nowhere.
This is a concept, a plan.
We don't know if they'll actually be able to build it.
And if they do build the thing, it seems highly likely that the experiment will fail in spectacular fashion, mitigating the risk that something similar would be attempted in this country.
There are many ways that it could fail.
You know, starting with the enormous damage that a few well-placed suicide bombers could do in a place like that.
This is the Middle East, after all.
Not to mention the fact that you'd be living in a literal transmission tube for disease.
In fact, the whole thing seems like it was designed by a virus.
Both the biological and computer variety.
Because the entire structure is supposed to run on computers and artificial intelligence, leaving its inhabitants totally vulnerable to cyber attack.
By the way, what happens when someone takes out the generators in the giant glass rectangular prison in the middle of the desert?
What then?
Of course, the worst thing that could happen, though, is that the monstrosity is built, And it works, and no disasters befall it, and all of its inhabitants are kept satiated and numbed enough that there are no uprisings where the peasant class violently overthrows the elites of the rectangle, eventually setting fire to the whole thing and dancing around it as it burns.
If nothing like that were to happen, tragically, then perhaps, eventually, we would end up with something similar here.
Either way, Whether they try to force us into this particular hellscape, or they construct a slightly different sort of futuristic livestock stable for us, the fact is that this is the direction that the powers-that-be wish to take us, and are taking us.
So it's worth pointing out the problems with this plan, and any plan similar to it.
And by plans similar to it, I'm including modern-day cities as they currently exist.
Which in their construction are only slightly less horrifying than the total recall-esque concepts that people like the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia are coming up with.
And all of the problems, including the ones I've already outlined, can be summarized this way.
This actually is just a problem with leftism in general.
It does not take into account human nature.
This is one of the defining features of the elites in society, the globalists, the utopianists, They do not account for or understand human nature, both the good and the bad of human nature.
So let's start with the bad.
Human beings in our fallen state are naturally disposed to antagonism, tribalism, hostility, violence.
That doesn't mean that every human being is a violent savage.
It just means that humans have that natural capacity, and the more that you cram humans together into tight living quarters, the more that you're going to bring this side out.
And since everybody is living in such a densely populated environment, when the violence does emerge, as it so inevitably will, the harm it inflicts will be exponentially magnified.
One violent psychopath by himself out in the woods makes a good villain in a horror film, but the violent psychopath living in the city, right on top of hundreds of other people, is by far the greater danger.
Especially because he can now form tribes, gangs, with other violent psychopaths, and pretty soon your beautiful, harmonious, sardine-can existence has turned into a dirty, grimy, bloody, awful nightmare.
For an example of this phenomenon, see Any city, anywhere.
Now, that's not to say that the violence and crime in the city and the violence and crime that would turn the giant rectangle into a glass prison of despair is all due to people living too close to each other.
That's part of it.
The bigger part is, of course, the breakdown of the family, the destabilization of necessary social structures, the deliberate institutional effort to undermine law and order, etc.
But these are all the work of the very same people who are planning the utopian cities of the future, so those problems are all sure to follow.
But human nature is not all bad, thankfully.
One of our nobler characteristics is that we hunger for adventure, creativity, independence.
Now, there may be people who, for whatever reason, for whatever perverse reason, enjoy cities, but everybody feels at peace in nature.
Everybody can appreciate a beautiful lake or a stream or a mountain.
People go to cities for convenience, for job opportunities, for bars and restaurants and nightlife and so on.
They don't go there for beauty.
They certainly don't go there for peace.
They don't go there to fulfill any of the deeper longings of the soul.
The ideal, most whole and complete way to live is on land you own, in a house that is yours, where you can breathe fresh air and enjoy at least a little bit of quiet and solitude and have, along with your family, at least a semblance of independence and self-reliance.
But the issue is that we're harder to control and manipulate when we live like that.
Which is why the powers that be wish to usher us back, closer together, on property we don't own, living lives we don't control, packed into our stalls like so many horses in a massive modernized barn that smells only slightly better, if we're lucky.
That's just no way to live.
Yet it's how they want us to live, which is why we should live any way but that way.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
The left has ruthlessly infiltrated virtually every major institution in
America in an effort to groom your kids into little libs.
That's what they want them all to be.
You've heard Disney openly admit to pushing LGBTQ ideologies into kids' content and into their brains.
More and more, we're seeing CRT classes added to school as well.
Even the Scholastic Kids magazine that you grew up with.
They're involved, too.
Like, nowhere is safe.
America's school system has been completely hijacked by the left, and guess what?
Parents and upstanding educators are fighting back.
That's why PragerU Kids is here to help.
PragerU Kids offers content that's no longer being taught or celebrated in schools or woke kids shows.
They teach kids about responsibility, hard work, equality under God, freedom, critical thinking, truth, innocence, all these things that our kids need and values they need now more than ever.
Get tons of resources to watch at home and in classrooms by downloading the PragerU app to your smart TV and devices.
Go to PragerUKids.com right now and enjoy their animated shows, books, and magazines for kids.
Most importantly, support PragerU in their efforts to get America back on track.
Subscribe now and don't miss PragerU's incredible free kids content.
Visit PragerUKids.com today.
Okay, I wanted to tell you about one thing.
This is not a paid promotion, it's not an ad The Daily Wire is making me read, but I do want to tell you about some friends of mine, a group called Sidewalk Advocates.
They've been doing great work for many years, and my wife and I have been supporting them for a long time.
They reach out to women outside of abortion clinics, letting them know About their options and the resources that are available because, as we know, what drives the women into the abortion clinics is even, you know, in spite of all this talk about pro-choice and choices and all that, what drives the women in is the feeling that they have no choice, that there's no choice at all, their lives are hopeless unless they go and get an abortion.
So the sidewalk advocates reach out and let them know that there are other choices, there are other options.
And they've saved many lives in the process, and now after Roe, you know, the work is, if anything, more important, not less.
More important than ever.
But they need the resources to do what they do, which means money.
And right now, they're running a fundraising drive, and all donations will be tripled up to $250,000.
That's for, like, the next week or so.
My wife and I will be sending them a check.
I'd ask you to consider it, too, if you have it in the budget.
Like I said, this is not a paid ad.
I believe in what these guys do.
We've supported them personally for a while, and if you want to do the same, go to sidewalkadvocates.org.
Check it out.
Donate.
And I think we all need to be pitching in to the extent that we can for the battles ahead.
All right.
So, following in the footsteps of the World Health Organization, it's expected that Joe Biden will officially declare monkeypox a public health emergency.
This is from Politico.
It says, the Biden administration is expected to declare monkeypox a public health emergency in the coming days, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
The declaration, which is made by the Department of Health and Human Services, would follow a similar decision made last week by the World Health Organization.
By designating the outbreak an emergency, HHS could then take a slew of actions, including accessing new money and appointing new personnel, according to the law that dictates how and when the federal government can declare such an emergency.
The HHS secretary is scheduled to hold a press briefing on monkeypox.
On Thursday morning, and they're gonna tell us more about it.
Now, I can tell you that, I guess, as we've learned, a public health crisis is in the eye of the beholder.
Monkeypox is not a public health crisis for me.
I'm not worried about it at all, because I'm a married straight man.
Which means it's almost certain that I'm not gonna get monkeypox.
And, in fact, someone made this point on Fox yesterday, as they were talking about monkeypox.
And it was very upsetting for some other people, especially including other people on the panel.
So there was this debate about monkeypox, and one of the guests, Ned Ryan, dared to point out that this is a disease that almost exclusively affects gay men.
It's almost exclusively gay men contracting and spreading it.
Another guest, Brad Palumbo, was offended by this, and so they got into a back-and-forth, and Brad thought he did so well in this exchange that he actually posted the video himself to Twitter to show everybody, look at this, look at this debate that I won.
Well, you watch for yourself and tell me what you think.
Here it is.
As for monkey pox, I think there's a pretty good rule in life.
Uh, don't attend gay orgies.
Uh, when you look at the New England Journal's report of the... How about any orgies, Ned?
Ned, come on, man.
It's not about gay.
How about not any orgies?
Go look at the New England Journal's report that NBC News reported on on Friday, in which of the 528 cases they reviewed, 95% were sex between men.
I think we actually have to have a serious conversation about where this is coming from.
When I'm done, Brad, you can talk.
Instead of going crazy and declaring a national pandemic when 3,000 people have it right now, it's insane.
I don't know man, you don't have to be gay to get monkey pox and you don't have to be bigoted when you talk about treating something that is that easily spread, Marie.
It's not bigoted.
Yeah it is.
This is science, Kennedy.
95% of the cases from the New England Journal...
Okay, I'm going to let Brad respond, because Brad, we have 372 doses.
The United States, in Denmark, where the smallpox monkeypox vaccine is manufactured, they were ready to go, but because this has been an issue for more men in the gay community, it seems like it has been lower on the priority list.
Brad?
Yeah, look, Ned is right when he says that monkeypox right now is mostly affecting gay men.
The problem is that public health-wise, not going to orgies in general is a good policy to not get sexually transmitted diseases.
100%.
And so we have to be really careful.
We saw with the AIDS crisis, with the HIV crisis, about how certain communities or certain gay people will be stigmatized over something that lots of people do.
And we've got to be careful about that.
And that kind of, I will use the term, bigoted language that makes it seem like the only people
that get this are from one group of Americans. Hey, guess what? Gay men also have friends and
family members and colleagues. And this is not just transmitted through sexual activity. It's
transmitted through close contact. So you don't fight diseases. I'm glad Brad brought up HIV/AIDS.
You don't fight diseases by caricaturing the people who get them or who get them at one point
in time. Fox News, ladies and gentlemen. So you have one guest, Ned, who makes the absolutely
correct point that this is a disease circulating almost exclusively among gay men.
Yes, well, it's not just gay men.
Yeah, it's like only 97% or something.
Okay.
That's almost exclusively.
And then everyone else in the back, okay, come on, man.
That's bigoted.
They had the chance to explain why it's bigoted and they couldn't explain it.
And I just love it when these people bring AIDS up as if it helps support their point.
Right?
So they bring up HIV as a way of supporting this idea that we shouldn't, like, highlight the fact that this is circulating mostly among gay men.
Well, no.
The AIDS crisis and the way that it was treated, especially early on, and is still treated, in fact, is a perfect example of why the messaging should be very specific about who this primarily impacts.
Because with AIDS, I mean, I can remember being in elementary school.
I remember this vividly, actually, learning about AIDS in elementary school and being terrified, like traumatized by it, because what we were told is that anyone can get AIDS.
It can affect anyone.
It doesn't matter.
This is not a gay thing.
It affects anybody.
And that's what they claimed.
It's like they made it seem like you'd just be walking down the street and, and, oh, I got AIDS.
But that was never the case.
Yes, it's theoretically possible to contract HIV.
Otherwise, there's maybe a small, small portion of people that have contract, of heterosexual non-drug users who've contracted it.
It's very, very small.
The vast majority of HIV transmission was, at the time, has always been, and still is, among gay men in particular, and then second place would be intravenous drug users.
And what the messaging on HIV should have always been is that if you're not participating in gay sex and if you're not an intravenous drug user, you really don't need to worry about this.
I mean, the list of things you should worry, there's going to be about 5,000 other things that make the list before you get to AIDS.
Because that's just the truth.
And the people who are participating in the high-risk activity ought to know that it's a high-risk activity.
And if you're going around having random gay sex with a bunch of different men, the fact that this activity makes you uniquely vulnerable to things like HIV and now monkeypox, that's a fact you should know.
And then maybe it'll make you stop and think, like, oh, wait a second.
Maybe this is risky.
Maybe this is dangerous.
Maybe I shouldn't be doing this.
Chad Felix Green, writer for The Federalist, has screenshots that he posted to Twitter a couple days ago of just, this is one guy talking about how he contracted monkeypox.
And the user goes by the username BabeThePigBoy, so we kind of know what we're about to get into here.
He's a pig, I mean, by his own, by his own labeling.
And the story is disgusting and graphic, but I think it's worth reading.
He says, Hi, so I have monkey pucks.
Not fishing for any sort of sympathy, but since I'm already known for being pretty unabashed on the internet, I figured I'd give it an honest account of how I got it and how my symptoms manifested to hopefully educate anyone curious.
So strap in.
I finally got back into the swing of things and attended a friend's birthday orgy.
Hopping right into it.
So I attended a friend's birthday orgy.
The fact that he says that with no explanation, like, that's a normal thing that we would all, oh, a birthday orgy, of course.
But, you know, like people do on their birthdays, they have orgies.
Then when you get back into the swing of it, you know, I'm getting warmed up a little bit, attend a couple of orgies here and there.
So I finally got back into the swing of things and attended a friend's birthday orgy, Saturday the 9th.
I'd been watching the news on Monkeypox, but the general feelings on it really were and still are developing by the day, so I, nor anyone else, was especially worried.
Especially since there had only been two confirmed cases in the entire county, and the host of that group was a good friend and a nurse, so I trusted their judgment in still having the event happen.
Oh, that's good.
That's good news, right?
This is a medical professional who's having a birthday orgy.
It was a great time.
I think I came into sexual contact with somewhere in the ballpark of 15 to 20 different men.
So I attend the orgy, have a great time.
I don't even know if I can read this next part, but let's just say that he is saying that he consumed a large amount of human waste product.
And then he continues, and he went home drunk, and et cetera, et cetera.
And then the next day, he had sex with some more guys, And then he got monkey pox.
Wow, who could have guessed?
Who could have guessed, after all that, that you'd come down with a disease?
I mean, this is... At least he gave us permission not to have sympathy for him, because don't worry, babe the pig boy, I have zero sympathy for you whatsoever.
But we're on the same page there, so that's good.
And then he ends it up by saying, my two cents, it's reductive to tell gay people to not have sex.
It didn't work in the early days of AIDS, and clearly it's not working now, but do your best to make educated choices.
Check your county's case numbers frequently, and if you can, avoid groups and anonymous encounters.
Yeah, check the case numbers before heading out to that orgy, or you drink human waste product.
Yeah, just, you know, before you go out and drink the urine of 15 different men, just check the case numbers.
Be responsible about it, he says.
This whole idea that it doesn't work.
It doesn't work to tell people.
What do you mean it doesn't work?
No, no, no.
Whatever your name is.
Babe the Pig Boy?
In fact, it does work.
Like, to refrain from that activity, it does work.
Actually, if you refrain from all the activities that you just described, it will very effectively shield you from any number of diseases, including monkeypox and a bunch of other diseases that I'm sure you probably have.
So it definitely works.
What you're saying is that it doesn't work when someone tells you to control yourself.
But no, that's not something not working.
It's not like the plan.
There's no problem with the plan.
It's a good plan.
The plan is, like, don't behave like an animal, okay?
And going out and having sex with 20 random people and then more people the next day, you're behaving like an animal.
That's not even human behavior.
So that's the plan.
And if you are... If you have an issue with the plan, that's a problem with you.
That's a character problem, and a really severe one, actually.
So, there are a lot of stories like this.
And we know, actually, that this monkeypox, this current outbreak, can be traced back to gay bathhouses and orgies in Europe.
And the fact that this all took hold, especially during Pride Month, is not a coincidence either.
Now, it's true.
That anyone who attends orgies or has sex with a bunch of random strangers is vulnerable.
But the other fact that even fewer people want to say is that this kind of behavior is more common in the gay community than it is among straight people.
It just is.
Okay?
Straight people aren't going to orgies.
They're not.
I've never known, I've never encountered A heterosexual person who's been to an orgy.
And you know why?
It's almost by definition.
If you're straight, then you don't want to be sexually involved with a group of people that will inevitably include other men.
So, like, by definition, if you're a straight person, you're not going to orgies.
And that's the same for straight women.
But here's the thing.
If you want to pretend That gay and straight people are equally as likely to attend orgies and equally as likely to have random sex with multiple strangers in the same day.
Okay?
If you want to pretend, and you are pretending, but let's pretend for a moment.
Fine, actually.
Then can we just agree to condemn all such behavior by all people?
I'm fine with that compromise.
Babe the Pig Boy here is a gay man who is at a gay orgy, but if he had been a straight man or a straight woman at an orgy, doing all the things he said there, then I would condemn it just as much, absolutely.
And I would also say this is animalistic, barbaric, savage behavior.
You're not acting like a decent, civilized human being.
So gay or straight, I would absolutely say this.
If that's the compromise we can arrive at, which we can arrive, then I'm fine with that.
Is that what we're doing now?
Can we just condemn across the board all reckless sexual activity?
Any form of having sex with strangers, especially in groups, but even individually, one at a time, like whether you're having your orgy all at once, or in succession with a bunch of different random strangers, you know, at different points in the same weekend or same month or whatever, however you're doing it, you shouldn't be.
I'm fine with that message.
And I'm fine with going even farther than that, which I think we should, in shaming this kind of behavior, this reckless sexual behavior, shaming it, And putting the same kind of shame on it that we put on, like, murderers, honestly.
Because it is nearly murderous behavior.
You know you're doing this, and you could be spreading diseases, you could be killing people, and it's like you just don't care.
Because you want to get your, you know, you want to have your fun.
It is hyper selfish, narcissistic, Nihilistic, destructive behavior.
And if we can heap shame and scorn on it, on anyone who engages in this kind of stuff, good with me.
Absolutely.
All right.
The University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines has been speaking out This is according to the Daily Wire, by the way.
Speaking out about University of Pennsylvania swimmer Leah Thomas, a biological male, stated that when the college women competed against Thomas at the NCAA championships, they were not forewarned that Thomas would be sharing the locker room with them and undressing in front of them.
So Gaines spoke with Tucker Carlson and was talking about, at first, just the atmosphere at the championships.
Which happened at Georgia Tech a couple of months ago.
She said people just weren't talking about it, and so we get to the NCAAs, and it was at Georgia Tech, and so we get there, and the environment is nothing like I've ever seen before.
It was so almost edgy, like people didn't really know what to say, who to say what to, or how to feel.
And from here, we'll go to the clip where she tells the rest of the story, what happened at the event, and especially in the locker rooms.
Let's listen to that.
And then that night we watched Leah Thomas win a national title and blow all the other females completely out of the water.
And that next day we came back and the mood had shifted to where people were mad.
The girls, you know, there were tears.
These poor 9th and 17th place finishers who missed out on being named an All-American.
There's extreme discomfort in the locker room.
There's, you know, kind of these grumbles.
Is he wandering around the women's locker room?
Yeah.
And that's not something we were forewarned about, which I don't think is right in any means.
Changing in a locker room with someone who has different parts.
So they just set a dude loose in your locker room and didn't tell you?
Exactly, and so I feel like to have that kind of force upon us, so not only were we, you know, forced to race against a male, we were forced to change in the locker room with one, and so it's just this feeling of like, what is happening?
Like, honestly, like, is this really happening?
Like, this is crazy.
So there's a story that she tells there, and again, that's Riley Gaines, who should be commended, first of all, for her courage in speaking out about this.
And the story she tells about the locker room, that to me is by far the bigger scandal.
The more important aspect of this whole story of Leah Thomas and men in general invading women's sports.
The fact that they're forced into the pool with a man and the man is stealing medals and opportunities and all that, that of course is terrible and insane.
But even worse is that they're made to share the locker room with the guy.
Just having their privacy and their dignity really taken from them.
And yet that very often is treated like, you know, like not as much of a concern as what's happening in the pool, what's happening with sports.
And that was one thing that stuck with me that I thought was interesting when in my film, What Is A Woman, when we talked to one of Leah Thomas' teammates.
And I asked her about the locker room situation.
It was the same kind of thing.
Yeah, Thomas is in the locker room, he's getting changed, and same thing, she said there's like no conversation about it, no discussion about that.
Even when they brought in, when University of Pennsylvania brought in the LGBT activists and counselors to lecture the women and tell them that, hey, if you've got a problem with this, you need to go seek counseling.
No, the guy who's claiming to be a woman, And, you know, wearing the one-piece bathing suit.
He doesn't need to see a counselor.
You do if you have an issue with it.
But even then, the locker room part of it wasn't even talked about.
She said, in fact, that, you know, the other women on the team, most of them didn't want to say anything at all because they were afraid of the backlash.
But even the women who did speak out, they were focused on the sport part of it and not the locker rooms.
Which I just thought was interesting.
There's another point I want to make too, which is, when you hear a story like this, these men going to women's locker rooms, we talk about it so much, but you very often hear from people on the right that, hey, you know what, the women who are subjected to this, it's up to them to speak out, and if they're not going to speak out, then I'm washing my hands of it, there's nothing I can do.
You know, sort of putting the onus on the women, on the girls who are in these situations, to say something about it.
And I agree that we do need to call on everyone to have courage.
And the closer you are to a situation like this, the more of a responsibility you have to speak out.
But it just seems really cowardly to me on the part of some conservatives to say, I'm not going to say anything about it if the women aren't pro.
This is on them.
Especially as a man.
Right?
If you're a man, you should be You should have a drive to protect women.
Like, to put it on a bunch of college girls, to stand up against the guys that are going into the locker rooms?
What kind of man are you?
Would that be your attitude?
If you were actually in a place and you saw a man about to walk into a woman's locker room, would you say, well, that's up to the women in there to figure it out, not me.
If your daughter or your wife is in there, would you say, well, they've got to stand up for themselves.
I certainly hope not.
I hope you would realize that it's your responsibility as a man to step up.
Yes, men should protect women.
I understand that that is considered an outmoded way of thinking, but I don't care.
That's the reality.
It's the truth.
So no, I'm not just going to leave it to girls in college and in high school to be the ones to fight this thing out.
Well, if they don't do it, then there's nothing I can do.
That, to me, is a lame excuse.
All right, here's a fascinating poll highlighted by Michael Moynihan of Vice News, but this is a poll from 1997.
And this is when I was in like 5th or 6th grade, and this is what the polling data on race relations said back in 1997.
The article says, nearly 9 out of 10 black teenagers said racism has little impact on their day-to-day lives, according to a Time-CNN poll released on Sunday.
The survey also found more than half of all teenagers—62% of blacks, 58% whites—believe racism is a big problem.
Asked about racism in their own lives, 89% of black teenagers said racism was a small problem or not a problem at all.
Now you see that, and at first it's kind of shocking because it's unthinkable that a poll like that would have similar results today.
You just, you can't imagine a poll of black teenagers in 2022 and it comes back that 90% are saying that racism is not a problem or only a small problem in their day-to-day life.
Yet, for those of us who lived through the 90s, it's actually not surprising at all.
Because race was not an issue in the 90s like it is now.
I'm not saying it was perfect, okay?
And I made this point on Twitter and there are a lot of people that responded and said, whoa, what are you talking about?
What about the Rodney King riots?
And what about OJ and all this?
Yes, all that happened.
We're not saying that it was perfect, that there was perfect harmony, that we were living in a post-racial utopia.
No one is saying that.
That's never going to happen.
It's impossible.
What I'm saying is that in the 90s, that's when we got the closest to racial harmony that we've ever been.
And we've been going backwards ever since.
Which isn't to say that it was perfect, but we got as close as we're going to get.
Nine out of ten black teenagers in the 90s saying that racism does not affect their daily lives, that proves the point.
And again, doesn't surprise me because I was a kid in the 90s and I can remember that this just was not, it's not that race never came up, but it wasn't this overriding concern.
It wasn't suffocating everyone.
And you could tell jokes and there were, you know, and you could just Kind of live your life, and you didn't have racial issues constantly shoved down your throat.
And there was not this focus, even in the school systems, on convincing kids, you know, if you're a black kid, well, convincing them that you're oppressed, you're a victim.
There was a little bit of that, not nearly like there is today.
There wasn't nearly as much white guilt foisted on the white kids.
If you're a white person, then you're automatically a racist.
You have to beg forgiveness for what your ancestors allegedly did.
So, compare that to today.
I couldn't find this exact question asked in the last year or two, but you could piece it together from other questions.
There was a Gallup poll in 2021.
Showing how many black versus white Americans say that race relations are good, either somewhat or very, you know.
Only 33% of blacks said that we have good race relations in America in 2021.
43% of whites.
In 2001, that number was 70% for blacks, 62% for white.
So, 20 years ago, black people in this country, according to the polling, had a better view of race relations than even white people did.
But a majority of everyone agreed that race relations are pretty good.
There was another question, is racism widespread?
This is now 2021.
84% of black adults said, yes, it is.
59% of white.
So 90% of black teens in the 90s said racism had little or to no impact on their daily lives.
Which means we can assume that they didn't think that it was widespread.
If it doesn't have any impact on your day-to-day life, then it's not as widespread.
But now nearly as many black Americans say that it's a widespread problem.
What this means is that those, you know, we're talking about black teenagers versus black adults.
So those teenagers growing up in the 90s said, well, you know, it's not that big of a deal.
It doesn't affect my everyday life.
Since then, they've been convinced otherwise.
And that's because there has been a concerted effort on the left to destroy all of the progress that had been made.
And to take us backwards.
They realize that racial strife and disharmony is better for them.
Easier to exploit.
All right.
What else we got here?
Here's one quick thing before we get to the comments section.
From the Daily Wire it says, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones issued an apology on Tuesday after using what has been dubbed the M-word.
It's M. M as in Mary.
Or as in midget, but that's what you can't say anymore, to refer to little people during a tribute to a team executive who recently died.
The remark drew the criticism of many, including a call for a public apology from the little people of America.
Jones did apologize and said, earlier today I made a reference which I understand may have been viewed as offensive.
I apologize.
Jones made the controversial references while sharing memories about former Cowboys scouting director Larry Lacewell, who served during the team's three Super Bowl wins in the 90s.
And Jones said, quote, I'm going to get me somebody, a midget, to stand up there with me and dress him up like Lace and think Lace is still out there helping at practice with us.
OK, so was Lace a midget then?
I don't know.
I don't quite understand.
But he said midget, and he has to apologize for that.
What term are you supposed to use?
That's the other thing I'm wondering as I look at this.
I guess, little people?
Little people, is that what I'm being told in my ear?
First of all, I don't understand.
How is that less offensive?
Little person?
How is that less offensive than midget?
Doesn't little person sound patronizing?
You're saying to the midget, oh, look at that little person.
To me, that seems more offensive.
That makes me uncomfortable saying that.
And so I'm gonna say midget.
And you know, because it's me speaking, I get to decide what I say.
See, when I speak, I speak based, and I use the words that make sense to me, and that I'm comfortable using.
I know the response is, well, but these other people aren't comfortable with it.
Okay, but they're not the ones talking, I am.
You can use whatever word you want.
I'm not going to use that word because it just seems weird to me.
And no one has explained what exactly is wrong with midget.
What's the inherent quality of the word midget that makes it offensive?
Can anyone explain that to me?
It's just been decided, randomly, because this is what they do, this is part of, this is what the PC police do, this is one of their, this is one of their, um, this is their MO.
It's just to go along and kind of like, just randomly change the labels for things.
Oh, that label doesn't work anymore.
That's expired.
It's past its expiration date.
We got a new label now that we use.
But why?
What makes it expire?
Well, it just is.
That's it.
Sorry.
Not gonna do it.
Can't do it.
Let's get to the comment section.
You buy it, you drive it, you want to run forever with this car, maintenance-free.
Unfortunately, that's just not the way things work.
Snap out of it, get out of fantasyland, okay?
Cars require upkeep, the same way your house requires upkeep.
The good news is that you can maintain your car for less when you shop for auto parts at rockauto.com.
See, chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers, but rockauto.com's prices are the same for everybody.
and they're reliably low.
Rockauto.com is for everybody and not just, it doesn't require memberships or logins
or anything like that.
Rockauto.com has been in the auto parts business for 20 years, they're family owned.
Their goal is to make auto parts available and affordable to keep you safe on the road.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
So whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks
delivered right to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand, specifications, and prices you prefer.
Amazing selections, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
Go to rockauto.com, get brakes, shocks, carpet wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, lug nuts, everything at rockauto.com.
And be sure to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that I sent you.
Tie My Shoes says, Matt claims to defend the family while in the past criticizing Olive Garden.
Does he not know that when you're here, you're family?
Well, you're family in the same way that Cinderella, I guess, was family to her stepmom.
Because that's how they treat you at Olive Garden.
They treat you terribly.
You know, all the service is bad.
Everyone's surly in a bad mood.
They send you off to some table that's not even clean.
Last time I went to Olive Garden, I sat down at the table.
It was filthy.
I said, can someone clean the table?
Why don't you clean it?
He tossed me a mop and a bucket.
Said, while you're at it, go back in the kitchen.
We need some help back there, too.
Let's see.
Yoda says, Matt, what do you think of men cross-dressing for Halloween?
Looking forward to seeing you with blushed cheeks and nine-inch heels this October 31st.
Cheers and sweet baby gang for life.
Well, obviously you're banned from the show for even asking the question.
I take issue with the premise of the question.
Men shouldn't be doing anything on Halloween at all.
Men should not be dressing up.
You shouldn't be going to Halloween parties.
Okay?
You stay home.
Kids knock on the door and ask for candy, then you open the door and you give out candy.
That's all you do.
That's what grown men should be doing on Halloween.
Another comment says, Matt, after your response to Carlson's marriage and life advice yesterday, the comment section seemed overwhelmed with comments from young men who feel marriage is not worth it due to a combination of terrible family court laws, the majority of divorces being initiated by the woman, and the quality of women generally.
This seems to be a common sentiment among young men on the right, and I've rarely heard it addressed.
I'm concerned that we will not get very far without strong families.
Could you please give us your thoughts on their concerns?
Thank you.
Well, I'd say a couple of things.
First, the concern is not baseless, right?
It's not unreasonable.
It's true that the family courts are stacked against men.
It's true that there are a lot of low-quality women out there.
There are also a lot of low-quality men.
I would say that it's about equal, as far as that goes.
And that brings me to the point, which is, what's your other option, if not marriage?
So, I may agree with you that these concerns are valid.
But, then what?
You stay away from marriage because you don't want to get hurt, and then what do you do?
Are you going to run off to the woods and become a hermit, fishing and hunting, and writing the next great American novel?
If so, more power to you.
That sounds like a great plan.
I wouldn't just try to dissuade you at all.
Go do that.
Are you going to live a life of celibacy, become a monk or something, enter the religious life?
Again, more power to you.
But that is not what most men are doing.
Most of the men who lodge this complaint are not going off to the woods to be hermits.
They're not entering religious life and becoming celibate.
So what do they do?
They are not availing themselves of either option.
And they're still normal men who desire the companionship of a woman.
That's a normal male desire.
It's a good thing.
And so, if they're not going to get work towards marriage, they end up watching a lot of porn, maybe having random hookups where they can get them, but mainly it's the porn.
You see the problem?
Now you've become exactly the kind of low-quality person that you're worried about.
You're exactly the kind of low-quality person that you're accusing the women of being and saying, this is the whole reason I can't... So you're part of the problem.
And though you've avoided the potential heartache of divorce, instead you've guaranteed a life of loneliness, rejection, isolation, and all the rest of it.
So yeah, if you go out and you try and you get married, or you even, you, first you have to, it's not like you just walk outside and say, okay, I'm married.
You got to find someone.
You got to go through the whole process.
And there are many ways it could go wrong.
And there are many ways you can get your heart broken.
And if things go really, really badly, it could destroy your whole life.
That's true.
That's the possibility.
That's the potential.
That's the risk.
There is risk involved.
And because you're worried about that risk, you're worried about that possibility, you embrace what is guaranteed to be a miserable, lonely life?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
And why are you embracing it?
You're embracing it out of fear, out of anxiety.
You know, because of the possibility that things could go wrong?
That's no way to live.
You can't live that way.
You can't make your decisions that way.
Especially such fundamental decisions.
Such fundamental life decisions cannot be made based on fear, which is what you're talking about, right?
It's not like there are no good women out there.
I can tell you they exist.
I'm married to one.
And she's not the only one.
I didn't take the only one and now they're all off the market.
There are plenty of good women out there, just like there are plenty of good men.
The fact that there are a lot of low-quality people in general, that's a cultural problem.
What you have to ask yourself is, are you going to contribute to that problem or be part of the solution?
And are you going to take the risk and shoot for a happy, fulfilled life?
Or are you going to give up on it before you've even tried?
Well, we just hit another historic milestone in the company.
Now, I'm not talking about us closing in on one million Daily Wire Plus subscribers or selling over 70,000 Jeremy's Razors.
I'm, of course, referring to what is a woman finally getting enough critic reviews to earn a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
That's right, a whopping five whole critics have now found the time and courage to actually review one of the most watched and talked about movies of the summer, and all five have loved it.
So, see the film audiences and five critics are raving about.
And you can do that by becoming a Daily Wire Plus member.
And if you do that, you can stream What Is A Woman and get 35% off of your membership when you sign up today.
Go to dailywireplus.com.
Also, tune in tonight to catch an all-new episode of Daily Wire Backstage, where your favorite Daily Wire hosts come together to discuss the news of the day.
You can join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, God King, Jeremy Boring at 7 p.m.
Eastern on the Daily Wire's YouTube channel or at dailywireplus.com.
See you there.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
We end today with something rather exciting.
It's not often that I'm out ahead of the progressive curve.
I rarely get somewhere before the woke bandwagon arrives, but that seems to be the case this time.
There is, this week, controversy and outrage over the Netflix reality show Love is Blind.
Now, for those with IQs above 75 that have prevented you from watching a show like this, the basic premise, as I understand it, is that contestants are locked in isolation pods where they meet other contestants by talking to them through a wall.
And they then, I guess, select which disembodied voice they like the most, they talk some more to that person, then they get engaged before the big reveal where they actually meet in person.
At which point they're instructed to fight to the death with their bare hands.
No, that would actually be a much better show.
In this one, they instead get married, and then as soon as the cameras turn off, they get divorced.
A true fairytale romance.
Now, there have actually been multiple controversies around this show recently.
The first is a lawsuit from a contestant on an earlier season, because they've done multiple seasons of this show, because that's the sort of interest there is in this content, because we're surrounded by morons.
And the contestant alleges that producers starved him, deprived him of sleep, And forced him to get drunk.
All of which makes the show sound way more entertaining than it actually is.
But that's not the controversy that matters here.
The bigger outrage is over the fact that the show only features physically attractive people.
I'm proud to say that I spearheaded this woke backlash in a YouTube video we put out at the beginning of the month where I reacted to reality show trailers, including one for Love is Blind.
That was the first I'd ever heard of Love is Blind.
And upon seeing the commercial, I immediately pointed out this glaring flaw in the plot.
Everyone on the show appears to be like a solid 7 or 8.
And this means there is nothing at stake, nothing on the line.
All the contestants end up with attractive people.
To give the show some suspense, some comedy, some tragedy, you need to throw a few Michael Moores into the mix.
There should be a scene where a highly attractive woman falls in love with a man behind the wall, gets engaged, then the big reveal happens, and she recoils in horror when a character from the Star Wars bar scene walks out.
Now that would be great television.
Matching supermodels with Ripley's believe-it-or-not displays.
I would sit down and watch a show like that.
I would take the hit to my IQ to watch that show.
Admittedly, the woke criticism of Love is Blind is not quite the same.
Both me and the left are upset that there are not ugly people on the show, but they're upset for a slightly different reason.
For them, the problem is the lack of body diversity and inclusion on the show.
The backlash became severe enough that one of the show's hosts, Vanessa Lachey, who I assume is married to the guy from Backstreet Boys, addressed it in an interview with Insider, claiming that there are no fat or ugly people on the show because they're simply too insecure to appear.
It was like self-selection, she said.
But the mob isn't buying that excuse.
BuzzFeed took her to task saying, and this is what they wrote in their article, In a recent interview with Insider, Vanessa tried to explain why the show doesn't embrace body diversity in any real way.
make it to air don't reflect body diversity like at all. In a recent
interview with Insider, Vanessa tried to explain why the show doesn't embrace
body diversity in any real way. Her answer was, "not great."
In response to being asked about the show's lack of body diversity, Vanessa says
she sometimes thinks certain contestants don't make it past the pods
portion of the show because they can't fit inside of it.
That's actually not what she said.
Because they're insecure.
So, if I'm reading this right, Vanessa's reason why the show doesn't include diverse bodies in its cast is because some contestants are simply too insecure about their bodies to appear on the show.
Something tells me we might be getting a clarification from Vanessa in the future regarding her comments.
Or maybe not.
Either way, we'll see if Love is Blind goes in more diverse directions, casting-wise, when it returns for its third season.
Time will tell.
Well, if nothing else, we can agree that BuzzFeed continues to feature great writing and important journalism.
Huffington Post isn't buying Vanessa's excuse either.
They write, "Love is Blind has yet to prominently feature a contestant who is plus-size, visibly disabled, or older
than 40, which seems odd since the concept of the show is to fall in
love with someone's personality rather than their physical appearance."
Now, of course, the real reason that the show only has attractive people, the reason that most shows only feature
attractive people, this current show that you're watching is an exception,
the reason is that viewers prefer to watch attractive people, hence the term "attractive."
This is doubly the case if the show revolves around love and romance.
People may watch a show like My 600-lb Life, but they probably wouldn't watch My 600-lb Wedding.
Well, they might watch that, but for very different reasons than they watch the typical reality dating show.
And that's about all that needs to be said about this.
But I'll say more anyway.
Because there's one more point I think that needs to be made.
Huffington Post says that the point of the show is for people to fall in love with personality rather than physical appearance.
But the idea that you can love somebody for their personality, totally apart from their appearance, is a myth.
Okay?
It's a popular myth.
It's one that my generation in particular was fed early and often.
But it's a myth.
Of course you shouldn't and really can't love somebody entirely for their looks, but their looks are an important part of the package.
It's part of who they are.
It's what draws you to someone, especially early in the relationship.
But even as you grow together and you get to know each other on a deeper level, still their appearance, their body, their physical look and presence will remain extremely important.
Your body is not just some sort of meaningless shell which contains your personality and your truer essence.
Your body is who you are.
You're more than your physical body, okay?
You're not merely your physical body, but you are also your body.
It really is not possible, therefore, to love someone and not love their body, because their body is them.
This distinction between looks and personality doesn't even make sense.
Your personality is what makes you, as a person, different from other people.
That includes your body, your face, your physical appearance and mannerisms.
All of that is part of your personality because it's part of your person.
It's what makes you you and not somebody else.
This is actually an important point for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with reality shows.
The first is that people who really buy into this appearance-doesn't-matter idea are more likely to get married and then completely let themselves go, transforming very quickly into a physical specimen quite different from the one that their spouse married.
Now obviously we all change over time gradually as we get older, but we still have a responsibility in a marriage to take care of ourselves.
We should want to be physically attractive to our spouses.
It's quite selfish to throw that all to the wind and gorge ourselves with abandon.
The second and deeper point is that our culture is constantly trying to separate the body from the person, as if these are two distinct things.
In its most extreme iteration, of course, we're told that a person with a man's body can still be a woman, and we're told straight men can and should date these trans women, because though they have the physical appearance of men, they're really women deep inside.
But this is incoherent.
As straight men, we're attracted to women, not just for their bodies, but their bodies are certainly a significant appeal.
It wouldn't make any sense at all.
It would be totally unintelligible to say that you're attracted to women, but you're neutral about their bodies.
Their bodies are what make them women.
For all of us, our bodies are what make us who we are.
This is, you know, I think this conversation has certainly gotten more esoteric than was necessary for a discussion about a Netflix dating show, but I just go wherever the path takes me.
And now it takes me to a place where I must say that Love is Blind is not cancelled.
It's the critics of Love is Blind that are today cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today.
I'll talk to you, actually, on Monday.
There will be no show tomorrow, but this time it's not my fault.
The whole company is closing down tomorrow, so everybody's off tomorrow.
It's not just me.
Just so you know.
And I'll talk to you on Monday.
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, production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Jeff Tomlin.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, the Biden administration continues to happy talk its way through a recession.
Democrats try to prop up extremists in Republican primaries while decrying their supposed rise.
And The View has to back off its slander of TPUSA.
